P24 of the same report.
Right, so a methodological issue has been cleaned up. That's not evidence that figures used before were false. Anyway, I've got a game to go to.
OK, so they were accurate and that's why they changed methodology? Aye right!
Who is the 'they' you are referring to?
I have great faith in our civil servants in Scotland. They are however restricted by the information they are given by other sources.
We've been through all this many times before. Summed up by a shockingly poor Labour blaming everyone but themselves.
HMRC, as stated in my quote from the report that you introduced to the debate, even though some of it doesn't seem to suit you so you'll just disregard those bits.
I enjoyed the match very much thanks.
I think you're making the schoolboy error of assuming these stats and figures, particularly GERS, are of a similar standard to company accounts. They're not, and you would in theory be hard pushed, because of political interference, to find an accountant willing to sign them off as showing a true and fair representation of the state of the Scottish economy.
I find this entire post puzzling, in that you cited a specific report to counter a pro-indy advert then questioned the veracity of bits of it that don't suit you.
You didn't refute it though. I asked for evidence of lying. You pointed to an technical adjustment in a report published by the Scottish Parliament Information Centre and and said it was proof. But your only support for this argument was an 'aye right' assertion. So again, can you point me to examples of the lies you refer to. And as a point of clarification, I'm not citing politicians but official publications produced by the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament. These are not political spin.
Your interpretation of the document in question is skewed by the argument you believe. The methodology was obviously wrong which is why it was changed - your blinkered view won't let you accept that.
I'm not trying to convert anyone. I am concerned at the decline in political discourse where uncomfortable facts are simply shouted down as fake news or scaremongering. We've seen it with Trump and we've seen it with Brexit. It's not healthy for democracy.
I didn't say they were lies though, I said they were false. It's because they were false that the method of calculation was changed.
You are. Everybody is to one degree or another. You just happen to be one of those who's so embedded in their own understanding of the world around them that any challenge to your narrative results in throwing generalisations about the level of political discourse and accusations of conspiracy theories.
The decline in political discourse starts at the top with those at Westminster now openly taking the piss.
What patronising rubbish. You might as well describe me as one of the sheeple. I wasn't making generalisations either. I pointed to data, which I'm told is wrong, but nobody shows me how. There's an easy way to sort this. Point me to the evidence of lies and your case is made. It's as simple as that.
You need a mirror chief.
You're the one going on about lies, no-one else.
Fine, but why don't you address the fundamental point.
OK. Point me to the evidence of where the figures are false.
Again? P24 of the report.
Because I'm not that arsed and I've not followed the detail of what you're even arguing about. You came on with the generic reference to people "on here" as if the Bounce is some kind of amorphous mass. Then started throwing out accusations of conspiracy theories. Peevemor has pointed out multiple times that a methodology change has to be done for a reason and therefore it makes prior analysis questionable (unless it's the methodology change itself that's questionable of course). He didn't say they were lies You didn't fancy responding to that so went on a rant about political discourse, lies and conspiracy theories is what I see.
Everything about Labour just now is just about not alienating any voters. It's very hard to see what they'll actually do when in power as any manifesto will need to be so close to being a Tory manifesto it'll leave them little wiggle room.
.
. Meat, fish , whisky from these lands , is cherished around the whole globe. Not to mention our oil, electricity and water.
Ok - this is a football message board. It's fun, but not that important. So best to leave I think. But I do have to pick up some of your points, particularly as you haven't followed the thread.
You forgot to mention the lies and fake news spouted by the unionists during the last independence campaign.
UK/Britain/England/Westminster has form for lying during independence campaigns. Ask India, Canada, Malta, Australia etc al. It was as if by magic, on independence, the found millions/billions hidden under the mattress. All these countries were too wee, too poor, too stupid to be independent countries. I'd suggest they're doing just fine.
I'll tell you what @Archie before you go [back to dotnet I presume] why don't you hang around and start a thread on the benefits of Scotland staying in the union.
Firstly, I don’t think you have received personal nastiness. I could be wrong , but I’ve not seen it , and this place kinda doesn’t tolerate it, and quite rightly so.
Ireland is an EU country an Independent Scotland won’t be and if we are lucky enough to get accepted which is highly unlikely given the Spanish stance on regional independence it could take years. What you would find is an independent Scotland outside the UK and the EU with Scottish businesses having to negotiate a multitude of tariffs and red tape to export goods to our two biggest trading partners.