English Scots for YES

For you, Fitzy. This is what he does/is now.

www.city.ac.uk/people/academics/richard-murphy

I should have finished with "...without having to stop calling those that make up the union countries".
That's what I do anyway.

Roses, when was the last time you actually read anything by Richard Murphy?
I am sure that Fitzy reads things by him, but you don't, do you?
The reason you don't trust anything that Murphy writes is because some of us do?
That's a very strange response.

Mazie my last post said the UK is a country. I've never said Scotland or Wales were not countries. I don't think its unacceptable to call a union of countries a country in itself.

durhamjen it was a response indeed, but a very strange and rude response.I know of nobody else either on GN or in RL who speaks as you do.Thank goodness.

Oh dear, Fitzy. :-) And to think that a page or two ago you were telling me that the UK is a country. Now you appear to be agreeing with me that it is just a 'union' of countries.
I was quite careful to say that NI was a 'bit' of a country as I think it is in an anomalous position, neither fish nor fowl.

Apologies for the typos! As I said, pressed for time.
ps DJ - as I said I don't have much faith in Murphy ( who I thought was an accountant rather than an economist but may be confusing myself?) but I did believe your Guardian article!

Mazie Scotland is a country, Wales is a country, and the UK is a country. I think you suggested that NI is a country (apologies if I'm wrong but I don't have time to look back)? I don't think k that is right. Some will say its tightly part of Eire, some rightly part of the UK. Make your own choice.
The UK govt. isn't always right, but I think it's right a little more often than some people give it credit for.

What's rude about saying she? It's the normal pronoun for a female, roses. Or are you not a female?
It's just a response to your response about Murphy.

She, she? Rather rude durhamjen as is the above strange rant at me.
Why make all your posts so personal? Since you know nothing about me you cannot know what I think or believe.Why not stick to the subject of Scottish independance.

Well. I trust Murphy, and roses doesn't. What a surprise. Murphy doesn't have an axe to grind any more than any other economist.
At least he looks at figures, and doesn't just live in his rosetinted head.

I bet roses doesn't believe this Guardian article about EU citizens living in the UK.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/13/european-couple-stunned-as-uk-born-children-denied-residency

She also will not believe that not only Scotland but the whole of the UK should have a new referendum on leaving the EU, as both Russia and China interfered with the election process.
No, she got the result she wants, and everyone else should just shut up and accept it.
So democratic.

A silly reply to a well reasoned comment Maizie
And guess what, I don't trust anything that Richard Murphy prints, he seems to be held up by a few on GN as some sort of guru, when he has his own axe to grind.

Suit yourself, Fitzy. Scotland isn't a country and the UK government is always right.

Yes Mazie I did read it. I just didn't like his one sided spin. He raised some issues about the figures but didn't, to my mind, properly justify the implication from his article that they were effectively meaningless. Maybe they are - but he certainly hasn't begun to convince me. If someone holds themselves out as an impartial expert, which is how he likes to paint himself, they should, to my mind, at least make some attempt at putting forward both sides of an argument and then coming down in favour of one or the other with clear reasons. To put it another way, I doubt it would be too difficult for someone else with the right expertise to draft an article equally as persuasive supporting Treasury figures. What would be much more useful would be something giving both sides, and ending with a reasoned view as to the likely level of accuracy. Or in simpler terms, I think he likes his reputation for controversy very much and he was showboating.

I trust the Treasury more than I trust Richard Murphy.
It's not particularly a question of 'trust'. It's a question of 'Is there a sound foundation for the Treasury calculations?' I don't think Murphy has any particular bias (which is why I posted the links).
I don't have any bias, either. I'm not Scottish and I don't particularly care which way they go. I'm just taking a bit of interest in the discussion.
You did read it, didn't you, Fitzy?

Far North I've no doubt there is some corruption given that the UK has such a substantial financial services industry but that article looks to me little more like a hatchet job by someone with an agenda that takes precedence over any attempt to analyse reliable evidence. And what does this have to do with Scottish Independence?

www.independent.co.uk/voices/when-a-mafia-expert-tells-us-britain-is-the-most-corrupt-country-in-the-world-its-time-to-start-a7057686.html

UK financial services sector has been shown to be corrupt.

I don't suppose any economic data is entirely accurate, and some will doubt be very inaccurate, but we have to work with what we have and I trust the Treasury more than I trust Richard Murphy.

Richard Murphy has been taking an interest in Scottish economics. He wrote this blog a month ago:

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/03/14/why-economic-data-provided-by-london-will-not-help-the-scottish-independence-debate/

What I want to discuss is the claim that Scotland has a weak economy. This claim is based on four figures. The first is Scottish GDP. The second is Scottish tax revenues. The third is Scottish government spending. The last is the Scottish balance of payments (imports v exports). My contention is simple: all four may be seriously mis-stated, in which case to base debate on them would be a serious mistake.

He has written several subsequent posts on the Scottish economy. They can be accessed from his Home page (you will need to look at several pages to find them):

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/

His contention, as stated in the first link, is that data produced by the UK government on the Scottish economy is not necessarily reliable or accurate.

Granny I see what you are getting at. I'm no expert on the subject of post independence economics in Scotland, so won't stick my nose in there. However I very much doubt that Varian's sources are seriously biased, while Business for Scotland seems unashamedly so. It surely can't all be good news?

I agree, Granny23 that we should all look at a variety of sources of news and analysis and question the agenda of each source.

This new research into fake news in Scotland could prove to be quite revealing-

www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/holyrood/1219854/rgu-researchers-study-fake-news/

Varian Yes indeed Business for Scotland has an agenda but their pronouncements are all based on provable evidence. The three alternative sources you quote also have agendas i.e. they are all strongly Unionist. My mission is to present an alternative view from a Scottish perspective in hopes that folks will read both sides and make up their own minds or research further.

Not saying it is wrong per se - just that if GERS uses this arbitrary 8/9 % split across the board to determine whether Scotland has a deficit or not then the result will be seriously skewed by underestimating Income and overestimating Expenditure in Scotland. To then use these flawed figures to extrapolate to the likely financial position of an INDEPENDENT Scotland is crazy.

I have little regard for the Westminster Tory Government but do credit them (and certainly their civil Servants) with a modicum of financial intelligence and therefore, can only conclude that the figures are presented in this way to convince Scots that they are too wee, too poor etc. to stand on their own two feet.

I refer you to the McCrone Report which details how a Labour UK government suppressed the true figures on the value of North Sea oil, DELIBERATELY because they thought the truth would fan the flames of growing Scottish Nationalism. That decision to lie also prevented an Oil Fund (like Norway's) being set up as the UK Gov kept denying that there was enough oil to warrant that. Such a fund would have benefited the whole UK, smoothing out the Highs and Lows of oil prices and barrels produced. it did not, however, prevent the known oil reserves being used as collateral for Government borrowing. So, International Bankers knew all about it while the general public in the UK were kept in the dark and the ever increasing (at that time) revenues were spent on party political (both Labour & Tory) priorities and pet projects with a bit of 'creative accounting' to cover up the deception.

For me it is a case of 'Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.' I have taken every set of official Government figures with a barrel load of salt ever since.

"Business for Scotland" is a separatist propaganda group. By their own admission they are "dedicated supporters of Scottish independence as a means to deliver our goals". Their analysis is therefore flawed. There are many other sources of economic data which paint a different picture, eg

www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/03/14/five-charts-show-economically-risky-scottish-independence-would/

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/24/ifs-scotland-debts-three-times-greater-uk

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37167975

Granny I wouldn't attempt to pick holes in it. I think all you are saying is that while the UK is one country, all resources are treated as being for the benefit of all in the UK equally - i.e. On a per capita basis. Is that what you are saying, but think it's wrong?