Latest official Scottish numbers Might read through this later, but until then, here’s the BBC’s take on it.

Spin those figures thm,spin em like the wind!

The deceitful one has already done the “quick spin” cycle Duckman…The figures speak for themselves, hence your need to avoid them and attempt to make a dig. I understand fully why you need to do this, it’s the same for the decetiful one. Fiscal policy involves raising taxes and spending/investing money. Guess which one the deceitful one spoke about and which one he ignored yesterday. Mister on-eye strikes again. How utterly unsurprising.

The current state of Scotlands finances, the trend, the drivers and the vulnerability to those drivers are as clear as highland spring water. The only opaqueness is how you marry these facts with the fiction of la, la land economics. That is like a peaty bog.

For those that are interested In facts there was plenty of real analysis published on future tax revenues yesterday and in particular the likelihood (or not) of oIl tax revenues returning to 2011-12 levels quickly.

(Good job there are no GNI figures for Scotland to show the oil industry’s contribution more accurately. GDP is so convenient for the deceitful one isn’t it?)

It’s really funny (in a sad way) when the No campaign get so excited over figures showing Scotland is not doing so well financially. “We’re rubbish – yay!”

Of course they hey don’t bother mentioning that these are one-year figures and there are good reasons for the drop – long-term figures show Scotland having a perfectly healthy economy.

Oh, and of course these fluctuations in the oil market are why we should have an oil fund.

teamhurtmore – Member
The deceitful one has already done the “quick spin” cycle Duckman…The figures speak for themselves, hence your need to avoid them and attempt to make a dig

I see…I assume you are referring to AS as the “decetiful one” You then insist we should use the figures you want us to,and not GDP…(Which has always been good enough for rUK) Clearly the BBC is biased towards the indy camp as they then report on it,if only they had had the good sense to consult you first,then they might not have avoided the figures that are speaking for themselves 😀
Also for somebody who frequently lets his scorn for indy supporters show through,and has often suggested better together are not actually bullying and we are just too touchy,you are VERY sensitive as to what constitutes a dig.

Do you see no conflict in these two statements from yourself.

Mister on-eye strikes again. How utterly unsurprising.

(Good job there are no GNI figures for Scotland to show the oil industry’s contribution more accurately. GDP is so convenient for the deceitful one isn’t it?)

So the figures you want do not exist,but AS is one eyed for using the ones that do? I thought you had agreed to play the ball and not the man?

Please don’t rush to join the troll. Read what I said instead. I will check to see if you can raise your game by coffee time.

P.S. You should consider all the figures available. Like currency options, they all have pros and cons. Neither should be used in isolation, hence I didn’t say that did I? Of course, yesterday’s data was a snap shot. In isolation they tell a limited story. More interesting is the insight they give into the drivers of the economy and especially the dichotomy between the split in the economy between the onshore bit (where most spending is concentrated) and the offshore bit (which drives a large part of the revenue, tax, is concentrated) and why this is important when deciphering la la land economics.

You can look at the Elgin hiccup in two ways too ie, a simple “one off” or a symptom of recent under-investments. Depending on your view, you can decide on your own sensitivity of future tax revenue forecasts (among other factors).

Of course, the BBC issue is a red herring but an understanding of national accounting and availability of statistics is required first.

Okay, that’s it – Better Together, you’ve really gone too far this time:

Fewer. Fewer!

Alastair Darling just making stuff up is one thing – this is so much worse.

Always fun to see how much you can extrapolate from a one year trend.

Ah another fine example of the campaign Mr Darling characterised as “relentlessly positive”

😆 at that picture

Cut here for fewer grammar!

Sheesh,hyper sensitive Jocks…I wonder if somebody will pass any remark on that pic,y’ken maybe somebody who has frequently commented on the SNP’s scare tactics…

@bencooper.

I’ve got to say that I’ve been against independence from the start.

But with that advert, I am now completely in favour. Who cares about the economy, defense, oil, or whatnot? If as a nation we cannot even get our grammar right, we have no right to continue to exist.

It’s a crass advert.

Is there a better source confirming the advert is genuine? WoS is a nasty little arsewipe and he seems to be the only one who has a copy of it.

WoS is a nasty little arsewipe

Care to elaborate?

bencooper – Member
Care to elaborate?

I thought he was a dickwad after posting this on twitter:

Ben Fogle ?@Benfogle Mar 6

A week in Scotland and I’m reminded how much I like Scots and Scotland. Please don’t leave us……….

Who appointed him spokesman of Scotland 😆 ? So I went through the comments, and saw this:

I wondered if that was a true quote, and it is, but massively out of context. However he comes across as a complete bellend on the thread it’s from nonetheless. Turns out he’s a video game reviewer living in Somerset who doesn’t take kindly to criticism 🙂

So with that in mind, it seems he is quite happy to throw obnoxious comments out at people whenever he likes, but throws the toys out of the pram whenever somebody posts something he disagrees with.

So as I said, I’ll be waiting for a better source on those ads. 😆

I’m a Yes voter and can’t take anything WoS says seriously, it’s so biased that I have a hard time accepting any of it. Bit out of order to attack the man in such way though, even if he is (allegedly) a bit of a dick.

Hmm, a few random screenshots which may or may not be genuine.

I’m not defending him – I don’t know him in the slightest – but WoS does provide facts and analysis that more mainstream media sources don’t.

bencooper – Member

Hmm, a few random screenshots which may or may not be genuine.

I’m not defending him – I don’t know him in the slightest – but WoS does provide facts and analysis that more mainstream media sources don’t.

How you feel about my screengrabs is how I feel about the ads he posted.
Anyhow, the shots I took are from just now, the pagese all still online, just google the text from them and you’ll see. Even posting some of those things jokingly is deeply unpleasant in my view.

But anyway all I’m saying is that I’m taking his posts with a healthy pinch of salt. If a mainstream source runs with it I’d be more inclined to believe it was genuine.

bencooper – Member

Hmm, a few random screenshots which may or may not be genuine.

So WoS’s ‘random screen shot’ is genuine but the other ones aren’t?

But mainstream sources don’t run with this stuff, that’s the point – when an independent academic showed that the BBC was strongly biased towards the No campaign, the BBC attacked him.

When the mainstream media isn’t being impartial, you have to look to other sources as well.

So WoS’s ‘random screen shot’ is genuine but the other ones aren’t?

I don’t see what he’d get out of faking them. He said they were leaked to him. He just got £100k through crowdsourced funding to help run a news site, it’d blow his credibility if he faked stuff like that.

Of course the leaker could have faked it.

It may provide analysis.

But that doesn’t mean it provides facts.

When the mainstream media isn’t being impartial, you have to look to other sources as well.

Yup, you need to look to other sources and asses their credibility and inherent biases too.

http://futureukandscotland.ac.uk/blog is still the best source i’ve seen for being objective and really getting into some of the nitty gritty.

Yup, you need to look to other sources and asses their credibility and inherent biases too.

Absolutely. Newsnet Scotland and the National Collective are also good.

But here’s an example of something where WoS facts contradict the mainstream media – according to WoS, ”Standard Life currently has no plans to relocate or transfer parts of our operations out of Scotland”.

If that letter is true (and other sources in other places say similar) then it’s very useful info to have.

Here’s a poll from the Daily Record Uncomfortable reading for Scottish Labour
Support for independence at an all time high though still behind . The poll shows labour is making no in roads against the snp .

Please don’t rush to join the troll.

I assume you mean me – I am not sure it is trolling to point out that you are not neutral
We have both been saying it , as have others, since the start of this thread. Your hatred of AS is clear and not denied yet you are “neutral”
Its not a great argument hence why you have not said the BBC or the CS or the Bof E chair speaks like you do on this issue. No one neutral speaks like you do.. you may not like this fact but it is not a troll to point it out to you.

The survation link to Dumbledo…. sorry, Gordimhors poll

http://survation.com/2014/03/new-scottish-voting-intention-polling/

Referendum

In the referendum, voters will be asked, “Should Scotland be an independent country”. If this referendum were held today, do you think you would vote “Yes” or “No”?

Yes: 39% (+1)

No: 48% (+1)

Undecided: 13% (-3)

Voting intention

Scottish parliamentary elections (May 2016) – constituency vote:

Labour: 34% (+3%)

Conservative: 13% (nc)

SNP: 45% (+1)

Liberal Democrat: 5% (-1)

Another party (Net): 3% (-3%)

Scottish parliament (May 2016) – regional list vote:*

Labour : 28%

Conservative: 11%

SNP: 40%

Liberal Democrat: 7%

Scottish Green Party: 8%

– See more at: http://survation.com/2014/03/new-scottish-voting-intention-polling/#sthash.v4Ggnf9f.dpuf

These figures show little change from previous polling, with the SNP continuing to enjoy high levels of support in terms of forthcoming elections to the Scottish and Westminster parliaments, but the Nationalists have not managed to significantly increase support for the ‘Yes’ campaign. This may reflect a hardening of views on the independence question, with polls consistently showing support for a ‘No’ vote at a margin similar to that found in this poll. 39% in favour of independence is the highest level of support seen this year, but by a very narrow margin, and within the margin of error. – See more at: http://survation.com/2014/03/new-scottish-voting-intention-polling/#sthash.v4Ggnf9f.dpuf

How can you accuse the BBC of being biased??? The Scotsman published research yesterday arguing the they have portrayed the deceitful one as a “figure of fun.” Are they not correct to maintain and uphold their high standards of integrity?

Well it would be funny if the implications were not so serious…..

Heralds report
The other side of the story on the independent report.
The BBC are claiming factual inaccuracies in his report.

The BBC are claiming factual inaccuracies in his report.

They are. And the BBC’s claims were responded to in detail – the factual inaccuracies are things like a couple of programmes broadcast a day later than noted in the data, stuff like that.

Do you think if we stuck Bencooper and Teamhurtmore on a merry go round we’d achieve perpetual motion?

However, BBC bosses completely rejected the allegations, insisting the report contained factual inaccuracies with quotes from people who did not feature in its reports and lines that its journalists did not say.

Yeah just minor things.

Yeah just minor things.

In the mass of statistics, yes.

WoS is a horrid site. A place where nationalists can vent their spleen and massage egos. It is a topsy turvy world when lack of BBC neutrality is berrated, then propaganda sites like WoS are used as a reliable source of the truth.

Recently WoS had a scary picture of a Spanish Joan Rivers lookalike, who is a descendant of the Stuarts, taken from the tabloid press. (I can’t even remember her name). The site tried to claim the the No campaign were scaremongering by saying she may become the future queen of iScotland.

The site seems to do this regularly. Use sensationalist tabloid headlines against the better together campaign.

I am sure top journalistic jobs will come to the people that run these sites in our ‘brave new world’, then we will see if it is possible to speak up against them.

I am sure top journalistic jobs will come to the people that run these sites in our ‘brave new world’, then we will see if it is possible to speak up against them.

Hows the for shit stirring fear-mongering ffs.

Looking at that WoS better together posters.

There is actually sod all coming up to verify it. Even some of the posters on WoS are using “if it’s real”

Recently WoS had a scary picture of a Spanish Joan Rivers lookalike, who is a descendant of the Stuarts, taken from the tabloid press. (I can’t even remember her name). The site tried to claim the the No campaign were scaremongering by saying she may become the future queen of iScotland.

Can’t find that on WoS. I remember the story, but not certain it was WoS who covered it. Was it claimed that the story came from the No campaign, or was it just an example of unionist propaganda?

Do you think if we stuck Bencooper and Teamhurtmore on a merry go round we’d achieve perpetual motion?

No they are both neutral so nothing would happen 😉