Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 6

[Edinburger]

McWigglebum4th said:

Edinburger said:

McWigglebum4th said:

Edinburger said:

Yep, I agree with you there. Although it's almost unbeleivable that there's no robust data in this day and age.

Why should there be

It only interests the face painters

I've not been here for a while and I've missed your idiotic statements - not.

Well that only value of showing how much an area gathers compared to another area is for some tit to get on their high horse and say how st somewhere else is

Or in the case of the nationalists how they are being oppressed

Yeah, okay Wiggley. Get back in your cave and leave the creative thinking to others, eh?

[McWigglebum4th]

Come on you traitorous no voter tell me the advantage of knowing how much each area makes

[barryrs]

I would be interested to know that data however I see wiggles point that it would only be used for division whether that's between scotland and England or Somerset and Suffolk.

[///ajd]

Keep up the banter Wiggy. You are clearly more intelligent and far more amusing than the resident yestapo that you have systematically run rings around for months now.

The mind still boggles that they don't realise they sound like this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ

...and therefore are characters of ridicule, using nonsense arguments & making themselves look complete tits.

[simoid]

Edinburger said:

Yeah, okay Wiggley. Get back in your cave and leave the creative thinking to others, eh?

"Get back in your cave" because Wiggles questions the value of researching particular statistics? How charming.

[Edinburger]

simoid said:

"Get back in your cave" because Wiggles questions the value of researching particular statistics? How charming.

Seriously?

Have you re-read your own recent posts?

[Edinburger]

barryrs said:

I would be interested to know that data however I see wiggles point that it would only be used for division whether that's between scotland and England or Somerset and Suffolk.

I disagree. How can anyone take a pragmatic view to plan any significant constitutional change or large spend without data to that accuracy?

[Edinburger]

McWigglebum4th said:

Come on you traitorous no voter tell me the advantage of knowing how much each area makes

There's lots of advantages for the public and for the private sectors.

Let's say I want to launch a business or service targeted at cash-rich but time-poor sectors of society, I'd like to have comfort in stats for that purpose.

[simoid]

Edinburger said:

I disagree. How can anyone take a pragmatic view to plan any significant constitutional change or large spend without data to that accuracy?

Because (allegedly) we live in a society where the resources go where needed, not because someone pays more.

[simoid]

Edinburger said:

simoid said:

"Get back in your cave" because Wiggles questions the value of researching particular statistics? How charming.

Seriously?

Have you re-read your own recent posts?

My own recent posts in reply to the troll that is Strocky?

[Slartifartfast]

In the Health Service we have data bases that are interrogateable by postcode, and can show that more people in postcode aa1 get disease B than postcode aa2. Are HMRC and other databases not similarly useful?

[simoid]

Slartifartfast said:

In the Health Service we have data bases that are interrogateable by postcode, and can show that more people in postcode aa1 get disease B than postcode aa2. Are HMRC and other databases not similarly useful?

I think this would be akin to storing data on everywhere the person has been, as well as where they live.

[Axionknight]

simoid said:

"Get back in your cave" because Wiggles questions the value of researching particular statistics? How charming.

It's hard to take Edinburger seriously, he so wanted to be a Yes voter, he just didn't have the stones.

[Troubleatmill]

Axionknight said:

simoid said:

"Get back in your cave" because Wiggles questions the value of researching particular statistics? How charming.

It's hard to take Edinburger seriously, he so wanted to be a Yes voter, he just didn't have the stones.

To be fair to Edinburger....

The heart can be passionate of wonderful ideals.

The head realises that a lot of those ideals are pie in the sky - and the pursuit of them will be foolish and wallet ruining.

[simoid]

Some interesting stats from Ronald McDonald looking retrospectively at the SNP's oil nonsense. Saw a yes voter commenting that "it didn't matter, all the oil money was going into a fund anyway"

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/oi...

Scotland's most mobile 20% pay 40% of taxes, for example.

[Slartifartfast]

simoid said:

Slartifartfast said:

In the Health Service we have data bases that are interrogateable by postcode, and can show that more people in postcode aa1 get disease B than postcode aa2. Are HMRC and other databases not similarly useful?

I think this would be akin to storing data on everywhere the person has been, as well as where they live.

The IR know the postcode of all those who pay tax, and how much each pays, so working out how much a particular area/ region generates would be straightforward, Shirley?

[///ajd]

simoid said:

Some interesting stats from Ronald McDonald looking retrospectively at the SNP's oil nonsense. Saw a yes voter commenting that "it didn't matter, all the oil money was going into a fund anyway"

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/oi...

Scotland's most mobile 20% pay 40% of taxes, for example.

you read that and wonder how anyone still believes anything the snp says. is clearly shows how much Salmond was misleading people and what a crock the whole thing was, yet the snp response is the 'beyond lame' ah but oil would have gone up before 2016.....

the yes movement must have a religious type grip on its sheep for these blinding holes not to obvious to them. dangerous times for scotland. and the yesers used to mock at greece type horror stories, and here is a professor outlining an all to plausible scenario based on the current price of oil that ain't that far off.

[xjsdriver]

Edinburger said:

Yeah, okay Wiggley. Get back in your cave and leave the thinking to others, eh?

There, fixed it for you 'Burger... ;-)

[HenryJM]

xjsdriver said:

Edinburger said:

Yeah, okay Wiggley. Get back in your cave and leave the thinking to others, eh?

There, fixed it for you 'Burger... ;-)

Unfixed version

xjsdriver said:

Yeah, okay Wiggley. Get back in your cave and leave the creative thinking to others, eh?

Why? If you change what someone writes make it obvious, it's irritating to have to go back to see what was changed, particularly when it is so trivial.

Edited by HenryJM on Thursday 18th December 06:18

[NicD]

///ajd said:

simoid said:

Some interesting stats from Ronald McDonald looking retrospectively at the SNP's oil nonsense. Saw a yes voter commenting that "it didn't matter, all the oil money was going into a fund anyway"

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/oi...

Scotland's most mobile 20% pay 40% of taxes, for example.

you read that and wonder how anyone still believes anything the snp says. is clearly shows how much Salmond was misleading people and what a crock the whole thing was, yet the snp response is the 'beyond lame' ah but oil would have gone up before 2016.....

the yes movement must have a religious type grip on its sheep for these blinding holes not to obvious to them. dangerous times for scotland. and the yesers used to mock at greece type horror stories, and here is a professor outlining an all to plausible scenario based on the current price of oil that ain't that far off.

'To quote Mr Salmond: “Even with a cautious estimate of oil prices remaining at $113 a barrel, it’s clear that Scottish oil and gas could generate three times more than official estimates.”

He should not be allowed out of restraints.
Personally, I was hoping for a YES vote, so England could be concerned with its own future.

but I feel most for the professor quoted, with a most unfortunate name.