Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Burma

If Scotland Votes Naw.

Recommended Posts

Not at all.

I have given you the source of these stats. Published in October of this year.

Can you tell me the source of the contradicting claims made by both the yes scotland website which claims the UK is fourth bottom, or the white paper (pg44) which claims we are sixth bottom? Cheers.

I'm always suspicious of people that don't enjoy facts when it blows their arguments to smithereens. 8)

I even provided you with the 5 OECD countries that are LESS fair than us, give me 1 other country to prove me wrong(I'll not be shattered or anything) and give me 10 or 12 to push us up into respectability(I'll be astounded).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all.

I have given you the source of these stats. Published in October of this year.

Can you tell me the source of the contradicting claims made by both the yes scotland website which claims the UK is fourth bottom, or the white paper (pg44) which claims we are sixth bottom? Cheers.

I'm always suspicious of people that don't enjoy facts when it blows their arguments to smithereens. 8)

Jeremiah%20Johnson%20nod.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took a few days away from the forum, and in that time, Reynard, HB, and the rest of the law squad started to slither back in here and spout their lies. Worse still, people were taken in and started to engage seriously.

My role is to remind people of the lies and the duplicity of the law squad, to ensure their credibility remains smashed, and to ensure that their lies are not taken seriously by the less informed posters.

And of course, Reynard wanted the pension matter to be dropped so he could bring it up again in the future and claim he was right, as he did at least twice before. I stop him from being able to do that by holding him to account.

We are so grateful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took a few days away from the forum, and in that time, Reynard, HB, and the rest of the law squad started to slither back in here and spout their lies. Worse still, people were taken in and started to engage seriously.

My role is to remind people of the lies and the duplicity of the law squad, to ensure their credibility remains smashed, and to ensure that their lies are not taken seriously by the less informed posters.

And of course, Reynard wanted the pension matter to be dropped so he could bring it up again in the future and claim he was right, as he did at least twice before. I stop him from being able to do that by holding him to account.

:lol:

You were made to take a few days away from the forum.

I'll give you minor credit for Ad Lib, but I put his sudden interest in posting in the thread more down to Swampy not being around to rip the pish out of him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of tiresome ad hominem attacks on me of course . Not any attempts to explain the contradicting claims of yes scotland and the white paper. :lol:

You guys are fucked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of tiresome ad hominem attacks on me of course . Not any attempts to explain the contradicting claims of yes scotland and the white paper. :lol:

You guys are fucked

And how do you feel about the use of ridiculous scare stories by Better Together?

Would that fall under the category of the ends justifying the means?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of tiresome ad hominem attacks on me of course . Not any attempts to explain the contradicting claims of yes scotland and the white paper. :lol:

You guys are fucked

I wonder if reynard has ayrmad on ignore too? Anyone notice the mysterious lack of discussion?

Meanwhile, still waiting for those pension figures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

You were made to take a few days away from the forum.

I'll give you minor credit for Ad Lib, but I put his sudden interest in posting in the thread more down to Swampy not being around to rip the pish out of him.

There are a lot of informed and knowledgeable yes voters now, I am no longer virtually the lone voice on here as I was for so long. So now there are others who can do the reasoned and thought out arguments, leaving me free to attack the law squad and keep their credibility shattered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of informed and knowledgeable yes voters now, I am no longer virtually the lone voice on here as I was for so long. So now there are others who can do the reasoned and thought out arguments, leaving me free to attack the law squad and keep their credibility shattered.

article-2277045-0C3843E300000578-17_306x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here's something interesting. Reynard presented all his figures as just something he found out by reading. Now tue weird thing is that Murdo Fraser (Scottish tory) also came out with exactly the same nonsense. So the reason Reynard doesn't have any answers is because he is just parroting what someone else said, and didn't even question it!

Wings are on the case:

http://wingsoverscotland.com/lies-damned-lies-and-tories/#more-45932

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here's something interesting. Reynard presented all his figures as just something he found out by reading. Now tue weird thing is that Murdo Fraser (Scottish tory) also came out with exactly the same nonsense. So the reason Reynard doesn't have any answers is because he is just parroting what someone else said, and didn't even question it!

Wings are on the case:

http://wingsoverscotland.com/lies-damned-lies-and-tories/#more-45932

Just came on to quote that link to Reynard, oh dear, you would think the Rev reads these pages or something eh!

So the Credit Suisse Gini index is a complete outlier on the scale of inequality and like much of Reynard and HB's arguments about how PanelBase are out of sync with other pollsters complete nonsense.

It was quite frankly hilarious watching him trumpet this (apparent) triumph of good 'ol British fairness, wonder how he's going to take it when it turns out it is in fact complete and utter shite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now he's been comprehensively destroyed by all comers, will he defend himself with facts? Will he stamp up and down and demand we all read some obscure link that he isn't going to describe, or will he just pretend that none of these posts exist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the comments on that ThinkScotland blog.

"The concluding remarks from Credit Suisse' own report: "The study of global household wealth is at an embryonic stage. Data on the level of wealth remains poor for many countries. Information on the pattern of wealth within countries is even scarcer. The precise definition of personal wealth has not been agreed, and the appropriate methods of valuation are not always clear. Much work remains to be done to refine the estimates of wealth level by country, to improve the estimates of wealth distribution within countries…" But you know… carry on citing a report that admits its own likely imprecision and whose conclusions are wildly different from the majority of similar studies. As long as it fits the conclusion you wish to come to, eh?"

Shame Reynard never read that before posting even more of his nonsense eh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if reynard has ayrmad on ignore too? Anyone notice the mysterious lack of discussion?

Meanwhile, still waiting for those pension figures.

It's actually quite disappointing, he's been intertwining 2 different indicators without mentioning it, I have another list that helps his case somewhat but I'll put it up when I feel NO are going to be more responsible on here.

The indicator used in the piece on wealth acknowledges that the figures for the top 1% could be underestimated hugely and they are always underestimated to some degree.

Edited by ayrmad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually like how Wings and BFS present their figures, they try and explain their findings in simple terms.

NO are always trying to blurry things, Reynard brought up that piece about income, in the papers they use the figure for average UK full-time salary and directly underneath they give you the figure for average Scottish Men's full-time salary which happens to be higher than the average directly above, no mention of Women's averages or part-time averages anywhere, that's not cricket IMO.

I'm not even delighted with the ONS' projections, one 2 year projection of Scottish births is underestimated by almost 20% but we've to believe figures these organisations are spouting out for 50 years into the future.

Edited by ayrmad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was reading through some interesting stuff the other day. A whole load of cybernat idiots bleat away like a broken fucking records about how wonderful we could all be if only we got away from the terrible English and were more like the Scandinavians in a fairer, more equal society.

Well there's a few nice little bombshells in this report https://www.credit-suisse.com/ch/en/news-and-expertise/research/credit-suisse-research-institute/publications.html regarding "equal societies" and wealth distribution.

Turns out the UK actually fares better than the cybernat ethno nats would have us believe. They even go as far as to publish bullshit on the Yes Scotland page saying that the UK is the FOURTH most unequal country although the white paper bizarrely puts the UK at the sixth most unequal :wacko: These equality figures use something called the Gini coefficient (google it).

What is interesting about this report is not just the placing of the UK, it's also who we are above. 8) Its worked out in percentage terms.The UKs works out at 67.7% or in the top half (comfortably) of the OECD countries.

Ahead of France 69%

Germany 77%

Switzerland 80.6%

Denmark 107.7%

Sweden 80.3%

And in huge read it and weep style NORWAY!!!!!! at 77.8%

Looks like the cybernats are attempting to spread bullshit and lies once more in their desperate efforts to make it look like we live in a really bad country.

GIRFUY

Page 44 of the white paper.

"The UK ranks 28th out of 34 nations in the OECD on a measure of overall equality"

The Yes Scotland website claims, and I quote, "the UK is the FOURTH (my emphasis) most unequal country in the developed world.

So. Which one is most wrong out of both those incorrect statements? <_<

White Paper reckons we are 6th most unequal.

Yo Scotchlands website reckons we are fourth worst.

Both are wrong :lol:

Oh dear, oh dear!

Firstly, Reynard (like Murdo Fraser in the article he has obviously read, but doesn't link to) is apparently unable to count.

Reynard claims that "the white paper bizarrely puts the UK at the sixth most unequal", then later quotes the following "The UK ranks 28th out of 34 nations in the OECD on a measure of overall equality"

28th out of 34 is the 7th worst, not 6th.

He then goes on to claim that the White Paper figures and the Yes Scotland figures are lies, because they don't agree with a set of figures he has seen.

Unfortunately for him, both the White Paper & Yes Scotland are quoting figures based upon INCOME inequality, whilst Reynards figures relate to WEALTH inequality, a very different concept.

Reynard also makes great play on the fact that the White Paper figures do not appear to match up with the Yes Scotland figures.

Here's a link: http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/economic-data/11944-wealth-distribution-income-inequality.html#axzz2nYXIGxmm

If you scroll down to the table headed "Income Distribution, Late 2000s, OECD Countries", and sort by the column headed "Gini coefficient (after taxes and transfers)", you will find that the UK is 28th out of the 34 nations listed. This proves that the claim in the white paper is correct.

However, if you then sort the same table by the column headed "Gini coefficient (before taxes and transfers)", you find that the UK drops 3 places. That puts them into 4th worst place by this measure, thus proving that the Yes Scotland claim is also correct.

So, the difference between the White Paper figures & the Yes Scotland figures is easily explained by whether or not taxes & transfers are taken into account.

What isn't so easy to explain is how Reynard comes to the conclusion that they are wrong by comparing them with a ranking which measures a totally different concept. Income & wealth are not remotely similar measures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear, oh dear!

Firstly, Reynard (like Murdo Fraser in the article he has obviously read, but doesn't link to) is apparently unable to count.

Reynard claims that "the white paper bizarrely puts the UK at the sixth most unequal", then later quotes the following "The UK ranks 28th out of 34 nations in the OECD on a measure of overall equality"

28th out of 34 is the 7th worst, not 6th.

He then goes on to claim that the White Paper figures and the Yes Scotland figures are lies, because they don't agree with a set of figures he has seen.

Unfortunately for him, both the White Paper & Yes Scotland are quoting figures based upon INCOME inequality, whilst Reynards figures relate to WEALTH inequality, a very different concept.

Reynard also makes great play on the fact that the White Paper figures do not appear to match up with the Yes Scotland figures.

Here's a link: http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/economic-data/11944-wealth-distribution-income-inequality.html#axzz2nYXIGxmm

If you scroll down to the table headed "Income Distribution, Late 2000s, OECD Countries", and sort by the column headed "Gini coefficient (after taxes and transfers)", you will find that the UK is 28th out of the 34 nations listed. This proves that the claim in the white paper is correct.

However, if you then sort the same table by the column headed "Gini coefficient (before taxes and transfers)", you find that the UK drops 3 places. That puts them into 4th worst place by this measure, thus proving that the Yes Scotland claim is also correct.

So, the difference between the White Paper figures & the Yes Scotland figures is easily explained by whether or not taxes & transfers are taken into account.

What isn't so easy to explain is how Reynard comes to the conclusion that they are wrong by comparing them with a ranking which measures a totally different concept. Income & wealth are not remotely similar measures.

They are on here. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...