Confidemus Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 £200m is a laughably small figure. Some of the software required will cost more than that on it's own. What software? How much will it cost? Can you be specific about this please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 £200m is a laughably small figure. Some of the software required will cost more than that on it's own. Utter pish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Whereas voting No will cost your nationality. Whereas voting No will cost your nationality. What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tio Pepe Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 What software? How much will it cost? Can you be specific about this please? The software required to administer pensions and benefits. The revenue service software. Two examples for you, which should be obvious to anyone with the slightest understanding of these areas who is approaching the subject objectively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 HB's pretty close to it, and ayrmad's response nicely sums up what is wrong with Yes Scotland. BT lied and made an arse of it, apparently that makes Yes Scotland's numbers indisputable. A contributors' figures pretty much correlate with YES, what do you want YES supporters to do, I've watched months and months of downright lying and bias and I've just to ignore NO's lies and slaggings to protect your preciousness, it ain't happening, I'm not selling out to avoid hurting your feelings and I couldn't really give a shit if it might be enough to put you off voting YES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 The software required to administer pensions and benefits. The revenue service software. Two examples for you, which should be obvious to anyone with the slightest understanding of these areas who is approaching the subject objectively. I used to work on HMRC's IT contract. The software is already there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 As Professor Dunleavy was reported as saying in the Sunday Post yesterday: "Dunleavy uses his report to reflect on the “rather visceral” referendum debate dominated by start-up costs, claiming Danny Alexander is demanding Alex Salmond, “produce cost data for things that could only have numbers attached to them by someone with prophetic powers of the Delphi oracle”. Well, this is bollocks really isn't it. No one is asking for an end cost to the nearest 10p. It's an estimate, but it should be produced using a recognised methodology, and with reference to the costs other nations have incurred when setting up similar apparatus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 In real life silence usually beats downright lying/incompetence. It actually doesn't. It's much more cowardly to refuse to come up with a figure as an estimate, then attack someone else's. If you say "It will cost £1000 for me to rebuld my garden shed" and I laugh and say "Don't be ridiculous, that's far too low", if , after the obvious follow-up of "Well, what will it cost then?" my answer is "Emm, no idea, but it will be more than that" then that is utterly without credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Well, this is bollocks really isn't it. No one is asking for an end cost to the nearest 10p. It's an estimate, but it should be produced using a recognised methodology, and with reference to the costs other nations have incurred when setting up similar apparatus. Or they could just accept Dunleavy's report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 A contributors' figures pretty much correlate with YES, In what way does it "correlate" to a figure the Scottish government have refused to give? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Or they could just accept Dunleavy's report. Or the Treasury report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 It actually doesn't. It's much more cowardly to refuse to come up with a figure as an estimate, then attack someone else's. If you say "It will cost £1000 for me to rebuld my garden shed" and I laugh and say "Don't be ridiculous, that's far too low", if , after the obvious follow-up of "Well, what will it cost then?" my answer is "Emm, no idea, but it will be more than that" then that is utterly without credibility. The Treasury's stab at start-up costs was eviscerated by Dunleavy both in the result and in the methodology. The SG's position of not knowing what the costs will be until negotiations are complete is perfectly reasonable given that Salmond has already accepted that they'll be in the range Dunleavy's ballpark figure, £200m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Or the Treasury report. Why in god's name would they do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 It actually doesn't. It's much more cowardly to refuse to come up with a figure as an estimate, then attack someone else's. If you say "It will cost £1000 for me to rebuld my garden shed" and I laugh and say "Don't be ridiculous, that's far too low", if , after the obvious follow-up of "Well, what will it cost then?" my answer is "Emm, no idea, but it will be more than that" then that is utterly without credibility. If ShedsRUs have stated the £1000 is ridiculously low there is no need for you to come up with your estimate to retain credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 The software required to administer pensions and benefits. The revenue service software. Two examples for you, which should be obvious to anyone with the slightest understanding of these areas who is approaching the subject objectively. Can you provide evidence that this software will be a new purchase for an iScotland and that it will cost in excess of £200m? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Can you provide evidence that this software will be a new purchase for an iScotland and that it will cost in excess of £200m? Dont hold your breath. He just makes statements then disappears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tio Pepe Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 I used to work on HMRC's IT contract. The software is already there. Software which belongs to the UK. As that is part of the institutional fabric of the UK it will remain under their ownership should Scotland secede. So it may be there but it will continue to be used by HMRC. The revenue service of an independent Scotland will have to sort themselves out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tio Pepe Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Dont hold your breath. He just makes statements then disappears. Can you provide evidence that I just make statements and disappear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Software which belongs to the UK. As that is part of the institutional fabric of the UK it will remain under their ownership should Scotland secede. So it may be there but it will continue to be used by HMRC. The revenue service of an independent Scotland will have to sort themselves out. I'll ask again. Can you supply evidence which shows it will cost in excess of £200m? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Software which belongs to the UK. As that is part of the institutional fabric of the UK it will remain under their ownership should Scotland secede. So it may be there but it will continue to be used by HMRC. The revenue service of an independent Scotland will have to sort themselves out. oh thats nice that means we have part paid for it,which in turn means we own some of the systems down in ruk,so what are the start up costs of the ruk going to be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.