RiG Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Is this an attempt at banter? If so it's absolutely shite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 The replies to this thread are stereotypical. Realise this and save some embarassment. I have my eye on you Scothmist trying to change your approach. Card. Marked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well Well Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 I have my eye on you Scothmist trying to change your approach. Card. Marked. exactly what I was thinking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 What shortfall compared to what forecasts? The made up figures from the OBR. The made up figures from oil and gas UK? The made up figures from the Wood report. The different made up figures quoted by sir Ian Wood recently? The made up figures used in the white paper. The made up figures from some other source? All forecasts are notoriously inaccurate. The only thing we know for sure is that unless they're really lucky, none of the forecasts will be correct. The Scottish Government's own figures for actual revenues. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0045/00451335.pdf The report also forecasts future revenues using various scenarios for future production, oil prices and oil revenues - unfortunately when one looks at planned expenditure in iScotland it is using the most optimistic of these scenarios - hence the almost £4 billion overestimate of oil revenues for 2013/14 by the Scottish Government last year. HMRC have also published the actual revenues for 2013/14 - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/323371/140620_UK_oil_and_gas_tables_for_publication_in_June_2014.pdf As I will continue to say - the SG do themselves or the Yes campaign no favours with plans that use the most optimistic scenarios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 They have. And they embarrassed themselves in the process. Amazing how Sir Ian Wood changes his mind when he gets a whiff of an ermine cloak or is considering fracking licenses, isn't it? I don't particularly think they have used it that much - there's been much more about the overall reserves than the actual revenue figures. BT seem to have missed the point that the reserves figure is actually a complete irrellevance in the debate. It's not the amount of oil that's available to be extracted that's an issue (Woods himself has said the same) but the SG's own economic forecasts that rely on the most optimistic of oil revenue forecasts. Danny Alexander did raise the issue belatedly yesterday - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11065077/Salmond-attacked-as-North-Sea-oil-revenue-plummets.html - the article says HMRC published the figures yesterday - in fact they were published in June - maybe it's his glacial thinking that's caused the delay in attacking. I spoke to my brother about this only the other day - he works as an IT consultant in the oil industry and is also very active in the Yes campaign. He agreed that the budgetary forecasts don't help Yes because they open up a line of attack - he was particularly scathing of John Swinney who he described as the "Invisible Man" of the Yes campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRob72 Posted September 2, 2014 Author Share Posted September 2, 2014 No3 - are you serious, You can't find a reason to link Rangers and all it stands for to a unionist agenda. You also completely missed the hint at a Rangers fan joking about anyone else's finances when your club is a debt ridden hole that purposely avoided paying its PAYE tax and all its creditors. It has had 3 years in the lower reaches to sort out its finances and still can't do it. Those in glass houses and all that. You sure your a Rangers fan.? So by association, being a Rangers supporter excludes me from comment on Public expenditure does it? Does that also include fans of every other sporting institution in Scotland that have experienced past financial difficulties in the same way then? How about people who have previously supported or perhaps invested in Companies who have hit hard times financially, or worked at a failed bank?? Should they pay for their misjudgment with no influence on this vote? What about people who have made a mess of their own personal finances? Should they also be denied a view point? I’m not lecturing anyone, but you are discounting an awful lot of people there? You stick to your Rangers hating obsession pal, my club have got f*ck all to do with this debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Bystander Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 2) No, I'm not much of a comedian,I'll leave that to others on here, it was perhaps supposed to be tongue in cheek, but not an attempt to be funny. Oh, now, you do yourself a disservice. I actually find humour in the majority of your posts whether you intend it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRob72 Posted September 2, 2014 Author Share Posted September 2, 2014 Oh, now, you do yourself a disservice. I actually find humour in the majority of your posts whether you intend it or not. I know my limits!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jehova Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 I have my eye on you Scothmist trying to change your approach. Card. Marked. I bet "Scothmist" is reading this and laughing at you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkoRaj Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 As I will continue to say - the SG do themselves or the Yes campaign no favours with plans that use the most optimistic scenarios. Why not? They're trying to win a referendum. Why do you continue to bleat on about high forecasts from SG when the UKg is going in the exact opposite direction. The SNP have always said they will use conservative estimates and contribute to an oil fund when these are exceeded. Anyone with half a brain cell knows that it will be somewhere in between once the referendum has been won or lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tam M Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Just seen this thread. You actually wasted time writing that shite up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killie Zenit Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Why bring my football team into it, what has my support for Rangers got anything to do with this? Maybe nothing, maybe everything - it really depends on how much of a slobbering, WATP dingbat you are in real life. Since I don't know you, I'll reserve judgment on that. It is, however, objectively funny when Rangers fans make any projections about the future that don't include contingencies for them sitting on a bench in Bellahouston Park, sobbing uncontrollably into a poke of chips, and screaming for Wattie every Saturday afternoon while everyone else is having fun watching their no-deid team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milhouse Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Just didn't read lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRob72 Posted September 2, 2014 Author Share Posted September 2, 2014 Maybe nothing, maybe everything - it really depends on how much of a slobbering, WATP dingbat you are in real life. Since I don't know you, I'll reserve judgment on that. It is, however, objectively funny when Rangers fans make any projections about the future that don't include contingencies for them sitting on a bench in Bellahouston Park, sobbing uncontrollably into a poke of chips, and screaming for Wattie every Saturday afternoon while everyone else is having fun watching their no-deid team. Predicatable & tedious, what the f*ck are you doing in Bellahouston Park, whilst your team are at home anyway? For the last time, what has anyone's decision on the vote have to do with the football team they support? Give it a rest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Bystander Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Yeah, but Rob, we still don't know if you think Salmond is fat or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRob72 Posted September 2, 2014 Author Share Posted September 2, 2014 Why is that another obsession of yours CB? I just don't understand why you keep posting that line, sorry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Bystander Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Why is that another obsession of yours CB? I just don't understand why you keep posting that line, sorry! I think it's essential that all satirical material that supports the union describes the rotundity of Alex Salmond, it's not complete otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 I think it's essential that all satirical material that supports the union describes the rotundity of Alex Salmond, it's not complete otherwise. I'm nearly convinced that Salmond is fat, but am still awaiting the OP's opinion on the age of his wife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bar78 Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Surely the most obvious flaw in the OP was that the FM would have to go to the Bank of England to borrow money. The scottish treasury would borrow directly from international bond markets, probably having to stick within a deficit range agreed by both parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 I'm nearly convinced that Salmond is fat, but am still awaiting the OP's opinion on the age of his wife. She's really old. In actual fact, I think her advanced years are commensurate with Alec Salmond's burdgeoning waistband. In a nutshell, he's fat and she's auld. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.