I do understand how the NHS is funded, and so do the IFS..
http://www.theguardi...-fiscal-studies
Posted 15 September 2014 - 11:04 AM
Posted 15 September 2014 - 02:02 PM
Posted 15 September 2014 - 02:06 PM
The demographics don`t show much difference between Scotland and rUK over next 5 years (starting to be a gap by 10 years). The IFS report was generated using ONS2010 and published about a week before ONS released 2012 figure. The IFS never updated it to reflect the much more optimistic ONS2012 figures - but they did update it to reflect a new, more pessimistic, OBR forecast for oil revenues.
Posted 15 September 2014 - 02:23 PM
IFS gets all of its data from the OBR. Its basically a mouthpiece for UK Gov.
You are wrong.
Please show me where this comes from? Of course you have elected (as you ALWAYS do, because you have no real response) to quote a commentor (lets not worry about what the Oxford Professor - a Tory, obv's) who clearly has a bias.
As the author of that article points out, both the OBR and the IFS (to perhaps a greater extent) are fully independant and impartial organisations, who would lose any credibilty if they were found to be politically linked or biased.
Nationalist wishful, head-in-the-sand, thinking at it best there Scott...
"You can take a nationalist to information, but you can't make him think.."
But hey, there's much more important issues at hand for Team Scotland at this crucial stage, such as moaning about BBC bias..
Posted 15 September 2014 - 02:28 PM
Posted 15 September 2014 - 02:46 PM
Well, naturally pro-Union supporters are going to have positive thoughts on the likes of the OBR and IFS, because it supports their ascertion that its economically within our interests to maintain the union. Where you are coming from, is that you believe that they directly influence these organisations, which is something else entirely, but fits in with the eternal paranoia of the nationalists.. Regardless, the numbers are there for all to see.
I posted that source as the blog is by someone who is neutral (or claims to be), and he has made an assessment of the case, not as someone bias saying the same stuff.
I get a tad frustrated because I try to present people with logic and factual assessment and they, because they have been programmed, write it off as inaccurate, biased, or just plain wrong. Its the head-in-the-sand stuff that's frustrated me from day one, not that people may vote one way or the other..
I think this is the time to be unsettled, and I hope most voters are unsettled and unsure, as that's they only way they will get closer to the right decision, either way.
Posted 15 September 2014 - 04:47 PM
Posted 15 September 2014 - 06:58 PM
Posted 15 September 2014 - 07:15 PM
Posted 15 September 2014 - 11:11 PM
You have no vote. Your English in England mate. I'm a Scot in England and have no vote either. Roll on Thursday.........I voting with what ever Rudy goes with LOL
Posted 16 September 2014 - 06:46 AM
I WANT A VOTE,
Posted 16 September 2014 - 07:44 AM
Posted 16 September 2014 - 10:02 AM
One thing crossed my mind (short trip, past porn etc) last night... If it goes Yes, will half of the population leave scotland?
Posted 16 September 2014 - 10:13 AM
When did we get consulted on Westminster agreeing to spend rUK money on buying a no vote?
This is getting ridiculous now, I hope scotland leaves before we get relegated from being scotlands poodle to its turd....
Posted 16 September 2014 - 10:14 AM
Also, we should stop calling it rUK, its not reduced... its still the UK regardless of who is/isnt in it.
Posted 16 September 2014 - 10:15 AM
Posted 16 September 2014 - 10:23 AM
Cutoff Up North Tribe of Scotland ok for you lot?
Posted 16 September 2014 - 11:00 AM
Shetland News says YES http://www.shetnews....to-independence
Herald says no:
http://www.heraldsco...-of-sc.25295912
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users