Indyref Part 4

[SantanaLopez]

Evening all :)

That was in response to the responses I had when I said that BOS, WFI, NC were some of my sources. I never claimed they were neutral but was jumped on for answering a question about sources.

Therefore my point about the biased BBC being quoted as a source was entirely reasonable in the context of the whole conversation.

Just as a reference based on quoted GDP Scotland would slot in between Pakistan and Israel. Hovering around 43/44 in world rankings. Sunnier perhaps. rUK wouldnt move from current position.

Source: UN ranking of countries by GDP.

What have I stumbled into today?

I thought this was pretty mean:

"Weatherall and DeeDee you have both ably confirmed the stereotype of the average yes voter - not very bright and blinded by Braveheart propaganda"

I think we can all agree that different people, from different backgrounds and contexts, with different qualifications and levels of education can all still have different opinions on this issue.

There's a spectrum of views and neither side has a monopoly on kindness, intelligence, optimism or rationality.

Hold on - the BBC - is a lot more neutral than some of the other sources you have quoted. They are required to give similar airtime to all sides and reference their data sources or rightly apportion them to who quoted them.

Just because you don't agree with it - doesn't make it untrue. They are required by their charter to be unbiased - if you have any evidence that this is not the case - raise it and it will be addressed. If you can give us an example - happy to raise it with them myself.

Is that GDP per capita, Odd?

nominal.

based on OECD estimates and current population in Scotland - it would be 20,166 International dollars (or SDR from my old monetary IMF days) per capita. 51st. Below Trindad and Tobago but above Gabon. A lot of Oil and other sources of income but still quite a large population not economically active. Qatar has a small population and lot of money

Just that if you look at their GDP/GDI per capita then the difference between Isreal and Pakistan is 34210/1380 so it's not a very useful or convincing comparison.

The point is you're not reading neutral or better together sources. Unlike all the no voters who have read the white paper.

Btw I corrected a yes voter - I won't name, it wasn't you weatherall who claimed that there are 33 Scottish seats in Westminster when there are actually 52 seats. The correction wasn't acknowledged.

The really annoying thing is AS and co deliberately mislead in their anwers to questions. Eg AS quoting the projected oil turnover in reply to a comment about revenue , hoping that the electorate will go away with the wrong idea that there is £1.5 trillion of revenue in oil to be made in the next thirty years.

He is the worst offender I've seen for shouting over people. I know the referendum isn't a vote for AS, but he is influencing people by deceiving them.

my numbers are all debatable - but the best i have - having said that depends on population versus economically active. The figure could easily be double that or half :-)

The point is that oil doesn't equal instant economic success. Ask the Venezuelans how having the largest oil reserves in the world is working out for them.

Crisedye - don't disagree with your analysis at all - I was looking at whole economy sizes.

I stand corrected re largest wind farm in Scotland. But the new offshore wind farms are, as far as I know mostly in the north of Scotland. The wind farm off Caithness should create much more energy than the sight just south of Glasgow - but it will have to be transported a long way.

Is that onshore only, odd?

Also, if 20166 is accurate that would put Scotland 33rd. Not 51st.

Site - not sight. Sorry. Though it is an impressive sight.

Am back from school run and was going to leave the thread but had to answer sallyingforth's suggestion that I read Adam Smith and also the intimation that Yes voters are dim.

I have a first class degree in history and a PhD. I have written a book (not that interesting a one, mind). I have also read most of Adam Smith because I am an eighteenth century historian. What Adam Smith wrote was revolutionary in the eighteenth century - but he did not provide the "answer" to how economies should work. Subsequent to his free market point of view, Karl Marx came along and wrote another definitive work on capitalism that completely disagreed with Smith's take on markets (benign invisible hand etc). Sure, the twentieth century saw the triumph of the "market" as an actor, but this doesn't mean that Keynsian economics or Marxist opinions are "wrong" - they are just out of fashion with most mainstream economists who advise governments.

Criseyde - according to IMF 20166 puts them as i stated - World Bank and CIA slightly different.

Though my figures are adjusted via the PPP basis.

Karl Marx's approach is out of favour mostly because it has been shown to work less well than the "market".

So i would say for my intents and purposes he was wrong

I'm new to this thread, but I don't know if that's totally fair. Everyone here is busy with other stuff, and a couple of other new posters over the past few days have been put out that they didn't get immediate responses to their questions. We're all just shooting the shit here right? Most (none?) of us are policy makers and none of us would claim to be accountable for either campaign, or the claims of any particular party.

There's an ebb and flow to all online conversation, and I'm not sure it's fair to say that people are running away, or disappearing, because they're not participating as and when conversation demands.

Anyway, with that I am going to try and keep offline for a bit.

Criseyde - spot on - i dip in an out and disappear for weeks at a time and then pitch in. I try and keep my economic analysis neutral. But for the record i am in the no camp.

And it isnt about fear of the unknown - much of the answers to the difficult questions are known and have been answered. not all of the answers are welcome or pleasant.

Not a Yes thicko either btw, sociology degree, diploma & degree in nursing & a M Sc in Gerontological Nursing from Trinity.
I'm dipping in & out as in between child related stuff, working shifts & out campaigning I just get time for a quick post.

Criseyde, I agree my comment was quite mean. In my defence, I am very frustrated that none of the yes people will answer serious questions/points/arguments. In the face of something they don't know the answer to, or don't know enough to counter, they disappear, only to pop up a bit later telling me that I am just scared of the unknown.

I only come on at work (when I can in between doing what needs done), and probably haven't answered a lot of general questions and ones directed at me because the thread moves so fast and I don't tend to read every single page from when I last posted. I try to when I can, though.

If you have any unanswered questions I would answer them just now, although I'm not an expert on a lot of the things being discussed, I can at the very least give you a 'Yes' point of view. :) There are a lot of posters who are very knowledgeable on certain things, like the financial side of the debate, I reckon they'd be able to give better answers on economy-based questions.

A few pages back you were telling us all about the benefits of hard work and study, Cordelia!

I really am away now...

In your case it certainly didn't give you good manners.