By Liz S
Kevin Hague has had a lot to say on the recent released GERS figures via his ‘X account , that is in him discrediting anyone who argues that it is not an honest reflection on the reality of Scotland’s finances as a future independent country.
Indeed in respect to Richard Murphy arguing that “”Scotland is deliberately having costs dumped on it by Westminster in a way that is entirely unreasonable”
Hague’s response to that was this:
“a quick watch and i counted at least 8 massive factual errors and/or idiotic statements – is it worth me writing them up or does this just increase the influence of this gibbering idiot“?
However in 2017 , when pressed , on BBC Radio Scotland Kevin Hague conceded that:
“GERS can’t tell us what an independent Scotland would look like. That is of course absolutely true“.
Now it seems Hague resorts to name calling as “When the debate is lost, insults become the loser’s tool“.
I think the 2026 Kevin Hague should remember what the 2017 Kevin Hague once said about GERS and an independent Scotland, though as he obviously does not (deliberately) want to recall what he said back then, well I thought that I would.
Perhaps he could do more graphs , though I read a quote about misleading data that stated “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure” in respect to “graphs can show anything you want (them to show)”.
Also pertinent is this quote for individuals like Kevin:
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”.
All of course dependent on who is presenting the figures , graphs and statistics.
Like for example someone who once conceded in the past that their usual and current ongoing argument on GERS figures relating to Scotland was flawed , as it did not represent or reflect what an independent Scotland “would look like” ((i.e. their usual and current ongoing argument being that Scotland was an economic and financial basket case).
Hague is another one whose arguments against Scottish independence are hugely compromised by his very public opposition to Scottish independence.
So then his futile efforts to try to try to stop Scottish independence happening , are for him and others like him, a total waste of his and their time, as one cannot stop that which is inevitable (that is eventually).
Also the quote from the 2017 Hauge and the opposing arguments (quotes) from the 2026 Hague exemplify that he is yet another one caught out by his own duplicity.
Liz S
Discover more from Talking-up Scotland
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Talking-up Scotland 
Murphy’s argument demonstrates why the independence debate needs two sets of numbers, not one.
1. What is Scotland’s fiscal position inside the UK?
GERS addresses that. We may argue about some of the assumptions, and its origins in the 1990s, but Scottish Governments do not disassociate from the analysis. Maybe they should in future in order to move this debate on?
2. What would Scotland’s fiscal position be outside the UK?
That’s the estimated calculation Murphy says matters, but his articles and videos never try to provide it.
I accept if we were facing another referendum or at least a far more mature debate on Scotland’s options, we’d expect a sort of “white paper” attempting to answer that second calculation.
Professor Murphy’s evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee on 19 September 2017, during its inquiry into Scottish economic data,
as set out in the official Scottish Parliament transcript, contains the following passage.
(Murphy was being questioned by Jackie Baillie about his claim that GERS understated Scottish revenue. He was asked how large the correction might be.)
Murphy replied that, based on his proposed accounting approach, it might amount to “a couple of percentage points or so of the stated Scottish deficit”, but then explicitly qualified this by saying:
“we are using estimates and very rough-and-ready stuff that was done on the basis of blogging, not on the basis of doing a lot of deep searching. I am not pretending that I have done that.”
That is, in my view, one of the weaknesses in his argument.
He is very good at demonstrating that GERS isn’t an independence prospectus.
He is less good at demonstrating what his preferred alternative or a researched “white paper” could produce as a different, hopefully better, fiscal position for Scotland.
LikeLike