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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Compare the two accounts. The UK Accounts and the Scottish Account, Not perfect but shows the trend. How Westminster spends Scottish revenues. The wasteful projects. Wasteful all round. The amounts raised in Scotland. The amounts raised in the UK. The borrowings etc.
The bid by Westminster to try and hid figures. Brexit etc. Military spending. Not beneficial. Wasted contracts. It all adds up to £Billions. With Scotland paying to much for stuff it does not need and not having enough to spend on alternatives it does need. To boost the growth and prosperity Scotland does need.
On average Scotland raises £80Billion +. The UK raises £600Billion. Proportionately less than Scotland. Take £80Billion from £600Billion = £520Billion. Divide by 10. Scotland 1/11 of UK population. = £52Billion. Westminster borrows on average £200Billion a year. Spends a disproportionately amount in the rest of the UK. On average £100Billion. Scotland cannot borrow and loses £10Billion, by comparison. Scotland has to pay back payments for loans not borrowed or spent in Scotland but elsewhere in the UK.
Scotland pays too much for the military. £5Billion. UK spend £55Billion. £Billions wasted on contracts ordered, but never delivered. On to the next contract. Repeat. Not good value. 180,000 military personnel. 10,000 based in Scotland. (8,000 less proportionately). Trident waste of monies putting Scotland in danger! Without consent.
Brexit Scotland lost £Billions. In trade, shared Defence, Cap etc. Scotland did not vote for Brexit. Scotland in surplus and nearer the source, pays more. Westminster policy. No parity.
LikeLike
@ # fuel and energy
LikeLike
this would make sense if it wasn’t for the fact that on the day the GERS figures were released he (I) repeated that same claim (because it remains true) – perhaps reading the first paragraph of my latest article will help you understand what you so far appear to have been incapable of grasping:
“The GERS report can’t tell us what an independent Scotland’s fiscal position would be – that would depend on the tax and spending decisions it would choose to and/or be forced to make. What the GERS figures do show us, however, is by how much Scotland’s fiscal position would need to improve (compared to its “current constitutional arrangements” levels of tax and spend) to achieve fiscal sustainability.”
https://gers-explorer.com/insights/what-closing-scotlands-deficit-would-take
LikeLike
Oh my.
“what you so far appear to have been incapable of grasping“
Also on ‘X’ your response to this article via your comment that began with this :
” I appreciate basic comprehension may be beyond you“
How condescending are you.
Hence why we , on here and also elsewhere, do not take a blind bit of notice to anything you either say or write.
Draw another graph , you know you want to.
LikeLike
well if i were to repeated use your name and misrepresent what you’d said, you might adopt a similar tone – but the you hide behind anonymity, so I cant can i (also: i wouldn’t because that would be a dickish thing to do)
also: for somebody who is not taking a “blind bit of notice” of what i say, you have a strange way of showing it
LikeLike
Triggered much ?
You have a nice day now, you hear.
By Anonymous (the non “dickish” one).
LikeLike