The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

The other kind of money

Posted on February 08, 2015 by

Still confused about the difference between an “oil fund” and a “resilience fund”, folks?


So were we, but no longer. We’ve had a breakthrough.

It came in the form of a letter from Labour MP Ian Davidson to an alert constituent this week, which cleared the matter up once and for all. We reproduce it in full below.


If you can’t be bothered clicking to read the graphic, here’s the key text:

“The SNPs proposal was to establish an oil fund, paid for out of oil revenue. Since this revenue  cannot be spent twice, it would have to be switched away from existing public spending.

The proposal for a resilience fund would be to have an amount of money laid aside for use in crises, such as that affecting the jobs all across the north east of Scotland at the present time.

Labour’s proposal is that a resilience fund should be paid out of the additional money which will flow to Scotland this year, under the Barnett Formula, which funds Scottish public expenditure at a much higher rate than the rest of the UK.

Thus, unlike the oil fund, the resilience fund would not require cuts to public expenditure or substantial additional borrowing. It would be available out of the bonus we receive for being part of the United Kingdom.”

So we all clear? We COULDN’T have an oil fund from oil money, because that has to be spent on services. But a resilience fund comes out of the block grant, which is the money Scotland gets from Westminster to, um, spend on services. So that’s, er, completely different. Apparently.

(Barnett money is magical and special, of course, because it represents a free and generous £1200-per-head subsidy from England to Scotland, and all we do to deserve this “bonus” is send £1700 per head more to London in tax. Mostly from, um, oil.)


Wait, we might just need to read that one through again. Give us a minute.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

3 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 08 02 15 18:08

    I am left wondering – do they think we are idiots or are they in fact the idiots.

  2. 08 02 15 18:44

    The other kind of money - Speymouth

  3. 09 02 15 10:32

    The other kind of money | Politics Scotland | ...

256 to “The other kind of money”

  1. scotsbob says:

    Sounds like Baillie and Davidson have been caught over a barrel

  2. blackhack says:

    If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…..It must be a ?????

  3. Iam Scott says:

    I am left wondering – do they think we are idiots or are they in fact the idiots.

    It is looking increasingly like the latter!

  4. Qsilverfox says:

    Is that “bayonet the wounded” Davidson?
    Another intellectual giant of SLab ????????

  5. Lanarkist says:

    Hang on a minute, I am still rereading that statement. Nope still not got it!

    Is he saying that oil flows into Scotland and is spent on services so it is already allocated but we can’t use Barnett for those services?

    Is he saying that we could slice Barnett to save some for a rainy day without cutting services because we cover with them with oil money?

    Sorry still not getting it it.

    Can the alert reader get back in touch with him and request a plain logic response please!

  6. Rosa Alba says:

    I am so sick of the duplicity – the outright policy-thieving lies, the ignoring fact lies, the twisting overt truths lies (yes, YOU, Margaret Curran – and others).

    I am sick too of the finance system of this country (and the world) that is something based on something based on very little: really a house of cards and all the treasury reserves in the world would not balance the credit/debits of imagined money.

    This divvying up sums and incomes into boxes/funds does not really mean anything. It is money that needs laid aside from whatever source.

    I also do not think we should be exploiting North Sea Oil at anything but the most basic level, far less developing new fields.

    Wave power, tidal power.

  7. Martin says:

    I’m confused.

  8. Andrew Haddow says:

    I’m sure I read somewhere that the extra funding Scotland gets via Barnett reflects our extra contributions via the oil revenues.

  9. annie says:

    Beats me how people like him manage to get elected in the first place, oh yes forgot, red rosette/donkey.

  10. Hoss Mackintosh says:

    Oh No – I hope the Telegraph, Mail and Express do not pick up on this.

    The English are paying for a resiience fund to help out poor Aberdeen – The richest part of the UK outside London and the South-East.

    This pooling and sharing is great but I do not think it will go down too well in England?!

  11. jimnarlene says:

    But, but, wait. You still can’t spend money twice, be it from oil or the pittance we get back from Westminster. It is still better coming from oil, which is a bonus.
    They really do think, the electorate button up the back.
    Scotland needs rid of these lying, self important, shysters.

  12. Johnny says:

    The ‘bonus we receive’? Does he mean the share of added debt that no-one asked them to borrow? Doesn’t that, or at least hasn’t it, involved ‘substantial borrowing’? I notice the sneaky use of ‘additional’ as well.

  13. Nuada says:

    They don’t do shame, do they?

  14. Grouse Beater says:

    Morons who think they are dealing with morons.

  15. Lollysmum says:

    You know what? By the day it’s becoming clearer that Scotland is being taken for a ride by Westminster & that situation is not going to change.

    It is now imperative that SNP thrashes the living daylights out of Labour & the rest of Westminster’s troughers at the General Election.This is a case of what’s yours is mine & what’s mine is my own. Oil is funding UK services so Scotland has to find it’s money for supporting oil jobs elsewhere. Typical but not unexpected. Without Scotland’s oil revenues UK is bankrupt so they won’t give it up.

    To listen to them, Scotland is awash with Barnett money. Labour knows it isn’t but it is Labour that put Scotland in this position. Do you need any more persuasion to vote them out completely? I’m sure I can guess the answer to that.

  16. This thread says there are 4 posts! Where are they?

    Funny money from Labour accounting dept.

  17. heedtracker says:

    But a resilience fund comes out of the block grant, which is the money Scotland gets from Westminster

    Davidson thinks his voters are morons, anyway its what we pay THEM year in year out, then they decide what we need and back up what’s left it comes Barnett style, deducting their UKOK horrifying national debt and deficit repayment for starters and then they get to call Scots scroungers and on it goes in teamGB land.

  18. @PI3GUB says:

    Does a “short term difficulty” mean that it won’t be much of a fund? Or does he allude to the fact that once the US and Saudi stop messing around with the markets the oil price will recover and there’ll be no need for a “fund”??

  19. Marcia says:

    His letter is mince. I get the feeling that a lot of these Labour MP’s will be sectioned before long.

  20. Findlay Farquaharson says:

    loathesome hateable thuggish bastard

  21. west_lothian_questioner says:

    Dear constituent,

    slavery pish waffle bollocks and disconnected gabble poop. We have no bananas, but its going to be alright as we have new coconuts on order.
    Pish slaver, waffley baws, euphemistical booboo and furthermore the SNP are not nice,

    yours insincerely
    Any Labour Politician

  22. Tam Jardine says:

    The idea that the Scottish treasury should divert funds into a resilience fund without receiving the tax revenues from the oil is absurd.

    I know Scotland’s largesse has been amply demonstrated over the years, but surely this philanthropy has limits.

    Why don’t we bung a few quid into Norway’s oil fund while we are at it?

  23. Clootie says:

    …they do think we are stupid!

  24. Helena Brown says:

    Funny we were just saying this morning that God save us from these idiots, mind I think they give idiots a bad name. Please never let this present batch ever near government in Scotland, we will be back in the stone age before we know it.

  25. Macart says:

    Labour weapons grade fuckwittery and duplicity.

    Confusion over.

  26. RogueCoder says:

    SLAB also attacked the SNP last month for er, doing exactly this. The Scottish Government underspent their budget in 2013/14 – BECAUSE IT HAD TO, it is not allowed to go into the red – and Labour whipped up a pile of hysteria about the SNP not spending £444m on public services. EXCEPT it wasn’t £444m, because as we know, SLAB have all the budget management and accounting skills of a dead dung beatle, and the ‘underspend’ was actually £145m. Just 0.5% of the total budget as it turns out.

  27. jason hoffman says:

    Are the figures in the table above broken down further? What do the other revenues represent?

    Where does the data come from?

  28. Helena Brown says:

    West Lothian Questioner, they will be asking you to write their manifesto next….

  29. george says:

    oh what fun i shall have

  30. Helena Brown says:

    Emm Question and I am sure there is an answer, Why did J McConnell send 1.50billion back to Westminster when it could have been put into the bank and used for just such an emergency, or even dualling the A9.

  31. Paula Rose says:

    Oh well let’s just make it easy for everyone – we’ll do our thing they can do theirs.

  32. badgerboydarling says:

    Nobody does stupid quite like Labour and their north british minions.

  33. Doug Daniel says:

    So basically, it comes down to the usual:

    SNP proposal – BAD.
    Labour proposal – GOOD.

  34. Gavin Alexander says:

    The fact that escapes Ian Davidson is that THIS is the time that we would be using money from an oil fund, not saving it, as he suggests. If we already had an oil fund, we would save when oil revenues are high and use when oil revenues are low. Now they are low.

    It may well be that Ian Davidson is not as stupid as he appears, in that he is trying to confuse his correspondent. However, he has failed, and therefore is.

  35. HandandShrimp says:

    So a resilience fund has nothing to do with Scotland or the Scottish Government but is in fact a gift from Westminster to help assuage the moans of the Scots…..or something.

    This is either a variant of too wee, too poor, too stupid or some sort of weird voodoo economics.

  36. Sorry guys, that was one of ours.

    Hang on, no it wasn’t.

    Oh dear, I’m finding this all rather confusing.

  37. Donald MacKenzie says:

    Now, come on Credit where credit’s due. That is a clear sign of one helluva imagination. Which of you could have dreamt that one up? See, none of you.

  38. Lanarkist says:

    Gorgeous present wrapped in SNP paper = yeuch!

    Gorgeous identical present wrapped in SLab paper = ooh lovely!

    Swap present for any variable, voila, SLab policy.

  39. Chitterinlicht says:

    ‘The bonus we receive’

    Thank you sir
    Three bags full sir
    Bow down to your imperial master

    No ta

  40. Stoker says:

    @ Helena Brown (5.56pm),

    Spooky or what?
    You snatched the thought right out of my head.

    Offy expensive price tag for a fancy title and matching outfit.

    BTW, isn’t it grand being a subsidy junkie, eh!

  41. george says:

    been trying to work this out and finally got it: it’s not an oil fund it’s a “let’s look like we’re ripping off the english” fund. cnuts.

  42. Paula Rose says:

    I’m an English Scot –
    Do Ukish types call themselves Scottish Youkay?
    Or Scottish Engels?

  43. Andy-B says:

    Jesus Christ, is Ian Davidson for real? do politicians of the Labour Scottish branch, not think before opening their mouths.

    Davidson and Baillie’s idiotic gaffs remind me of the Labour idiot, at FMQ’s,who asked where the money would come from to set up and oil fund.

    Meanwhile Jim Murphy is to start using the word YES, to promote Labour in Scotland, Murphy, thinks by adding the word YES to Labour somehow we’ll all vote for him, erm! I think not.

  44. BornOptimist says:

    Iam Scott says:

    “I am left wondering – do they think we are idiots or are they in fact the idiots.

    It is looking increasingly like the latter!”

    Ian, you’ve got it wrong. Intelligence is distributed in the population in an inverted U-shaped curve with a substantial proportion well below average. Murphy and Baillie know exactly what they are doing. They intend to appeal to idiots just willing to vote in the belief that they know best and don’t need to consider anything other than messages from Their Leader.

    There is also a substantial proportion of the population who never read anything other than newspaper headlines or think beyond TV news headlines – and guess who produces them on a daily basis. Anyone who buys The National print edition and travels by bus should leave their copies on the Metro shelf when they have finished with it. That might go some way to countering the MSM.

  45. HandandShrimp says:

    @ BBC Scotlandshire

    I don’t know how you guys keep tabs on what is yours and what is being produced by Murphy. Frankly, I think he is nicking your ideas.

  46. galamcennalath says:

    These people really must be made to collect their jotters in May.

    And, polls tell us one in five are still considering voting for them! Sigh!

  47. Davy says:

    Of course the Scottish Accounting Branch of Labour is led by that financial whizard the scottish shadow financial minister “Jackie boom boom Ballie”, whom our first minster Nicola Sturgen made an earse of just a couple of weeks back regarding her lack of financial knowledge, = zero.

    Ian Davidson’s explaination of the difference between an oil fund and a resilience fund is just laughable, and he’s just making it up on the spot, or he’s taking advice from Jackie Ballie.

    But we have to remember that labour MP’s & MSP’s do not regard lying as wrong, if they get caught at it they just ignore and carry on to the next heap of garbage they feel like shouting about.

    We have to vote the labour /red-torys out if we ever want to progress our country.

    Vote Scotland, Vote in Strength, Vote SNP.

  48. Helena Brown says:

    Stoker, it was one helluva price to pay for some wee furry animal on your collar, the captains of industry don’t even pay so much. He obviously wanted it sooo bad.

  49. Dr Ew says:

    Well, at least they’re not telling ludicrous pie-in-the-sky lies again.

    No siree.

  50. Dr Jim says:

    They better have resilient arses
    We’re about to scalp their Barnetts

  51. bjsalba says:

    As the UK is operating at a deficit, that is outgoings exceed incoming, the oil money is being used for current spending on welfare, trident, Crossrail etc etc etc.

    When the UK gets its spending to below the income without the oil taxes we can talk about oil funds, not before.

  52. john king says:

    Our cup runneth over.
    is he a pal of Jimmy hood?

  53. Marie clark says:

    Have to agree with Macart weapons grade fuckwittery and delusion.

    ‘the bonus we receive’,aaaargh! away you tae f…. and gie’s peace ya liebourite piece o’ crap.

    They really do think that that oor heid’s button up the back. They sooner we get rid, the better. I had to read that letter three times and it still disnae mak oany sense. It certainly makes the blood boil though.

  54. john king says:

    Paula Rose says
    “Oh well let’s just make it easy for everyone – we’ll do our thing they can do theirs.”

    You say tomato I say tomato
    lets call the whole thing off.

  55. Dr Jim says:

    What if we just pool their intestines out their arses and share them wae the dug
    I’m from Glasgow, do excuse me, i’ve no idea what couth is coz i’m certainly Un

  56. thomaspotter2014 says:

    This is just another disinformation tactic from Murphy/McTernan/McDougall/BTUK DESIGNED to confuse and manipulate-you’ve guessed it:
    “the 190,381 voters who backed Labour at the 2010 GE but who voted for independence at the referendum.
    A large proportion of these voters are believed to be males living in the west of Scotland
    The election in Scotland will be largely decided by that group of people,and the election in Scotland will decide the outcome across the UK,so they are the most important voters in the UK,this 190,381″(obviously Slab’s target audience)

    These ‘Broken Together’ bastards are now fighting likes ferrets in a sack for their,and their Establishments,right and proper entitlement to continue shitting on the good people of Scotland.

    These desperadoes are FOR EVERYTHING AND AGAINST EVERYTHING at the same time.

    Also from Murph at the The Sunday herald:
    “Party members (Slab) know that they are in the fight of their lives”
    Murphy admitted Labour was trying to revive memories of Margaret Thatcher,rather than focus on the current Tory PM(who’s got a higher rating than Milliband in Scotand)to avoid a ROUT!
    After previously arguing a vote for the SNP was a vote for Cameron,Murphy said the ‘message’ from now would be’Vote SNP get Tory’
    Murphy goes on to say-this is quite revealing-
    “It’s the same argument but our private focus groups show that the ‘Vote Tory’thing has a much greater resonance(with aforementioned target group?)
    Vote Tory resurrects the Memory of Mrs.Thatcher much more than David Cameron does,that’s the truth.(probably the only truthful thing Murphy’s said in his entire fcuking life!)
    As Thatcher quit Downing Street 25 years ago,it suggests a core vote strategy by Labour(they’re obviously on new ground-breaking territory!)

  57. Stoker says:

    Looks like Margaret Curran is backing Ian Davidson on this:

  58. Brian Doonthetoon says:

    Hi blackhack.

    You typed,
    “If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…..It must be a ?????”

    Which reminds me of the two questions I ask, to move the verbal action along, when there’s a lull in conversation in the pub.

    In each of them, think ‘oil/resilience fund’ when you read ‘duck’. For ‘leg’, think ‘funding’.

    Q1. What is the difference between a duck?
    A1. One of its leg is both the same.

    Q2. What is the difference between the other duck?
    A2. It has one leg less too many.

    I think that wraps it up.

  59. Philbers says:

    What really confuses me is why there is a link to a video on a printed letter? Or is this an email with a picture of a signature? My brain is exploding!!

  60. Aos says:

    I’d find all this hilarious if this fool wasn’t potentially going to help run the Union, for the next five years.

  61. K1 says:

    I’ve spent 10 minutes trying to understand this. I’m overstretching my own mental capacities to the limits of my sanity, I think I actually feel ‘insane’.

    On the premise that economics should be explained in such a way that a child of 10 can understand it, help me out and tell me is this what he’s saying:

    We give them a tenner they give us 8 quid back. That’s the essence of the formula in action. We spend that 8 quid on our services. The tenner we give them includes the revenues from our oil.

    So, a resilience fund is created from that 8 quid. But that’s the only 8 quid we have to fund all our services. Now part of it is to be used as a resilience fund. Well how do we maintain our present funding of our services then?

    Whereas an oil fund in an indy Scotland was posited as holding in reserve some of the profits from the oil revenue. As all our revenues would have stayed in Scotland, we would have the whole tenner which includes the oil, and when the price of the oil went up we would apportion some of that profit into an oil fund, so that when the price of the oil dropped we would have a cushion against any economic misfortune. The tenner would be all ours to spend as we wish, we would have far more than we do under the present set up. So we could afford our services much more comfortably.

    We wouldn’t have any formula as we would be economically self sufficient.

    Whereas Labour’s idea is to squeeze our spending capacity by using some of our allotted 8 quid as a resilience fund.

    But wouldn’t we then need to use our resilience fund immediately to shore up our spending deficit created by apportioning some of our spending money into a resilience fund?

    Have I understood this correctly? Or am I just too thick, if it’s the latter I may as well vote for them, as someone said above/other thread, jim’s got a lovely smile.

  62. Macart says:

    Full Fiscal Autonomy.

    The we’ll see who subsidises who chairchoob. 😉

  63. grahamlive says:

    This is doublethink worthy of Big Brother himself.

  64. gerry parker says:

    @ Helena Brown. 5:66
    He was buying his peerage with our dosh.

    The letter above is typical of a letter constructed by a minion, and signed off by an MP who actually thought it sounded good.

    West Lothian Questioner.
    Spot on, though some Labour MP’s would struggle to reach that level of quality.

    I’ve one in the pipeline to my (Labour) MP at the moment re “Home Rule”
    They’ll probably cut and paste your comment now and use it for their reply.

  65. Scott Mac says:

    Quick call Iain Gray! “where are we gonny get the money from for a fud fund…..from fuds says Iain Davidson! #labourfuds

  66. george says:

    people, apologies for the profane ad hominem attacks on slabbo policy makers, if they happen to offend you rather than the slabbo policy makers.

    if they didn’t come up with this by accident then it’s properly evil stuff.

    think about it: all the advantages of an oil fund, same money used, PLUS it provides endless ammunition for the torygraph, nazi, sexpress and whoever else wants to take a pop at “scrounging scotland” on a slow news day. then murphy gets to jump to the defence of “scottish interests”.

    am i overthinking this? i really hope it’s just incompetence, but . . .

  67. colin mccartney says:

    FFS – “davidson and Baillie caught over a barrel” – I’m having my dinner – what a horrible thought

  68. tombee says:

    Davidson and others in the Labour party have spouted this crap for years that Scotland is a benefit junky state, by promoting the Scotland gets more than they pay in, argument. There are those in Scotland who believe this rubbish. But many more in England too, as was witnessed in a recent BBC Question Time programme. Now from what we see laid out here, is a clear demonstration of Davidson’s undeniable attempt to fool the Scottish public in general and the alert reader in particular. The corrupted thinking of ‘Bayonet the wounded’ Davidson shows him for what he is, a duplicitous scoundrel, who is painfully short of the intelligence necessary to deceive without detection, but regardless, makes a vain attempt to do so.

  69. Famous15 says:

    Brent crude oil is back to over 60 dollars/b. I wonder what it will be in March2016.

    What is this March 2016?

    It would have been the date Scotland was to become independent but so many lies and terrors were dished out some of our elderly voted against it? Ding dang!

  70. Capella says:

    As in the previous thread comments and the Allan Massie piece in the Mail on Sunday calling us “Tartan Stalinists”. His son Alex Massie works for the Spectator whose Editor is calling for an attack on RT for it’s perceived media bias!

    ” ..we should be able to humiliate those channels and those people and the people who put them on, and the producers who put them on and push them out into the media fringes so they are no longer treated as real journalists and real programs but as cranks and propagandists.

    ..and there are things we can do on a regulatory side. We have a regulated media space. In my own country, Ofcom is complaining to RT about its lack of balance. So, there are things we can do”

    You may remember during the Referendum campaign the Spectator front page renaming Scotland “Skintland”.

    I don’t think anyone needs to take lectures from any British MSM propagandist. But Ofcom certainly should start using its regulatory regime at home.

  71. Craig P says:

    Right. So a resilience fund is to be paid out of from Barnett. Which is *less* than the money Scotland sends south. But that money being sent south – we can’t have that. It’s being spent on services.

    The only thing Iain Davidson is missing there is *where* the expenditure on services is happening. Clue – not Scotland.

  72. Alastair Campbell says:

    A fund taken direct from oil revenue(tax take) would reduce directly revenue to the treasury. Fund from Barrnett is taken from the Scottish Parliament budget with a reduced impact on the UK Treasury.

  73. Lochside says:

    He must have been sitting on one of his ‘bayonets’ when he wrote this shite. I just remembered who reminds me of the Thomson Twins out of Tin Tin..they were dimwits as well weren’t they?

  74. alexicon says:

    What the red tories fail to realise is that not all the jobs offshore are filled with north east of Scotland people.
    I estimate around 40% of all offshore jobs are filled with English and non UK inhabitants.
    So the red tories plan is that we have to subsidise non Scots in a job which effectively keeps home grown Scots out of a job?
    Sounds a sure fire winner to me.

  75. Stoker says:

    K1 says
    “as someone said above/other thread, jim’s got a lovely smile.”


  76. Anne says:

    Dear god and these people want to run the Scottish and Uk governments. Saints preserve us more the plummeting depths of ignorance within the liebour party!!!

  77. Legerwood says:

    This is woeful stuff. I do not know what is more woeful, the fact they spout this rubbish or they believe the rubbish they spout. Do they ever engage their brains before opening their mouths, or in this case, signing this letter.

    On the subject of oil, the Telegraph has an article today about the potential losses in North Sea revenue – £200bn – unless something is done urgently about the tax regime.

    No doubt much will be made about how this would have scuppered the SNP’s independence plans. But their sound and fury is more about deflecting attention from how serious this is for the UK as a whole.

  78. jimnarlene says:

    @K1, you don’t need to vote for them, you worked it out way better than those dolts, thought possible.

  79. terry says:


    This is the most irritating and pathetic lie they’ve come up with yet. Individuals who lie so blatantly in everyday life are on the anti-social personality disorder spectrum – and with the manipulation, exploitation, greed and ego the Labour party are displaying they are demonstrating clear signs of psychopathy.

    Let’s kick the Red Tory psychos out for good.

    Rant over. I’m off to cheer myself up with a wee giggle at Margaret Curran’s facebook page – the comments are hilarious.

  80. Michael says:

    It’s economic theory like this that got the UK into the financial mess created under labour and still hangs over us now

  81. caz-m says:

    I don’t know if this is from McTernan or not, but I have heard that they want to drop the name Jim Murphy and start calling him Alex Salmond, leader of “Yes for Labour”.

    Confused? So am I.

  82. Achnababan says:


    aaah.. nice one. For all Tin Tin fans out there lets try to match fit our favourite UKOK political comedians with the entire Tin Tin ensemble. I go first…

    Professor Calculus aka Prof Curtis
    Captain Haddock? – surely the bilious Cochrane of the Daily Torygraph?

    Any others? A prize will be awarded

  83. Mac an sealgair says:

    Correct me if Im wrong but werent these superior intelects slating the SNP for having money put aside for such events but aparently should have spent it on public services. And didnt Iain Grey do the same but decided to gift it back to Westminster instead.
    How long is it going to take for these fools to realise that they cant treat us with their arogant contempt and get away with it anymore. And they wonder why their support has evaporated. Duh!!

  84. Author_al says:

    I was chatting to my six year old about the importance of telling the truth, Having self worth, being kind and looking out for others, etc. Then I read this post and the duplicity of the Labour Party. In its quest for power, the red beast has lost its way. Lies and untruths are spouted with great regularity, distractions and red herrings are tossed at the public…and the notion of public service and moral self examination are lost. How these red tories can so brazenly peddle their lies is beyond me. I would cringe, knowing I am full of deceit and intend to deceive the electorate. When Jim Murphy worries about those in The Care system who have no one to read with them, I feel suspicious and see it as a cynical ploy to win over a certain demographic. I spent years in Care and the last thing I want is a politician to exploit my situation for his or her own ends. Depressing, isn’t it?

  85. Brian Macfarlane says:

    In the revenue charts for the UK and Scotland above can you tell us if Whisky duty is accounted for and where. I’m led to believe that as the Whisky leaves mainly from English ports and it is credited to the area of departure. That for instance meant last year c £500 million was accounted to Scotland and that much more, some £3200 million went to England. Bit strange that England produces more Whisky than Scotland any ideas on this?

  86. Jill P says:

    So let me get this straight.
    Oil comes out of the ground below the seabed in the North Sea.
    The oil companies pay tax on the money they earn from selling this oil.
    The government spend that tax on lots of lovely things that the whole of the UK want and need.
    They spend all the money so there is none left to save in an oil fund.
    Buuuuttttt, the government taxes lots of things. So if they don’t spend all the tax money from another source, that tax money could be used to build a Resilience Fund for when oil revenues drop.

    Have I got that right?

    Now wouldn’t it be so much easier to understand if the government didn’t spend all the oil revenues on lovely things that the UK wants and needs. They could create an oil fund which could be used when oil revenues are low.

    What’s that I hear you ask? But how would they pay for the other lovely things that UK wants and needs so desperately? Well, how about that lovely tax revenue that they have left from other taxes? You know, the revenue they say they could use for a Resilience Fund?

    NO! It can’t possibly be so simple. If it was so simple surely that’s what the government would do, and the Labour Party would understand that too, wouldn’t they?

  87. MJC says:

    Distain,distain and more lashings of distain!
    AH, so thats what they get paid for, hmmmmm summit not clicking here!

  88. Peekay says:

    Labour were complaining just last week that the SNP sitting on £140mil from our pocket money and wanting it spent

  89. Jill P says:

    No, I’ve got it wrong. I misread his “bonus” as meaning the nice kind government would give Scotland EXTRA money from these other taxes that we could use for a resilience fund.

    Back to the drawing board 🙁

  90. Ferncake says:

    Well Achnababan, my own MSP, the fragrant Jackie Baillie herself, would make a wonderful Madame Castafiore, the generously-upholstered diva who trills beautifully to very little effect.

  91. SqueuedPerspextive says:


    Is it true ?
    Is Eggs really now spelling his first name JaYmES ?

  92. Wp says:

    Pity nobody thought of keeping the £1.5 billion that Labour returned to Westminster that they didn’t use when they were last in power.

  93. Murray McCallum says:

    Well I guess that’s Ian Davidson attempt at getting Ed Balls’ job. It adds a new dimension to the strategy of copying economic policies while adding multiple layers of incoherence.

  94. HandandShrimp says:

    I think the Yes for Labour and Labour for Yes could confuse people and steer them to the SNP. W should help people in that direction 🙂

  95. Chic McGregor says:

    “I’m an English Scot –
    Do Ukish types call themselves Scottish Youkay?
    Or Scottish Engels?”

    Interesting question, I don’t know the answer. I know some people are happy to call themselves Asian-Scots or Scots-Asian or English/New Scots in Scotland.

    I think I’ve heard ‘English-Asian’ (or vice versa) used in England.

    I’ve heard of Scotch-Irish and Anglo-Irish but I do not think I’ve heard of anyone calling themselves Scotch-English or Anglo-Scots in England.

    If not, why not?

    Is it:
    Scots cannot bring themselves to being described as English even if the they live and plan to stay there?

    Or, is it

    Scots living in England who would perhaps like to be regarded as English fear rejection of such a claim?

  96. Lesley-Anne says:

    I used to think that it was US who were the idiots who did not understand the thinking behind the S.N.P.’s plan on an Oil fund and the idea of how Barnett works. 😉 However, I think I’ve just had a light bulb switch on sort of moment here. It is NOT us who hasn’t the foggyest how the S.N.P. Oil fund or Barnett works it is in fact those gormless, brainless, incompetent, ignorant, useless individuals who go under the misrepresentation that they are *ahem* intelligent individuals … a.k.a. Labour M.P.’s and M.S.P.’s. 😛

    Thank gawd I NEVER have to rely on ANYONE from Labour branch office to supply ANY answer to even the simplest of questions! 😀

  97. steveasaneilean says:

    I wish Labour would make uo their minds. First they criticise the Finance Minister for managing to save some money from his budget “for a rainy day”. Instead they want him to spend £100 million on the health service. But now they want to spend the same £100 million on a “resilience fund”. But at the same time they say oil money can’t be spent twice yet they expect Mr Swinney to do just that with his budget savings. How?

  98. Wuffing Dug says:

    Hypocritical, obsequious shite. Labour are in their kamikaze phase.

  99. handclapping says:

    @Wuffing Dug
    And there’s me thinking it was spelled Camikezia. Ah weel, live and learn on WoS

  100. Ealasaid says:

    O/T Post from Nicola Sturgeon on on proposed EVEL legislation. (Hope this works.)

  101. bookie from hell says:

    Michael Crick just tweeted

    Just arrived in Paisley. Looking for SNP’s 20-year old cand Mhairi Black. SNP being very protective. Anyone know where we might find her?

    bfh—what an idiot

  102. snode1965 says:

    I think we are underestimating the deviousness of Labour UK. Since the referendum vote Labour have been promoting universal policy across the whole of UK, for example Andy Burnham on NHS. They abhor the fact that the SNP provide services free of charge when they, a ” socialist ” party refuse to support it UK wide. Their goal is now to undermine Holyrood at every turn. By demanding that SNP should set aside monies from their budget to create this fund, the Labour parties intent is to make free education, health care etc. unaffordable. The sleekit Red Tory agenda is to attack Scotland for their Tory friends because we are a danger to the Neo Liberal Elite.

  103. Graeme Doig says:


    Might be The Great Murpho the Deceiver’s next trick. Pull the 1.5 billion out of a hat (the one they keep the rest of the money they steal from us) just to prove they love us really … Ta-da!
    Maybe not.

  104. JLT says:

    Oh jeez …Davidson been let loose again.

    He’s another one that should be hiding his head in shame!

    Hopefully, he’ll lose his seat come May.

  105. geeo says:

    A pal who voted No in the referendum, despite intense earache from me and lots of others, has come to me to say he is now ready to listen to the argument as he might be regretting it!

    He asked how the Barnett formula i kept it simple for him.

    You have £100 for your house budget, a guy shoves a gun in your face and demands all of your £100.
    Before he leaves he decides to give you back, say £65, and tells you he gave it back so you can pay your outgoings, despite not having the £35.
    The kick to the story is that you are then expected to thank him for his help.

    His reply was a bit colourful to say the least.

    We bloody told him this 100 times but sadly he was a ‘fingers in the ears’ unionist pre referendum, not so much now though.
    One more convert hopefully for SNP 2015..

  106. Wuffing Dug says:

    Hand clapping,
    Camikezia, I like that 🙂
    Can see Jim Murphy giving her the ceremonial drink of irn bru and affixing a union jack headband before she goes into the sp on another futile mission.

  107. Robert Kerr says:

    I read the letter twice and am still confused.

    I tried various sources to find out Davidson’s education and drew a blank.

    Really, Parliamentary and wiki do not mention anything. Not even his school.

    Not going to waste anymore time.

  108. Effijy says:

    Thanks Rev,

    How on earth did Scotland ever end up with morons like Davidson,
    Murphy and Curran? They are completely mindless idiots who treat the electorate with contempt.

    Smith seems to have agreed that Scotland cannot be financially better of after the referendum and Labour and Tory alike have passed a Bill for another £30 Billion of cuts, Yet somehow we are getting Bonus money that will make the oil companies of Aberdeen better off?

    Is this a script from a Marx Brothers Movie?

  109. Paula Rose says:

    @ Chic McGregor

    Yukkish Engels Surely.

  110. handclapping says:

    I know Scotland needs more people but do we really need the likes of Davidson, Curran, Hood etc, back? Couldn’t they all be ennobled en-bloc and left to rot in the Lords?

  111. Dave says:

    The difference is that an oil fund flows direct to Scotland’s coffers from Scotland’s resources. A resilience fund is processed by London and depends on the Barnett formula which they can manipulate to their heart’s content

  112. Macandroid says:

    Dr Jim

    That’s a terrible thing to do…

    to a dug 🙂

  113. Dave McEwan Hill says:

    I believe Davidson, despite representing Govan, is actually from the Borders

  114. Harry McAye says:

    Michael Crick is up in Paisley searching for a 20 year old lassie. Does Mrs Crick know?

  115. Robert Peffers says:

    @blackhack says: 8 February, 2015 at 5:24 pm:

    “If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…..It must be a ?????”

    Haud oan a meenit,blackhack, which o the twa, Baillie or Davidson, walks file a duck an which ain quacks like a Duck?

    Efter aa they baith look afu like twa ducks. Mind ane o thaim’s a Drake, but.

  116. Stoker says:

    @ geeo (9.02pm),

    Good news, hopefully, be sure to point him in this direction (WOS).
    To further enhance his education and bring him into the fold.

  117. Johnny says:

    K1@ 6:51

    The way I understand it is that he was trying to say there was extra coming from Barnett next year (though I suppose there should always be ‘more’ since the total amount spent each year must go up if public spending is going to keep pace with inflation). So, I read it as if he was saying we should keep this ‘extra’ as resilience money and keep public spending as it is.

    Only this will not work since, as you hit on yourself, public services would stagnate or get worse as spending levels were not being kept up, and you would probably have to dig in to this ‘extra’ anyway. I don’t claim to be an economics expert, but that’s my reading of it. I am also not convinced that I am any more of an economic illiterate than Ian Davidson MP if it comes right down to it.

  118. CameronB Brodie says:

    That is outragous brass-neckedness. How much does this balloon pocket each year?

  119. Proud Cybernat says:

    Jim Murphy–the man who can’t take “No” for an answer.

  120. Betsy says:

    I think I’ve got this. Labour want the SNP to have a resilience fund which they will then deny ever suggesting and go on to wail about the SNP hoarding money that could be spent on services.

  121. Bill Hume says:

    StevieMcB has it right….gaslighting (go look it up).

  122. Auld Rock says:

    As Homer might say, “Daaaaahhhhhh”, LOL.

    It gets better by the minute and they wonder why they are hemorrhaging supporters but let’s not tell them as they’ll find out soon enough.

    Auld Rock

  123. HandandShrimp says:

    I see Magrit says that the HRMC difficulty in defining the Scottish tax base is the Scottish Governments fault.

    That is the trouble with incompetent liers, they just can’t get any better at it.

  124. Roll_On_2015 says:

    Robert Kerr: at 9.06pm

    I just carried out a ‘Google’ and got the following:

    Ian Davidson


    Ian Graham Davidson is a Scottish Labour Co-operative politician, who has been a Member of Parliament for successive Glasgow seats since 1992; since 2005 he has represented Glasgow South West. Wikipedia

    Born: September 8, 1950 (age 64), Jedburgh
    Education: Galashiels Academy, University of Edinburgh

    Dave McEwan Hill: at 9:43 pm

    I believe Davidson, despite representing Govan, is actually from the Borders

    Aye from Jedburgh.

  125. Hoss Mackintosh says:


    the great thing about the HOL is they cannot get rid of them. I hope we send 30 or 40 ex-Slab and Lib-dem MPs to the HOL come May 7th. Not all of them will get in but the bar has been set pretty low – after all Lord Watson is still there.

    Come independence I think they still have the right to stay in the HOL as long as they pay tax in England. The last Irish Lord (Kilmorey) was still there in the sixties over 50 years after they left.

    So that would be great result – dump all our failed Unionist politicians in the House of Lords and get
    the UK to pay for them after indy. Some ironic justice – hopefully!

  126. K1 says:

    Aye Johnny I see what you’re saying, but even if it’s extra on top this year we also have more ‘cuts’ at the same time, so won’t the extra just be cancelled oot wi the cuts?

    In essence…the extra is the resiliance fund against the cuts that are coming down the line. All SG will be doing is firefighting…

  127. Robert Peffers says:

    @Andrew Haddow says:8 February, 2015 at 5:33 pm:

    “I’m sure I read somewhere that the extra funding Scotland gets via Barnett reflects our extra contributions via the oil revenues.”

    Well no, Andrew. That is not the truth. First of all there is a myth that Barnett’s Formula is, “Needs”, based and the myth is that each individual Scot needs more. They thus imply we not only need more per person but get it too. I’ve even had some claim such as, because we live further apart, as a small population it costs more to get services to us. It’s balderdash and I’ll now explain those special needs.

    I’ve been quizzing both candidates, elected members and even PMs, Chancellors and other Ministers on Barnett for decades. I was surprised how many of them were either ignorant of the way it worked or didn’t want me to know how it works.

    However I already knew and the perfectly logical explanation of what is meant by Scotland’s special needs will be clear to you too upon it being explained clearly. Here is the explanation of why Scotland gets extra per capita funding in her block grant.

    When Westminster began to devolve powers they did so in a very unequal manner. First of all The Union Parliament is also the, unelected as such, Parliament of the Country of England. It is funded as if England were the United Kingdom directly from Treasury funds. Then they devolved different powers, and in some cases different levels of the same powers, to Scotland, Wales & N.I.

    Now comes the logical bit they don’t want to tell you. A power formerly funded by the United Kingdom cannot be devolved to an individual country without also devolving the Treasury funding to finance it.

    Thus, as Scotland has had more powers devolved than the other devolved parliaments then Scotland’s NEEDS are greater than Wales or N.I and England gets no block grant anyway and often cheats on, (particularly London), infrastructure funding.

    So there you have the logical explanation of why Scotland gets a higher per capita funding than the other countries – As Scotland has had more powers devolved to her parliament then Scotland NEEDS more funds devolved to pay for them.

    To put that another way the extra that Scotland gets is made up for in Wales and N.I by them NOT having to fund functions already being funded directly by the Treasury.

    It is simple but not easy to explain simply. I hope everyone gets the explanation clear.

  128. ronnie anderson says:

    Could somebody go back to the other thread & bring me a hammer back Ah need brain re-ajustment,ah jist canny seperate oil fund & resiliance fund & barnet consiquentials ,dey they awe come fae empty ginger bottles,A la Ian Gray.

  129. Aidan says:

    As things pan out Davidson & Curran lead the running for champion-liars.
    Able to forgive much of what transpired during indy as was driven by UK machine.
    Those two deserve gentle chiding after May if all goes well.

  130. Johnny says:

    K1 @ 10:34

    Well, I’m not convinced there actually would be ‘extra’ (I just used that term because that’s how he termed it). I think there is ‘more’ in absolute numbers, but the amount spent goes up every year anyway and, as you say, more cuts are coming down the pipe under either the Tories or Labour.

    I don’t suppose we will be seeing any sums from Mr Davidson to tell us how it is we end up with ‘extra’, and until we do (and someone verifies that they add up or are at least feasible) then I am going to assume he wants the person he wrote to think there is ‘extra’ when there is not.

  131. jaygee says:

    Is there not a British or more importantly, a Scottish journalist who is willing to expose what is is an insult to democrasy in this election.Does no media journalist have the ambition to become a Pilger or Wooward or Bernstein and expose the fact that the 4th estate is no more and the politicians policeman has been corrupted and we the people have to use the interet to seek truth.
    Therein lies the slow death of the print media whose owners seek power world wide.

  132. Johnny says:

    Sorry, he uses the term ‘additional money which will flow to Scotland this year’. The surrounding paragraph also implies that Scotland gets more than its share already, but unless it is poorly worded the language in that sentence does make it sound like he is claiming there is even more ‘additional money’ coming this year.

  133. indyracer2014 says:

    Bit of a sideshow to the main event but looking at the handy table provided in the main article it looks as if scots pay more VAT per capita than the comparator. Can anyone explain why that might be cause I’m at a loss to explain it.

  134. Hoss Mackintosh says:

    Just thinking further about the HOL thing.

    If the Scots Lords stayed there that would be a case of SVEL after Indy – how ironic.

    But also now why is there no clamour for Scots Lords not to vote on English issues?

    Strange – perhaps they do not wish to highlight the undemocratic sham of the whole HOL?

    Not ok for democratically elected Scots to vote on English issues in the HOC but fine for unelected ones to vote in the House of Lords – what a shambles of a political system.

  135. Chic McGregor says:

    Just wondering if someone was asked in England what nationality they were and they replied “English, Scottish-English.”

    What would the response be?

    1. ‘That’s cool, welcome aboard.’

    2. ‘No you aint, you’re a sweaty.’

    I suppose it depends who you ask, but what would be the ratio in your view?

  136. crazycat says:

    @ indyracer 2014

    The difference is £70 per capita per year; at 20% VAT (I can’t remember when it was increased, but I think it was before 2011-12) that is tax on an extra £350 of spending.

    Could that be accounted for by more expensive fuel in rural locations, greater alcohol and tobacco consumption, or more takeaway meals, for instance? I don’t know, but it’s only £1 a day, so slightly increased prices or consumption could soon add up.

  137. Alan Mackintosh says:

    It strike me that the comparison is even more stark given that the UK figures include the element of higher income per capita scottish figures. If these were stripped out to show the rUK figures c/w Scottish figures that would be an interesting result. Has anyone done this? You would need the population figures to come up with a total. I assume the percapita figures are for every man woman and child from baby to oldies and not just those of working age.

  138. Cadogan Enright says:

    @Johnny 11.03

    Did I read earlier that ?28 Labour MP’s voted with the Torys to cut the Scottish budget this year by ?£75M or 175M ?
    I tried logging onto Ian Davidson’s facebook site and website to question him about this to no avail – I see his Westminster email address is

  139. CameronB Brodie says:

    I’m pretty sure the only links that need editing, are youtube links.

  140. @ Robert Peffers
    Regarding the Barnett formula do we not get more money because we have more utilities still in public ownership like Scottish Water whereas the English/Welsh took the money when they privatised more of there utilities.

  141. Robert Kerr says:


    Your wiki link doesn’t show Davidson’s education.

    I check before I post.


  142. Cadogan Enright says:

    Dear Mr Davidson

    I see from your letter (see link) that additional funds are flowing to Scotland this year

    However the following is a list of Scottish Labour MPs voting on 13 January 2015 with the Tories for further cuts to the Scottish government’s budget:

    Iain Davidson Glasgow South West
    Douglas Alexander Paisley and Renfrewshire North
    Willie Bain Glasgow North East
    Gordon Banks Ochil and South Perthshire
    Anne Begg Aberdeen South
    Russell Brown Dumfries and Galloway
    Michael Connarty Linlithgow and East Falkirk
    Margaret Curran Glasgow East
    Thomas Docherty Dunfermline and West Fife
    Brian Donohoe Central Ayshire
    Frank Doran Aberdeen North
    Gemma Doyle West Dunbartonshire
    Tom Greatrex Rutherglen and Hamilton West
    David Hamilton Midlothian
    Tom Harris Glasgow South
    Jimmy Hood Lanark and Hamilton East
    Cathy Jamieson Kilmarnock and Loudoun
    Iain MacKenzie Inverclyde
    Michael McCann East Kilbride , Stathaven and Lesmahagow
    Gregg McClymont Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch
    Anne McGuire Stirling
    Graham Morrice Livingston
    Iain Murray Edinburgh South
    Pamela Nash Airdrie and Shotts
    Fiona O’Donnell East Lothian
    John Robertson Glasgow North West
    Frank Roy Motherwell and Wishaw
    Anas Sarwar Glasgow Central

    I hope you can clarify

    Cllr Cadogan Enright

    (might be a good draft for a letter to the papers?)

  143. Robert Peffers says:

    @Johnny says:8 February, 2015 at 9:54 pm:

    “The way I understand it is that he was trying to say there was extra coming from Barnett next year:

    Let’s try another way to explain Barnett’s Formula – in a manner that should make logical sense.

    This idiotic idea put about by Unionist along the lines that Barnett’s Formula is a straight per capita comparison sum is hogwash. It was never meant to be remotely like that.

    The whole idea was to take functions that were being funded by Westminster and devolve them to the individual countries parliaments. Now that would be a straight per capita funding as long as all four countries had the exact same level of devolved powers – but they did not give each country’s parliament the same level of devolved powers.

    In fact England has NO devolved powers because The UK Parliament is the parliament of England and England is funded as the UK.

    However Scotland, Wales and N.I also all have different devolved functions or even different levels of the same functions. So if Scottish Education was originally being funded by Westminster and Westminster then devolved Education to Scotland they must also devolve the funds to pay for it. After all we paid the exact same taxes as the UK before devolution.

    So the only explanation for anyone who claims the Scots get more funds, as if each Scots is being subsidised, is either they are idiots who do not understand the system or they are downright liars who want to confuse the issue.

    Quite simply it is not a direct per capita comparison of the total funds but of the functions devolved. A factor that will become harder to calculate if they also start to transfer partial tax gathering powers unequally and they have already started down that crooked road. Think N.I and Corporation Tax.

    If devolution was to work it could only be clearly done by devolving all functions to all four UK countries on an equal basis and only then would a per capita funding sum be a true comparison of each country’s equality.

    Scotland has more devolved functions than either Wales or N.I, so Scotland requires more block grant to run those functions. Giving Scotland limited tax raising powers will only confuse further an already deliberately confused matter.

    Now own up – how many of you had figured out that the extra per capita funds quoted for Scotland was supposed to be calculated to fund the extra powers devolved to Scotland? Yet it is a generally held belief in England that the Scots get extra funding yet English functions are all paid for directly as UK funding and are much fiddled as well.

    So much for English taxpayers subsidising the Scots and Scottish, Labour, Tory and LibDems all foster this idea the every Scot gets extra spent on them. In fact we get a lot less if truth were told.

    There are thousands of examples but here are just two. Scotland, Wales & N.1. must meet all transport funding from within their block grants. England’s Transport is funded from the UK’s transport funding but ONLY England is classed as UK Transport. Over and above that there is, “Transport for London”. Same goes for English Education and, “National Museums, Art Galleries. et al.

    We really need to educate the Scottish electorate of the truth of the myth of subsidy junky Scots. Angry Scots at being cheated, lied to treated as idiots are much more probably independence campaigners when they know the truth.

  144. Ronnie says:

    @ Robert Peffers – 10.38

    Robert, if I understand this correctly, every devolved power has to be funded appropriately by the Westminster Government from its Treasury payout?

    If that’s the case, then Scotland would not be having to find its own money to pay for, say, tax-collection, this would have to be appropriately funded from London?

    If this is true, then I heartily endorse Paula Rose’s earlier suggestion – you really are an education, sir!

    Or am I over-simplifying your statement?

  145. crazycat says:

    @ Robert Kerr

    If you look at the Categories section at the bottom of the Wiki entry, one is “people educated at Galashiels Academy”. Clicking that leads to a list including Ian Davidson, without any further supporting evidence. Edinburgh University is not mentioned, though he must have gone to some university in order to have been Chair of the National Organisation of Labour Students.

  146. Cadogan Enright says:

    Speedy reply from Ian Davidson’s robot
    “I am unable to assist you as there are strict Parliamentary protocols which do not allow MPs to take up the cases of non-constituents”

    Any Glasgow South West constituents up this time of night? you will need full name and postal address

  147. scott says:

  148. crazycat says:

    @ Cadogan Enright

    My Labour MP, in common with many others, is claiming that she didn’t vote for Tory cuts, she voted to balance the budget and reduce the deficit.

    This is sophistry, of course, but is likely to be the answer you would get in response to any request for clarification. That is true even if you asked in a letter to the paper; my local paper contained one letter pointing out that our MP had supported the cuts, and then the following week another from one of her supporters, denying this and defending her in the terms I have mentioned.

  149. K1 says:

    I think that’s exactly the problem Johnny, it is obsfucating language that is being employed here. As you say, I too have no clue where this ‘additional money’ is coming from.

    As the consequentials are apportioned according to public spending policy in England and the treasury adjusts accordingly to the devolved nations. Therefore if say the NHS receives increased funding down south then we receive a proportional amount by population as worked out by the formula. If decreased spending is allocated down south then a subsequent decrease in our block grant follows.

    So where does this leave us with the ‘additinal money’ that Davidson is suggesting, what increases of expenditure are to take place within the next year in England that would reflect an increase in our block grant?

    More tellingly how can we take an increase in whatever public sector the block grant is applied to and remove that extra amount and redesignate it toward a newly formed resilience fund?

    Also in light of the public sector cuts that are coming down the line, through the austerity measures, how on earth can we have ‘additional money’ when all current money is being cut!

    As you say unless they unpack this and explain exactly how this works, it can only be read as a deliberate obsfucation with one purpose; to induce madness in the reader.

  150. Ronnie says:

    @ Robert 12.01

    Could ye nae hiv come oot wi this stuff afore the Referendum?

    This would have been dynamite on the Yes stalls and roon’ the doors!

    The number of folk I spoke to that said; ‘Oh, we couldna afford tae dae that’!

    Gie’s mair o yer ken, min!

  151. Cadogan Enright says:

    @crazycat, sure I know, ach will write anyway – gives them something to worry about 🙂

  152. manandboy says:

    K1 says:-

    As you say unless they unpack this and explain exactly how this works, it can only be read as a deliberate obsfucation with one purpose; to induce madness in the reader.
    Yup. That’s near enough.

    When the facts and the issues are clear – sow confusion.
    John McTernan

  153. crazycat says:

    @ Cadogan Enright

    Good for you! It does feel like banging one’s head off a brick wall a lot of the time though. Worth it if even one reader suddenly realizes what they’re up to, however.

  154. K1 says:


    “When the facts and the issues are clear – sow confusion.”

    Labour Accounting Branch, Scotland (They are all culpable now)

  155. Brian Doonthetoon says:

    Eh jiss sayed thah’!

    (See link.)

  156. Al Dossary says:

    Whilst I never paid too much attention last week, in one of the articles about the troubles HMRC was have setting up exactly who qualifies for the additonal Scottish Income tax they state that only those who lived in Scotland would be due to pay.

    I wonder, does that mean that the hordes of offshore workers who travel north to Aberdeen and offshore to work would not be responsible for this tax? Typically on any existing platform that I worked on 30-60% of the workforce would be from the north east of England. Does that mean that we would not see any tax take from them ?

    The big earners like the “self employed consultants” will likely get off scot free, as their wage packets are generally either funnelled through a limited company or one of the dodgy benefit trust schemes.

    Likewise I can not believe that none of the press ever pressed the fact that all of Wood Group’s employees were employed through a brass plated office in Guernsey, thus denying HMRC their 13% employers NI take from them.

  157. K1 says:

    It’s the wings time delay Brian….:-(

  158. Fiona says:

    Perhaps the explanation for “additional” Barnett Funding is to be found in the fact that there will be additional devolved powers. As Robert Peffer says, Barnett is the mechanism whereby devolved issues are funded. So however small the proposed increased powers are, there will be additional money through Barnett. But it will not be “spare money”, it will be required to pay for those services which are to be devolved.

    This is just a variation on the misinformation they have successfully fed to rUK voters: it is not exactly a lie, but it might as well be

  159. Roll_On_2014 says:

    The following is a link to an article, written last month, by Ian Davidson and titled:

    “The SNP have proved they’re unfit to represent Scotland by collaborating with the Tories”

    Ian Davidson Labour List Article

    Do not bother reading the crap he wrote but read the comments below it. Not one Labour List member agreed with him, they all called him out for the gobshite he is.

    Going from the comments Labour are not really enamored by the Labour List members.

  160. donnywho says:

    Just had a look at the Ian Davidson piece on the list. The comments by the labour faithful are as well thought out and incisive as any you would find here, all bar one shocked and dismissive of Ian. How can they get anyone on the ground if their activists see through their spin and lies.

  161. Craig P says:

    Hoss Mackintosh good point re Scots lords voting on English issues. I suppose the reason it is tolerated is that the HoL does not represent geographical areas. It represents the establishment.

  162. john king says:

    Effijy says
    “Is this a script from a Marx Brothers Movie?”

    Like this you mean?
    Loving your posts btw Effijy. 🙂

  163. manandboy says:

    O/T Noticed this on an Aldi flyer this morning –
    ‘our fresh fish is 100% traceable to Scottish waters’.
    It was a pleasure to read the words ‘Scottish waters’. Not seen often in our Unionist media.

    Note – Aldi is a European company.

  164. Ken500 says:

    £100Billion more is borrowed and spent in tbe rest of the UK. Pro rata Scotland should get £10Billion.

    Scotland raises £53Billion in tax revenues the rest of the UK raises £437Billion. Scotland should be £5Billion better off but ends up £10Billion worse off (less the debt repayment). There is no extra money. Plus taxes going through London HQ’s for commercial activities in Scotland.

    There is no extra money. Scotland would be better off deciding where the revenues are spent. No tax evasion, illegal wars/Trident etc. Tax on ‘loss leading’ drink would save £Billion.

    Scotland gets back £35Billion + £15Billion pensions/benefits £3Billion Defence. (Not spent in Scotland). Westminster has ruined the Scottish Oil. Cutting tbe taxes 50% (from 80% to 30%) would mean there would be no job losses.

    These ‘new powers’ mean nothing without control of spending.

  165. Muscleguy says:

    Want you want is a local fund for local people. That oil money is not for you.

  166. Ken500 says:

    Labour /Unionists (Cosla) underfunded Aberdeen/shire councils, over 30% less than other local authorities for over thirty years. Labour/Unionists voted against tbe AWPR for over thirty years. A Green is now colluding with the Unionists wasting £Millions, against the majority wishes to predestrianise the City. They refused a Gift of £80Million.

  167. scotspine says:

    BBC Radio Scotland attack th Scots Govt again.

    Highland News: NHS cuts and Council budget cuts followed by Danny Alexander provides.

    Main news: Nicola Sturgeon gives a speech today about educational attainment. Scots Govt announce over 100 million towards this. No commentator from SNP, but Alistair Grey gets to come on and spout about Labours 25 million plan.

    Now Call Kay is on with a subtext of SNP bad re classroom sizes, teachers and faulty flu vaccine.

    BBC is creating a pressure cooker with their behaviour. This isn’t healthy in a democracy (I’m probably on someone’s watch list saying that).

  168. manandboy says:

    O/T The hypocrisy of David Cameron is staggering
    when you think of him preaching his message of ‘Better Together’
    while so many Unionist businesses are registered offshore
    to avoid tax and National Insurance
    thus separating themselves from the Union’s tax system.

    Cameron’s own father was very active in setting up
    offshore schemes for the purpose of tax avoidance.
    ‘But it is all legal’, they say.
    Yes, but only made so by laws created by the Establishment for the Establishment.

  169. HandandShrimp says:

    The BBC is an incredibly depressing news outlet. It isn’t just their attitude to the Scottish Government. Europe, World affairs whatever, they are the news outlet to slash your wrists to. However, they are also hugely dishonest, I don’t believe the time of day on the BBC anymore. They are in direct competition with Sky and Fox News as most distorted outlet on the airwaves.

  170. Naina Tal says:

    Long time since we lived in a democracy (if ever)!

  171. jackie g says:

    Meanwhile in Murphy la la land..

    The great one has delivered(YES)another new pledge wait for it..

    From the Evening Times:

    Murphy pledges Glasgow rail scheme.

    Jim Murphy has said he will commit to delivering a Glasgow crossrail scheme in Labour’s manifesto for the 2016 Holyrood elections.

    It gets better, the great one goes on to say:

    Scottish party leader Mr Murphy says he wants to use the Scottish Parliament’s new borrowing powers to bring forward the “missing link” in Glasgow’s rail infrastructure.

    Borrowing powers? is that another VOW Dear God Jimbo do you ever sleep..

  172. think again says:

    Roll_on_2014 & donnywho, labourlist, Scotland has very few labour supporters commenting on it. There are some wingers doing missionary work and plenty of Yessrs. The recent article on Scottish Labour going down in flames attracted over 700 comments, few of which would look out of place on here. Another sign perhaps that labour have very few supporters, especially of the cyber variety.

    Strangely, labourlist tolerates trolls. Anyone wanting a flavour of what Labour are thinking would be severely disappointed, especially in the comments section.

  173. CameronB Brodie says:

    OT. What a nice bunch HSBC are. Better Together?

  174. Les Wilson says:

    This is NOT Slab being confused, it is deliberate lies, the Slab mantra.
    They are lies designed to cause confusion among voters, in the hope of catching any fallout votes. Spin all over it, and Davidson who the F… would believe ANYTHING this scumbag says.

  175. Brian says:

    Davidson is an apologist, subservient to his English masters. Anyone in doubt of that only has to read this letter. No surprise there. What does continually surprise me is that there are people around who believe this doublespeak.

  176. Barontorc says:

    Davidson knows he’s lying through his teeth.

    He knows Scotland’s ‘bonus’, ie., (a sum of money added to a person’s wages as a reward for good performance.) is a meaningless word. He knows we are strictly held to the Barnett formula and not a penny more is paid than due as a percentage award for what’s already spent in England, pro-rata.

    But, what’s more, he also knows we contribute, or more precisely, we are constrained to pay more into the Treasury than we get back; as Rev Stu points out above £1700 per person in from Scotland – £1200 per person sent back to us.

    So he’s lying to say – ‘Labour’s proposal is that a resilience fund should be paid out of the additional money which will flow to Scotland this year, under the Barnett Formula, which funds Scottish public expenditure at a much higher rate than the rest of the UK.’

    What’s needed is for a constituent of his to enter the democratic charade and call him up or it.

  177. jackie g says:

    CameronB Brodie says:

    OT. What a nice bunch HSBC are. Better Together?

    What pisses me off is that the Tory Govt give out millions of pounds in contracts to companys who then harass disabled folk and deny them a few measly quid or some support at home,

    And yet these tax doging Fe***** get away with not paying millions of pounds in tax beyond belief.

  178. Valerie says:

    Just spotted an article on FB, in the Herald, that the Orange Order spent money on hiring a well known holocaust denier for his services in social media.

    Apparently, it’s been picked up from the financial returns now coming in from participants in the referendum.

    Who’s surprised by this?

  179. Footsoldier says:

    Jim Murphy is starting to use Yes because he has stated he is not a Unionist. Basically he must be a closet supporter of independence.

    We should turn this to our advantage by saying Labour now says Yes to independence, so vote SNP.

  180. Naina Tal says:

    Just heard this oan the wireless (Forth2News) Don’t listen to that other shite. Mind ye this is nearly as bad.
    From the leader of a small Northern Accounting Unit of a right wing political party.
    He is apparently saying Glasgow and Edinburgh should get together and form a Powerhouse in Central Scotland in order to fight to get their share.
    That’ll be a Labour Powerhouse then? (He hopes). What about the other cities in Scotland? Doesn’t he care about them? I live in the Central belt, but we just don’t need this kind of divisive crap from anyone.
    Daily Fable from chairman Murph, dutifully reported. Remove powers from Holyrood and gie it tae the cooncils.

  181. Papadox says:

    The “Brittish Establishment” control the “BRITTISH state” and it’s political shenanigans. To do that they Must control the information channels TV, RADIO, MSM, INTERNET ETC, AND THEY DO.

    Any country that overthrows its government has to secure and control the broadcasters very quickly, usually in parallel with the overthrow of the government. They then control the the population by lies, propaganda and misinformation.

    The broadcasters in this country are in cahoots with the ESTABLISHMENT as willing partners and are rewarded accordingly. If we can’t see this we are wasting our time.

    Since its inception the BBC has been a arm of the ESTABLISHMENT USED AND ABUSED AS NEEDED.

  182. Bigdrone says:

    I understand the off topic ( understandably!) HSBC corruption easily! What a dispicable outfit, although they claim to have changed their policy recently – really?

    However, as for the oil/resilience fund explanation I am off to the darkened room to try deepest meditation in an attempt to understand this profound logic!

    “I am just going inside and may be some time.” (with apologies!)

  183. Barontorc says:

    @ Valerie says:
    9 February, 2015 at 10:29 am
    Just spotted an article on FB, in the Herald, that the Orange Order spent money on hiring a well known holocaust denier.

    Well, it just gets better and better for Fud Murphy. First he gets into bed with the Orange Order to keep his nutty feet warmly beside the fire in a continuing UK absurdity.

    Next he finds out, as do his constituents in East Renfrewshire, particularly those with a very long and bitter memory of the holocaust, that his new bestest friends in the Orange Order are paying for some cretin who hates them, to spew more bile all over them and their cause.

    Methinks, any more of this and Fud Murphy’s feet won’t just be cosy but burnt to a crisp.

  184. Silverytay says:

    The same Holocaust denier is trying to rewrite history about what happened in George Sq Glasgow in 1919.
    My younger brother who is a unionist liked an article by him in which he is basically saying that the troops and tanks were welcomed into Glasgow by the population .

    He is saying that the nationalists and others are making up the story that the troops were sent in to suppress the population to suit their own political ends .
    Needless to say I did not open the article to read what tripe he was saying , the headlines were enough for me .

  185. gillie says:

    300 staff at HMRC investigating tax evasion of £70bn, while 3,250 staff at DWP investigating benefit fraud of £1.2bn.

    Labour turned a blind eye to tax evasion, so too the Tories and the Lib Dems. Westminster is corrupt.

  186. Donald Gillies says:

    I thought the idea of an oil fund was to put some aside when the price was high….to help resilience fund when the price dropped…….That Baillie wummin back to front as usual.

  187. Meindevon says:

    @Robert Peffers

    Thanks Robert, I think I get it now.

    As said journalists and yes folk need to get this out to the public, north and south of the border. I won’t hold my breath on the journalist part though.

    Just wondered though, why did Barnett himself always say the Formula was supposed to be temporary and wanted it stopped? What was his alternative? Maybe I have misunderstood his complaints, but it’s something often thrown at me down here and am not sure how to respond.

  188. turnip_ghost says:

    Silvertay : You’re falling for the same trap most people make….Going with the headline. You have to read the whole article, that way you can easily debunk it fact by idiotic fact when people bring it up.

    O/T but I received a letter this morning saying I’m registered to vote with the new electoral system…But I haven’t sent any forms off since the referendum because I knew I’d be moving house….Anyone else had a form apparently completed for them?

  189. bald eagle says:

    robert kerr try this

    Ian Davidson
    Ian Graham Davidson is a Scottish Labour Co-operative politician, who has been a Member of Parliament for successive Glasgow seats since 1992; since 2005 he has represented Glasgow South West. Wikipedia
    Born: September 8, 1950 (age 64), Jedburgh
    Education: Galashiels Academy, University of Edinburgh

  190. Dave McEwan Hill says:

    The Barnett Formula does not fund public expenditure in Scotland at a much higher rate than the rest of the UK.
    The Barnett Formula only covers about two thirds of of public expenditure, most of it social spending, and does not cover Government procurement (of which we get an estimated less than half our share)and so called “national” expenditure the very vast majority of which goes to London and the South East .
    On a per capita basis London and the South East (with a population more than five times that of Scotland)gets a hugely disproportionate share of public expenditure.
    It’s time this Barnett myth was blown out of the water

  191. tartanarse says:

    Helena Brown says:
    8 February, 2015 at 5:56 pm
    Emm Question and I am sure there is an answer, Why did J McConnell send 1.50billion back to Westminster when it could have been put into the bank and used for just such an emergency, or even dualling the A9.

    Lord Mconnell swapped it for the worlds most expensive cloak.

  192. Helena Brown says:

    Tartanarse, oh I knew that I just wondered how many others did. Believe me he paid over the odds, many a businessman gave a whole lot less than 1.5 billion and a country away.

  193. gerry parker says:


    Yep – I got a form in saying thank you for my application form (which I hadn’t sent).
    I got the better half to phone to see if she was on the register and she was informed that she was, but I wasn’t.

    I’ll be getting that rectified.

  194. G H Graham says:



    Scotland, give us Brits £10 and as a bonus, we’ll give you £8 back. We’re spending the £2 on shit you neither want nor need. And we’ll probably spend another £2 on top which neither of us have but since we’re all equal, you won’t mind ponying up some extra from the bonus we gave you to pay for the loan fees.

    Oh, if you decide you think this is unfair, we’ll put up border posts & stop doing any more business with you. So fuck you. Any questions?

  195. Helena Brown says:

    On the subject of HSBC, I feel this is the Establishment pointing out the failings of Labour in England. I see they were after Ed Balls to explain how this all happened. I heard a little bit this morning with Margaret Hodge on R4, just the end, but Her Madge’s Tax people seem to be involved also in not doing their jobs, well would they, those in charge are often looking for a job with them when they get the boot. As are our ahem, representatives,

  196. wee sandy says:

    Meindevon @ 11.05am
    Not sure if Barnett had an alternative, but there IS one!
    Followed of course by Independance.

  197. Dave McEwan Hill says:

    It is becoming increasingly obvious that the Vow has destroyed the unionist case and devopants is now fundamentally sunk and met with general disinterest, disbelief or derision.
    What is also very obviously the case is that the unionists in panic are singing from several different hymn sheets with a handful of people incapable of organising an omelette between them.
    Murphy is beyond rescue. Brown appears to have retreated as fast as he joined the fray, Dippity sounds like a wee lassie that doesn’t believe a word she is saying and every day brings a new ill considered numbskull notion from the nearly empty bunker that seems to be in charge of the anti SNP effort.

    Warning. Ruth Davidson is beginning to look quite able in contrast to the rest of it.

  198. Silverytay says:

    I had a letter a while back telling me that I did not have to do anything and I would be transferred to the new electoral roll .
    Going by the experience of other wingers I will be leaving nothing to chance and will check up to ensure I can cast my vote in May .
    I am desperate to have Miss Nash kicked out of Airdrie & Shotts .

  199. Robert Peffers says:

    @Ronnie says:9 February, 2015 at 12:02 am:

    ” … if I understand this correctly, every devolved power has to be funded appropriately by the Westminster Government from its Treasury payout?”

    That, Ronnie is correct, simply the claimed extra for Scotland is the Barnett Formula factor to fund the extra devolved functions formerly funded directly by the Treasury.

    “If that’s the case, then Scotland would not be having to find its own money to pay for, say, tax-collection, this would have toe appropriately funded from London?”

    It’s a wee bit more than that, Ronnie. Before looking at that side of it we need to look at the bigger picture and consider both sides of the full equation.

    The Establishment continually makes wee proclamations of either one side of the equation or the other but never shows both sides at once. The two sides should show on one side the calculation of the total revenues raised per capita in Scotland and the other what per capita funding is returned to Scotland on the other side.

    Here the cheating begins. Westminster has many ways of crediting the UK with what is really Scottish raised revenues. They grabbed the entire oil & gas revenues by claiming them as from, “Extra-Regio Territories”, but around 95% of them are from Scottish territory, (not to mention Broon’s gift of 5,000 sq Mls of Scottish territory to England). The UK figures credit Scotland with a per capita 8.4% but the real figure is a geographic 95%.

    Another wee UK wheeze is to class Scottish produced goods as English exports if it leaves the United Kingdom via an English port or airport. This includes Scotch Whisky exports.

    “Or am I over-simplifying your statement?

    No, Ronnie you are not over simplifying it. The thing is we need to step back a bit in order to see the bigger picture.

    It is no good to, for example, look at the total per capita revenue of Scotland without looking at the actual full per capita spend in Scotland but we must also include the, “creative Accounting”, of the Establishment and how they present that accounting to the public. They make simple things seem complicated in order to confuse the electorate and this new idea of partial tax raising is just another confusion.

    Mr Swinney is a very clever man but he needs to show the public the simple equation of – total per capita Scottish Revenue to London and the total London per capita funding returned to Scotland minus the per capita share of Scottish revenues towards such as defence, foreign policy and servicing the national debt. Then explain the several fiddles that distort the figures.

    Until the Scottish government simplifies and publishes the whole equation and gives the figures to plug-into the equation we only see wee bits that the UK Establishment wants us to see and the UK government’s propaganda such as Scots being subsidy junkies when, in truth, we subsidise them.

  200. Marcia says:

    Our friend Jim claimed Irn Bru on expenses. I kid you not. LOL

  201. Robert Kerr says:

    @bald eagle

    The entry in Wiki

    does not mention his education.

    If you know so much, what subject did he study and when did he graduate? Or is he another Jim Murphy?

    Davidson was chairperson of the National Organisation of Labour Students in 1971 according to –

    I seem to have upset a few people by my questioning Davidson’s educational achievements.

  202. Joemcg says:

    I do not hold out much hope for our SNP landslide when 2 million of us (allegedly) voted to hand over all our oil to a foreign country. I’m of the opinion that we are surrounded by grade A thickos im afraid :((

  203. bald eagle says:

    Robert Kerr

    since the last post about davidson i have been trying everything to find out about him

    this guy is a slippery eel cant find bugger all about him no doubt a door will open and bingo the bogey man will be unmasked

    i might have met some of the people you bumped into was not welcome so didnt hang around and was asked why i wanted the info f$%k it felt like an interrogation had to scarper

    if i find anything i will let you know asap i have also got another person onto him so if anything comes up its yours

    does that sound fair

  204. author_al says:

    @dave mc and Robert peffers. .. let’s get a graphic done showing how wm short changes Scotland. .. give me links to facts and I will make one ????

  205. Stephan says:

    I take it that’s because the Oil Fund is taking a share of the oil before it is taxed, much it’s value will eventually go to public spending (taking this share while it hits the whole of the UK). Where as the crisis fund is after it has been taxed and Scotland’s share is calculated and it gets returned to Scotland purely for public spending (only harming Scotland’s economy).

  206. Robert Peffers says:

    @K1 says:9 February, 2015 at 12:18 am:

    ” … As the consequentials are apportioned according to public spending policy in England and the treasury adjusts accordingly to the devolved nations … “

    Hi, K1, I hope you don’t mind if I hi-jack that bit of your comment to highlight something several commenters have niggled me about for some time now. I keep correcting the use of the terms, “Britain”, “England” and “Country”, when the commenter means the actual, “United Kingdom”. While your point, above, is well made it is somewhat confusing if the reader does not understand the actual differences between the terms used.

    The truth being that the Barnett Consequentials are indeed actually adjusted according to, “English funding”, but that is not what is legally shown by the, Westminster Parliament of, “The United Kingdom”,. The reason being that as there is no such legal parliament as, “The Country of England Parliament”, there cannot thus be any legal funding for, “The Parliament of the Country of England”.

    The truth is that Westminster is the Parliament of the United Kingdom”, and thus the Barnett Consequentials adjustments are calculated for the spending of the United Kingdom. The fiddle being the nominal, “United Kingdom Parliament”, is the de facto, “Parliament of the Country of England”. It is funded as the United Kingdom and legislated for by the United Kingdom according to English Law and it decides all three devolved parliament’s block grants and regulates their spending by UK Barnett Consequentials. In all but name Westminster is the Parliament of England.

    These are the main WMDs, (Words of Mass Deception), used by the United Kingdom Government to defeat their United Kingdom Partners into the wrong beliefs they use to not only hold Scotland in thrall but to rob Scotland blind of countless billions of pounds of Scottish natural resources and the hard work of Scots.

    As I keep pointing out every single one of the elected United Kingdom MP from England becomes an, unelected as such, member of the non-existent Parliament of England. Where they are ably assisted by every ("Tractor" - Ed)ous Unionist member of the United Kingdom Parliament elected from Scotland, Wales & N.I.

    Whether you accept it or not the nominal Parliament of the United Kingdom has become, since devolution, the De Facto Parliament of England and thus our masters must thank all those ("Tractor" - Ed)ous members of Unionists parties elected from Scotland. (And Scots wonder why such Scottish ("Tractor" - Ed)s are rewarded by a seat in the de facto Parliament of England’s House of Lords.

  207. Robert Kerr says:

    @bald eagle.

    Yes there seems to be a mystery here that probably hides a vulnerability.

    I chanced on this by following the Rev Stu’s guidance. Davidson’s utterances are not those of an educated man. I asked myself let’s find out more. “Links and confirmation” is the name of the game.

    I have no axe to grind other than his threat to give Dr Eilidh a doing goes against the grain with me.

  208. Luigi says:

    Joemcg says:

    9 February, 2015 at 12:24 pm

    I do not hold out much hope for our SNP landslide when 2 million of us (allegedly) voted to hand over all our oil to a foreign country. I’m of the opinion that we are surrounded by grade A thickos im afraid :((

    Don’t despair, Joe, it’s not a lack of intelligence per se we were up against, it was stubborn belief systems, particularly among the older voters. These were, until recently, established at birth and reinforced without challenge (social media). The good news is that they can be and are being changed, but it takes repeated argument and explanation, again and again until suddenly one day, their belief suddenly flips. Patience and determination – there is no other way, I’m afraid, but it can be done if we keep at it.

    Whatever the result of the May GE, many soft NO beliefs in the union/state of the UK are going to be seriously eroded in a short period of time. Watch this space!

  209. velofello says:

    Two years of the referendum campaign demonstrated to me that Scottish labour politicians have no difficulty in knowingly misrepresenting the truth. However I also learned that a fair number of them are simply not too bright, and so ofttimes they do not understand the subject matter nor the question asked of them.

    Ian Davidson MP? Well, what do you make of a public servant who can use for a metaphor “bayonetting the wounded” with regard to members of the public of a different persuasion to him?

    Willing to misrepresent the truth, or not too bright, or both?

  210. Tam Jardine says:


    Anyone noticed how close the BBC Scotland logo is to an angry fist giving what I believe is known as ‘the bird’. I think another finger round about Argyll would complete it. Was thinking of a T-shirt for the upcoming propaganda war. Any ideas for a slogan?

  211. Gusi says:

    Robert Peffers states:
    Another wee UK wheeze is to class Scottish produced goods as English exports if it leaves the United Kingdom via an English port or airport. This includes Scotch Whisky exports.

    This is not quite true Robert. HMRC allocates the exports using the post code associated with the Company’s VAT registration. This may or may not be in Scotland for a Company with their head office elsewhere.

  212. crazycat says:

    @ Robert Kerr

    Davidson’s Wiki entry does tell you which school he went to, though not which university (though his chairmanship of the Labour students organisation suggests he did matriculate, even if he didn’t graduate – like someone else I can think of).

    To find the information in the Wiki entry, you have to go down beyond the main body of text, to the set of links at the bottom, which is a list of categories to which Davidson belongs: people born in 1950, Labour MPs, etc.

    One of these categories is “people who attended Galashiels Academy”. Clicking the link merely leads to a list in alphabetical order, in which he appears, but I don’t see why it should be any less believable than the rest of the entry.

  213. Robert Peffers says:

    @Scot Finlayson says:8 February, 2015 at 11:48 pm:

    “Regarding the Barnett formula do we not get more money because we have more utilities still in public ownership like Scottish Water whereas the English/Welsh took the money when they privatised more of there utilities.”

    Think about it Scot. Scotland, Wales and England, (England has no direct funding being funded as the UK).

    All originally were funded for the water services as still being governed by the United Kingdom. When powers over water were devolved, (deputed to them), they thus all got the same per capita funding to run water services for the UK Government. So if they took the money and ran then they no longer get water funding under Barnett’s Formula for running water services. However, Scotland is still entitled to United Kingdom funding for, (wait for it!), being the devolved United Kingdom’s deputy for running the water services on behalf of the United Kingdom Government.

    Remember that devolved power is, “Power retained by the United Kingdom Government”, and thus legally Scotland is still running water services on behalf of the UK government and the UK government is legally bound to pay them for doing so..

  214. KennyG says:

    So, an oil fund is a bad idea, because it will take money away from public spending.

    But, a resilience fund is a good idea, because it will use money from the block Westminster grant, which is used for public spending.

    Have I missed something here? Is there something wrong with me? Or is it them?

  215. Helena Brown says:

    I want to thank Robert Peffers on here for his clarifications which I am sure we all need. I certainly now have the tools I need to use when people tell me that Barnett is paying us Scots far too much, though I did always say that they were certainly paying London more and all those nice juicy transportation projects all funded by all of us not living in London on UK expenses.
    So thanks again Robert, we need you back time and time again to put us on the right road.

  216. laverock says:

    Thanks everybody especially robert peffers. One of the most informative threads so far. I drew some flowcharts to understand this and ended up laughing (in an incredulous way). Labours attempts to pass this idea off as some sort of bonus to scotland are shockingly dishonest.

    I agree with the posters who suggest that labour would like to see this happen so that the Scottish government would have less money to spend and would therefore be less popular. On the plus side, perhaps that demonstrates that they have given up imagining that they will ever be in charge of the Scottish goverment again themselves?

    I’m going to print out the Rev’s facts on this post to whip out in discussions since I don’t have nicola sturgeon’s memory for numbers. I’m doing my best to chip away at the No people I know. This is another fine hammer. Thanks.

  217. manandboy says:

    It would, if possible, be useful to be able to plot the advance of voter confusion
    between now and GE15.

    If McTernan is using Russian Confusion tactics – and it does seem like it – then the electorate WILL become more and more confused about why they ought to vote Labour out in Scotland.

    If ‘more and more’ could be measured and then depicted onto a graph, then at the very least we would know and be able to counteract the confusion.

    But why take the risk? Why wait for data? Why not remind the electorate CONSTANTLY about SLAB’s sleeping with the Tories and stabbing Scotland in the back at Indy.

  218. SqueuedPerspextive says:

    @Robert Peffers 11:44am

    Can I also add, Scotland is paying tax to support (hundreds of) thousands of English Public Service jobs in centralised services. Were those jobs to be moved to Scotland it would provide a boast to Scotland’s Income tax revenue as well as the wider Scottish economy.

  219. Robert Peffers says:

    @K1 says: 9 February, 2015 at 12:18 am:

    ” … More tellingly how can we take an increase in whatever public sector the block grant is applied to and remove that extra amount and redesignate it toward a newly formed resilience fund?

    If the final balance of the entire Block Grant were to actually show an increase, (above the rate of inflation losses), then the devolved parliaments are free to spend it as they see fit. The Barnett Consequentials are not tied to their English/UK functions.

    That was what happened when Westminster made English Students pay fees and thus cut the UK funding for English education. Scotland suffered a cut due to English Education funding but decided to not follow England and had to divert funds from elsewhere.

  220. Ken500 says:

    50% of Oil production goes to the Exchequer before it is taxed (supplementary charge) 30%.Puts taxation at the equivalent of 80%+.

    The Scottish budget has £10Billion added to it as a deficit. It is passed onto the Scottish budget as a percentage of the UK deficit, although it isn’t borrowed or spent in Scotland. Historically Scotland has always been in surplus.

    Scotland would have a £220Billion Oil Fund, if Westminster had not secretly misappropriated the funds. Thatcher and the McCrone Report. Westminster secrets and lies.

  221. Robert Kerr says:


    The chairmanship of the Labour Students does not imply a university place at all since labour clubs at colleges were also part of that set up.

    Lets leave it at that.

    Davidson has something to hide. Not my war!

  222. Giesabrek says:

    Not sure if any of the 220 replies above have picked up on this (too many to read through quickly) but I suddenly realised the difference this morning while musing over this.

    If there is an oil fund, paid for using a percentage of the oil revenue then it would most likely be deducted from UK oil revenue (Scotland’s share of the oil revenue would surely be too small, being a % of 10% of oil revenues?)

    If there is a “resilience fund” paid out of the Scottish block grant… Well, Scotland is paying for it in it’s entirety and no a single penny extra would come from the UK coffers. Meanwhile, 100% of the oil revenue continues to flow into the UK coffers.

    So “Scottish” Labour (aka North British Accounting Unit of Labour UK) are suggesting that Scotland pays for the entire resiliency fund while receiving no additional funding or any increase in the population-size share of the oil revenue that Scotland currently gets, and not to expect any financial help from a UK Labour government.

  223. gerry parker says:

    Does this fit the bill as a graphic. I downloaded it last year ( can’t remember from where)

  224. crazycat says:

    @ Robert Kerr and anyone else interested in Ian Davidson’s educational achievements:

    They are reported here
    as attendance at Jedburgh Grammar School, Galashiels Academy, Edinburgh University and Jordanhill College – no degree subject is mentioned, but he is unlikely to have been admitted to Jordanhill without a degree.

  225. george says:

    gusi & robert peffers – i note that the document is “non EU”; any idea how EU trade would be allocated?

  226. manandboy says:

    O/T The longer we are without live TV, esp the BBC, in our house
    the better we are for it.

    We’ve shut McQarrie & Boothman down.
    Murphy and McTernan have no say here anymore.
    No more Jackie Bird or Sarah Smith.
    All is quiet. I’ve shut them all up!

    It really does calm & clear the mind and de-clutters the brain.

    And we don’t have that bill for £145!

    But the best bit is that TV no longer rules the house.

    I don’t miss it one little bit.

  227. Brian Fleming says:

    I think Davidson’s “additional money” comment is just the same old ‘subsidy junkie’ bullshit, i.e. Scotland’s ‘additional money’ is the ‘Union dividend’ we’re always hearing about. I wouldn’t waste time trying to read sense into it, because it’s just the same old crap regurgitated.

  228. Robert Peffers says:

    @:Meindevon says:9 February, 2015 at 11:05 am:

    “Just wondered though, why did Barnett himself always say the Formula was supposed to be temporary and wanted it stopped?

    Well, Meindevon, I expect the best person to ask that question of is Lord Barnett himself but I’ll do my best to give the most probably reason.

    In the beginning the stated plan was to devolve powers to the only two Kingdoms of the United Kingdom but that never gained much traction as The Establishment will always seek to oppose any and all change. I don’t know if you watched Charlie Kennedy’s TV Show about Parliament’s workings but he showed the coat hangers still equipped with wee pink ribbons for the members to hang their swords up with their coats. They still provide those ribbons today.

    The obfuscations to prevent The Establishment being changed included not to confine devolution to the two original kingdoms but to devolve the, “Kingdom’s”, powers along the lines of the four, United Kingdom, “Countries”, and the next to devolve along the lines of Regions. Thus attempting to reduce one of the two founding Kingdoms to first a country in bipartite United Kingdom and then further reduce it to a region of the United Kingdom. Then to hold limited referenda to stop England’s regions also getting devolved powers.

    So Barnett’s original task was to produce a formula to ease the devolved function through as a temporary measure meant to see all four UK countries have a parliament each and the UK parliament then reduced to only dealing with the shared functions.

    As history shows the two Kingdoms did not get devolved parliaments and neither did the regions nor did all four countries get devolved powers. And that’s also why the UK will eventually end due to NOT splitting equally as good friends to begin with.

  229. bald eagle says:

    Robert Kerr

    yes robert that thing with doing over dr eilidh does come up a lot my spy has just told me that loads of info about scottish mps that are now in london have had loads of info removed from wiki and wiped from history

    they also say all unis have been told to put anything that can be used against any mp under lock and key and some mps use ghost unis in their cvs what i mean by that is the idiots didnt complete the course and did not get a degree so when people make to many enquires up pops a uni that has already been brifed and hay ho 8 degrees pop up

    must be true as no cunt gives a toss about murph the smurph they dont want to know about any degrees they are just asking if its true he was at uni for nine years and if so must be a professor of shitology the same shitology as prof chrome dome curtice but i will keep digging something has got to come to light i will be down byres road this week so will try and find something out if not i will ask the students for a favour they owe me loads

  230. Edward says:

    george – EU is via the Intrastats

  231. bookie from hell says:

    FOI Request:

    I would like to request information regarding parliamentary expenses for Mr Jim Murphy, MP for East Renfrewshire. This request deals specifically with expense claims made for food and drink by Mr Murphy.
    I would like you to provide information on the total value of expense claims made by Mr Murphy for any purchases of Irn Bru a drink manufactured by AG Barr Ltd. Furthermore I would like this information to be provided in two sections.

    A total for all purchases of Irn Bru made on or before 30th April 2014 A total for all purchases of Irn Bru made on or after 1st May 2014

    IPSA holds the information that you request.
    Under the MPs’ Scheme of Business Costs and Expenses (‘the Scheme’), MPs may claim for the cost of purchasing food and non-alcoholic drinks where they have necessarily stayed overnight neither in the London Area nor their constituency. This is limited to £25 for each night.
    MPs may also claim reimbursement of the costs of an evening meal (excluding alcoholic drinks), when they are required to be at the House of Commons because the House is sitting beyond 7.30pm. This is limited to £15 for each night.

    In processing your request, we have searched through all claims made by Jim Murphy MP for food and drink for any which identify Irn Bru. We have identified two such claims. Both claims were made before 30th April 2014 and amount to £1.30.

    bfh–Jim charges Scottish Tax Payer for Irn Bru

  232. schrodingers cat says:

    I see the Wiki entry about Murphy has been altered to say he left South Africa when he was 18 to avoid being conscripted by the SA Apartheid regime when in fact he served within the SA defence force. It also removed references to his affiliations with the Henry Jackson society.
    Murphy’s extremist right wing past is being white washed by the labour party as they are desperate to present him as some kind of working class hero in Scotland.

  233. bald eagle says:


    if and that is a big if davidson was the chairperson for the students he can walk into any uni he can stay until any and all gripes are resolved and any course work gets sent by the uni that he attends

    that is a ghost uni the more unis the more ghost degrees any bets one of these uni has given him a degree with hons these unis where set up not long after the internet realy took off to keep us pleds in awe of our dear leaders

    i took a four week course at collage and now im a specialist in P.A.T testing i walked out on the third day and i got a cert sent through the post six months later i thought i had applied for elect instalation so what does that tell you as long as they get the money you will pass even blind dugs would pass

  234. Robert Kerr says:


    In those days you didn’t need a degree to go to Jordanhill College.

    Interestingly did Davidson ever teach?

    @bald eagle

    Yes you are correct Wiki is being purged of info about MPs. I wonder why!

  235. Robert Kerr says:

    @schrodinger’s cat

    Hiding membership of SA defense forces is a whitewash! LOL

  236. Helena Brown says:

    Giesabrek, I think that our Imperial Masters are well aware of this and are only out to cause their normal amount of trouble among the unthinking they hope will still vote for them. If it wasn’t such a bad, nay terrible idea I would really like to be the one throwing rocks at a Labour Government, these people are terrible yet there are still people contemplating voting for them. I think we all know what they are up to and so does the Government, that is why they have more or less ignored it and thrown it down South where it belongs.

  237. Jim Thomson says:

    O/T – if no-one has mentioned it already, you have until tomorrow to add you comments to “A Consultation on the Future of Land Reform in Scotland”

    This has been running since 2nd December last year.

    Link to the consultation is:

  238. tartanarse says:

    Bookie at 2.19

    I love that. They must be real pissed off at having to research stuff like this knowing full well it’s a piss take.

    It probably cost more tan £1.30 to have the Whitehall drone research and respond.

  239. JayR says:

    @schrodingers cat
    I undid the revisions on Murphy’s Wikipedia article. You can do it too without having to be logged into Wikipedia anytime you notice a coverup. Noticed that Labour seem to have lots of wee sychophants on Wikipedia airbrushing.
    Where did you read Murphy served in SA defence forces in reality? Would love to make that known.

  240. Jim Thomson says:

    @schrodingers cat 2:23pm

    This might be a useful link for anyone with contacts in SA:

    Form A seems to be the one you need.

  241. K1 says:

    Thank you Robert (Peffers) for the clarification re any remaining monies within the block grant and their assignation by our government (and other devolved countries). The SG has set up a resilience fund before in 2009 to help with third sector difficulties as a result of the ‘global downturn’ at that time.

    I found this last night whilst researching the barnett formula and came to understand the very point you make regarding remaining funds.

    Does this help to clarify Davidson’s assertions re ‘additional money’? Anything left over from the block grant to be marked for ‘resilence fund’?

    It’s not stated in his letter if this is what he means, maybe I’m giving them ideas now! eek!

  242. Gary says:

    Actually he is quite right. (No really!). The ‘Oil Fund’ proposal depends on control of oil revenues, setting aside monies in the good times to even out the bad times. Therefore helping the overall economy and keeping confidence in investment and exploration high. It would be part of a greater policy to make taxation on oil steady and predictable for oil companies helping them to make long term decisions. So the ‘Resilience Fund’ would not come directly from taxation nor from anything which Holyrood has control over. It would come from a shrinking block grant which only covers the essentials at the moment, this would have to lead to cuts. The only way to raise this fund without making cuts would be to raise it from income tax and/or borrow it – when granted the powers to do so. Essentially its a reactionary device rather than for planning ahead, it only sounds good if you don’t think about it. They are stupid and think we are stupider! I noticed on Breakfast TV some talking head droning on about city funding in Scotland and how the responsibility for it and the raising of funds should be devolved – to local authorities, like Glasgow, for instance. When pushed he gave SDLT and Council Tax as being examples of ways to raise those funds. Aha! Red Tory Reward!! They want to push up the council tax to pay their expenses and it was agreed with Dave that they’d get it if they won the referendum. Perhaps each council should get an additional 30 pieces of silver?

  243. Roderick Ross says:

    With logic like this it is not hard to see how the economy ended up in turmoil under Labour.

  244. Robert Peffers says:

    @author_al says:9 February, 2015 at 12:37 pm:

    .. let’s get a graphic done showing how wm short changes Scotland. .. give me links to facts and I will make one ????

    You will have quite a job on your hands, Author al. There are many reasons this has never quite come off before.

    Mainly because there has been several hundred years of official smoke, mirrors lies and omissions by Westminster. I’ve pointed out that history, when viewed with an open mind, shows that at least as long as there has been written history there has been an elite ruling class as the establishment. An establishment dedicated to holding firm what they regarded as their own.

    Many have tried to out the more recent Westminster elites to the people of Scotland and then found the barrier of the media being part of the Establishment dedicated to keeping the natives in their proper place.

    Have a look at, “The Great Obfuscation”, by Niall Aslan. Niall is a Forensic Accountant and by all accounts a good one. Here is a link to, “The Great Obfuscation”: –

    which was Niall’s second shot at publicising the matter

    His first, “The Great Deception”: –

    was soon very hard to find with searches on the internet. The title suddenly got all sorts of other stuff unconnected with the original by Niall and became quite difficult to find.

    Now, if you had not heard about it before, ask yourself why not?

  245. Jim Thomson says:

    @Robert Peffers 5:35pm

    Thanks for those Robert.

    Now squirrelled away to be used soon.

  246. James says:

    Great article other than the final paragraph which should read as follows using 2013-14 figures.

    (Barnet money is magical and special of course because it represents a free and generous £1623 per head subsidy from England to Scotland, and all we do to deserve this “bonus” is send £827 per head more to London in tax. Mostly from, um, oil.)

    The £827 figure is compared to UK per capita revenues (as per the table), if it were with England per capita revenues the figure would be less.

  247. Robert Peffers says:

    @laverock says:9 February, 2015 at 1:15 pm:

    “I’m going to print out the Rev’s facts on this post to whip out in discussions since I don’t have nicola sturgeon’s memory for numbers. I’m doing my best to chip away at the No people I know. This is another fine hammer. Thanks.

    Might I suggest, Laverock, that you may like to read, and print out for reference, the chart from this article from Wings a while back :-

    That chart which covers the years 1900 to 1921 is a real eye opener. It shows that Scotland has always paid way over the odds for the(Ahem!), pleasure of being a full and equally sovereign Kingdom in the bipartite United Kingdom.

    Not to mention the fact that while we started as an equally sovereign bipartite partner Kingdom we are now reduced to being described by the lone Tory MP from A Scottish constituency in this manner, “The Treaty of Union Extinguished The Kingdom of Scotland and renamed the Kingdom of England as the United Kingdom.”

    Now I always thought my command of the English language was, at least, adequate for most purposes and my command o Wir Ain Lallans Leid better than most Scots as I was brought up in a farm cottage and did not actually hear the English language spoken until I attended the local village school. Whereat, the Dominie made sure I was proficient in the English Language by liberal dosage of, “The Lochgelly”, Tawse.

    Being of a particularly thrawart nature, even at that tender age, I took a camstairie pleesure of making a point of using at least one Scots word during each lesson throughout my years in the Scottish educational establishment. Yet, having become very familiar with the actual text of the Treaty of Union I can, in no way, derive such meanings in the Treaty.

    Note: Lallans Leid Wirds:
    thrawart = perverse, contrary or adverse.
    Camstarie, (camstary), (camsteery) = unruly, quarrelsome or perverse.

  248. Robert Peffers says:

    @:Ronnie says:9 February, 2015 at 12:24 am

    “Could ye nae hiv come oot wi this stuff afore the Referendum?

    This would have been dynamite on the Yes stalls and roon’ the doors!

    The number of folk I spoke to that said; ‘Oh, we couldna afford tae dae that’!

    Gie’s mair o yer ken, min!

    Ach! Ronnie, I was preaching this stuff for years and did post it throughout the referendum campaign but most commenters on here were far too busy to pick up on it. As I already posted I don’t ferret most of these things out but I have a great and long memory. Even if I cannot remember the exact words I usually remember who said them and how to search them out again.

    Another factor is that although quite simple to understand as it all makes good sense, it can be complex to write it down in a clear manner to get the message across. I kid you not I’ve questioned MPs, MSPs and Government ministers and been surprised that they either couldn’t explain how Barnett worked or were attempting to confuse the issue.

    Readers in a hurry tend to skip past long posts anyway and some things need detailed explanations.

  249. Robert Peffers says:

    @bald eagle says:9 February, 2015 at 2:26 pm:

    “i took a four week course at collage and now im a specialist in P.A.T testing i walked out on the third day and i got a cert sent through the post six months later i thought i had applied for elect instalation so what does that tell you as long as they get the money you will pass even blind dugs would pass.

    A word to the already wise, bald eagle.

    Here’s a link to the BBC take on Ian Duncan Smith’s CV.

    This one is a real eye opener to what is running the UK.

  250. Brian Doonthetoon says:

    Hi schrodingers cat et al.

    The Internet Archive has been capturing snapshots of Murphy’s Wikepedia page since 2004.

    You can explore them all here:-*/

  251. John Smith says:

    Does anyone know where the screenshot at the bottom comes from?

  252. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Does anyone know where the screenshot at the bottom comes from?”

    From GERS.

  253. Chris G says:

    I’m almost done laughing at the stupidity of anyone who believes anything they say, as regards Scotland, money, oil, or war. It’s getting to the insulting stage. And embarrassment that so many Scots seem to swallow this crap.

  254. David Wallace says:

    Well, again I would say that Scotland has much more to offer than just oil…that is a bonus, I wont mention all the other industries etc., as we already know them ourselves…..I would mention our technology/scientists who have managed to slow down the speed of light…shame they cant slow down or clear up the bull coming from Westminister parties. I think it will come to us departing due to mass demonstrations as they have continually lied….if any other country in the world used their tricks during the referendum then they would be sitting on their high horses, instead they had to hide out the way and lie more to hide the crap they talked and the threats they made to people…..shame on them

Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.

↑ Top