Now is not the time, for now the Scots agree

"Now is not the time" according to May, for a second independence referendum. This was regarded by some in the SNP as a gift that they could use to their advantage:

See how Westminster is is denying democracy for Scotland, 

See how they are overruling the "will" of the Scottish Parliament etc.

It can only increase the support for independence. 

As usual these threats of a dramatic change in support for independence were hope over reality as the latest crop of polls show.

We remain largely on trend across the board and spot on trend when it comes to the log line of best fit. This implies a slight narrowing of the polls that we have already seen and is nothing new. For now then, it would seem 'now is not the time' for most Scots.





UPDATE
We've a new YouGov poll late in the month so I've updated the charts, it makes a subtle difference to the long term log trend which does basically shows that views of independence have remained very stable since September last year.

GE 2017 and so it begins.

We start off with a rather obvious predicted outcome, but we've been there before!

Let's see how this pans out. I'll be feeding the data through the twitter account @OddsonGE2017 but it will just be the data. I'm not getting sucked into all of that again! 

Give it up.... the sad ongoing story of the DWP letter

Yes I know there is an election on! Yes I'll get to blogging on the odds market, so don't worry, but I have to turn back to the DWP letter again. 

It's fair to say that the militant wing of the nationalist movement is really struggling with the death of the DWP letter on pensions. Most have gone into denial, to the point of refusing to believe the FOI letter or even to suggest that the brilliant https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/ was a fake website!

But today it took an altogether darker turn. An old boss of mine brought to my attention a tweet (forgive me I wont link to it for reasons that will become clear) from iScot magazine published by Ken McDonald. 



Here we were presented with the zombie DWP letter and an email which is not redacted (the redactions above and below are my own). In this email a DWP press officer notes that the letter is from the DWP and "its content is correct".

You'll note that McDonald copies in Campbell and asked him to Retweet it. And Retweet it he did, as did many other nats, 264 (8 hours later) in fact. 



Now you'll note that the email doesn't tell us which letter the Press Officer was commenting on, but let's give Ken the benefit of the doubt. We also dont know the context provided to the press officer by Ken and there I wouldn't give him any benefit, for the reasons you are about to see. 

A junior press officer in London can make mistakes, I know I've worked with press offices for 20 years and they can be prone to errors as any good journalist would tell you. 

The trouble was that Ken McDonald decided to publish the email without redacting it to protect the civil servant, Campbell would have seen this when he Retweeted it but has no ethical issues with publishing a public servant's personal details online. 

So in my capacity on the Scotland In Union Advisory Board I called the press officer (after all I along with lots of people on twitter now had his phone number) and explained the situation. Suffice to say he was hopping mad and furious that his details had been published, I provided him with as much information as I could and he attempted to contact Ken McDonald, however it turns out Ken wasn't replying anymore!  

I also discussed the FoI with the Press Officer in question and he apologised for not knowing about it and said he would look into where his wires had got crossed. We're still in correspondence, however any journalist worth their salt (so that excludes McDonald and Campbell) knows that a repeated and detailed answer to an FOI following an investigation into an error is going to be far better informed of the detail than a London based press officer. That's doubly so when the press officer is confirming what appears to be a valid DWP letter in what is likely a very dubious context provided by someone like McDonald with evidently no ethics at all. 

However if you are desperate. If the fundamental error at the heart of the Wee Blue Book continues to unravel in front of your eyes then you'll believe, say and Retweet anything. That's no excuse for shoddy journalism and throwing a source under the bus. I expected better from the likes of Campbell and McDonald, but I guess my already low opinion of them was too high. 

UPDATE:
Following my last FOI some nationalists decided to try to asks the question in a different way in the desperate hope of getting a different answer. They've failed again. 


The question:
"I am a British citizen born in Scotland. If Scotland becomes an independent country, will I still be entitled to a UK pension ?"

The response:
"In the event of an independent Scottish state, State Pensions and benefits in Scotland for its citizens would be the responsibility of a Scottish Government. Therefore, any questions about entitlements in an independent Scottish state would, in that eventuality, be directed to the Scottish Government. "

A word perfect reiteration of the position we already know. This simply puts more weight on the line of thought that McDonald played fast and loose with his context in what he presented to the Press Officer and exactly what the Press Officer was replying to.

At some point the nationalists are just going to have to admit they lied about pensions during the independence referendum and they are still lying about them.  

The DWP letter : The final FOI

Not to worry this isn't an exceptionally complex of long blog, two weeks ago I finally brought my FOI on the DWP letter to a close.I've been on holiday so gave the blog a bit of a rest, hence the delay in getting this out.

There was one outstanding issue I wanted to clear up regards "Rab's" letter. Was that letter a one off or was it part of a erroneous series of letters from the DWP until it was brought to their attention by Salmond in the Scottish Parliament.

If you listened to the Yes campaign they certainly claimed that it was one of many.

Salmond certainly did claiming "constituents" (plural) had been written to.

As did the Yes campaign here is Margaret Ferrier MP in a video referring to letters (plural).

As I looked into this more and more the thing that sparked my greatest interest was the idea that there were, apparently, many letters but only one circulating on the internet. It was that more than anything else that made me think something was wrong and I needed to look deeper into the issue, hence the FOI.

The last part of my request was to establish if this letter was a one off or part of a series. We have the answer. The letter was a one off and as soon as the DWP became aware of the issue staff were informed as to how to reply to such questions in line with actual policy. 

That closes this FOI. There are still people on the internet such as Campbell that just deny that this FOI exists or that it's a fake. Sorry folks it's real and it's proved, yet again, that the Yes side lied continually on pensions during the last independence referendum and some are still doing it.  

Does Richard Murphy have a point?

I listened in to John Beattie at the BBC this afternoon and I gather Twitter tried to create a virtual spin room on the debate on GERS between Kevin Hague and Richard J Murphy. 

As with his poor contribution in the National Murphy failed to turn up with any specific criticism of GERS. His argument once more was that it was an estimate and therefore "may" have been unreliable. 

There was a fascinating section towards the end where Murphy showed that he was, frankly, "at it" and was only out to try and score some points for the furthest fringe of the nationalist movement. 

When confronted with Beattie listing the conclusions of the Fiscal Commission Working Group, which was composed of a set of economists that Murphy admires and couldn't hold a candle to, Murphy started to stumble. 

"They were looking at the data in a totally different way. All data is what, as an economist, what I would call a social construct... The issue is you have to construct the data to suit the purpose for which it is intended. They were looking at the data and adapting that data for the purpose in question and came to a different answer from what GERS was offering. 

And it was entirely appropriate for them to do so. My point is that should be happening day in day out.... This data doesn't need to be be produced as a one off but consistently so Scotland has the data it needs to make the decisions that are relevant to the people of Scotland"

Quite an authoritative statement. Having blasted GERS and the underlying assumptions within GERS, Murphy then points to the fact that eminent economists use that data in a different way and re"construct" it to make it appropriate and useful. In doing so they came up with conclusions which were different from GERS. 

So according to Murphy we should be following in the footsteps of the FCWG every year in respect of GERS and producing data their way day in day out. 

Face first into the wall
The trouble is for Murphy. The Fiscal Commission cite GERS 19 times in their First Report. They use GERS (and the SNAP data for the period from 1980 to the start of GERS) to come to their conclusions. They give the green light to GERS as the "starting point for discussion on Scotland's fiscal position".

Furthermore the FCWG did not come to a different conclusion from GERS, they reinforced GERS!

As I said this just shows Murphy has zero credibility. Faced with his economic heroes using the data he gives it the thumbs up, faced with the Scottish Government using the very same data and coming to the same conclusions he gives it the thumbs down. 

But does he have a point?
Perhaps realising that he's been rumbled Murphy recently tweeted out the following:




At first glance this seems a fair point. Don't we all want the best data for Scotland? If we can improve GERS don't we want to?

As an economist Murphy would be expected to understand the concept of diminishing returns. The cartoon version of which is as you throw more money at a problem it improves the position but after a while those improvements are very small and stop being worth the money. 

The Scottish Government have placed considerable investment in GERS to get these statistics right and within a high degree of confidence. In my view that has been great value for money and especially since the SNP reformed GERS in conjunction with the Cuthberts in 2008. The Scottish Government could do more at greater costs but to what extent would it improve the accuracy of the data? Have we reached the point of diminishing returns on GERS? 

Murphy seems to be arguing that GERS are in such a state that we need a radical increase in expenditure to improve the data. But what would that mean? Income tax is already collected separately (at considerable cost) should the same happen to NI and VAT? That would of course place a heavy burden on companies small and large. How about corporation tax should that be allocated on a local economic activity basis? That would greatly complicate the process of calculation and lead to a spectacular increase in accountancy and audit costs.

So that could all be done at some considerable cost to government and business but for what gain, slightly more accurate estimates? 

Let's remember all government statistics are estimates (look at the continual revisions to past GDP for instance). So we are never talking about getting the actual data, just more accurate estimates. 

Is it worth it?
So Murphy does have a point if GERS, and the data therein, if it is in such a poor state that we need a massive investment by the state and business to improve the confidence levels from +/- £570M out of £35BN. 

 

Personally, right now I'm not sure what costs would be worth it to tell us whether the fiscal transfer is £8.5bn or £9.5bn. I guess Mr Murphy would like us to think that it is indeed worth such considerable cost. 

Let's recall GERS was cited 19 times by economists with far greater credentials than Murphy could ever wish for, Murphy said that their use of the very same data was "entirely appropriate". He's all over the place. 

Given Murphy's inconsistency on such a matter, one has to wonder why the nationalists are so excited about this. The answer, sadly for them, may be that he's the best they have.