Snippa Spuddas

He just never does think through his arguments, does he?

And then in very many parts of GERS Scotland is simply attributed with a part of total UK spending. In many cases, however, such as defence, foreign affairs, and quite possibly many other policy areas where this attribution arises, Scottish public pinion clearly indicates that if it had the chance Scotland would make very different spending decisions to those for which it is currently charged. GERS, however, does not allow for that: as the Fraser of Allender Institute have acknowledged, GERS assumes Scotland is a mini-part of the U.K. and no compensation for its higher levels of spending in some areas is reflected in other costs apportioned from the rest of the U.K., meaning that the supposed Scottish deficit may be seriously overstated as a result. It is also possible that the tax revenue generated by the spend outside Scotland deemed in GERS to be for Scottish benefit should also be, but is not, credited to the GERS revenue account. If that’s the case then there is a serious accounting flaw in the whole GERS process that undermines all the data it supplies.

Scotland might well make different spending decisions. Sure, it might well. That’s actually the point which is being made, that given the deficit Scotland will have to make different spending decisions.


The second argument is that there’s a multiplier to government spending. Hmm, well, OK, arguendo. Snippa says that some of that extra tax received as a function of spending isn’t being attributed to Scottish revenues.


At which point we can do a simple little test. OK, there is a multiplier, spending in Scotland per head is higher than r-UK. Therefore we are already including in Scottish figures the revenue from that spending being financed by the r-UK. Which will disappear on exit from the UK of course.

So, which is larger? The revenues from spending we’re not attributing to Scottish revenue? Or that revenue from r-UK spending which we are? Given that spending per head is higher in Scotland then the second, no?

Snippa’s own argument shows that the deficit is larger than the current claim.

11 thoughts on “Snippa Spuddas”

  1. A Swedish politician decided that there should be a polite name in that language for a lady’s front bottom, along the lines of the amusing and not rude at all “willy” for the male counterpart. That works was Snippa. We use it less politely around here.

    “Spud” Murphy for an Irishman seems pretty obvious as a nickname really. Those two combined give us Spudda.

    Actually, the various names given to Richard J Murphy around here over time are an interesting example of how language develops in small groups. Exactly the same thing which over the centuries led to Latin becoming French, Spanish, Portuguese and so on.

  2. @Justin

    Elsewhere it has been pointed out that neither Twat (generally reserved for stupid or annoying people) nor Cunt (generally used aggressively for obnoxious, evil and unredeemable people) were quite enough for the putrid malevolence that is Murphy’s mind and person and so the word;


    Was suggested.

    Personally, I still like ‘Berk’ as an insult as most people don’t know it is Cockney rhyming slang (Berkeley Hunt). It’s a sort of ‘dog-whistle’ insult.

  3. The pronunciation of ‘berk’ must have changed from the ‘bark’ of ‘Berkshire’ to the ‘burk’ of ‘berk’, if you see what I mean.

    Unless of course the pronunciation of “Berkshire” has changed…

  4. Anyway, like those fanatic Japanese soldiers who were still dug in on remote Pacific islands twenty years after WW2 ended, Murphy doubles down on GERS.

  5. “Surely it can’t be Berkshire, otherwise the shortened insult would be “Bark”?”

    If it was ‘Berkeley Hunt’, the same problem would arise – Berkeley is pronounced Barkley.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *