Oh no!! Brexit not going quite as well as hoped

[jowwy]

What case? Did you have one?

yeh, we packed you off in it to Hong Kong, with a label " only one way "

 

[jowwy]

If you don't agree with someone on a discussion forum, it's convention to actually post evidence and reasoning as to why you disagree.

Not tell everyone to eff off!

i didn't tell everyone to eff off....and i gave a case, whether you agree or not, is up to to you. But if you don't agree, you will be called a TROLL

 

[icowden]

Well m glad you never have to send data to anywhere that relies on accuracy for accounting or monetary payments.......how many people in wales rusty, we want to pay out the barnet formula????

Well this will blow your tiny mind...
The Barnet formula was based on rounded estimates, not absolutes...

The population proportions used for the Barnett formula were originally set at 10/85 for Scotland and 5/85 for Wales (i.e. Wales would derive 5/85ths of any increase in comparable spending in England). These were based on rounded percentages of the Great Britain populations derived from mid-1976, rounded population estimates (85 per cent England, 10 per cent Scotland and 5 per cent Wales). A parallel formula allocated 2.75% of the change in equivalent expenditure in Great Britain to Northern Ireland. The ratios were revised in the 1992 Autumn Statement such that with effect from 1993-94, Scotland received a 10.66% share of additional spending on comparable programmes in England and Wales (10.06% of programmes which were comparable with England alone); the Welsh Office was allocated 6.02% of comparable English programmes; and the Northern Ireland Office and departments received resources allocated on a 2.87% UK-based population formula applied to comparable programmes in Great Britain.

In any event, you don't seem to be able to differentiate between data for presentation and data for purpose. When we present, we tend to round data to make it clearer and easier to understand. If we are using the data for specific purpose - e.g. to make payments - we don't *need* to round because computers aren't worried about that sort of thing.

You really need to stop trying to make non-binary things binary.

 

[cookiemonster]

yeh, we packed you off in it to Hong Kong, with a label " only one way "

I refer the member to post no 4620.

And no-one packed me off. Although, I am earning triple what I would get in the UK and with a tax rate of just 17%, no VAT.

One way seems to be the best solution just now while the UK eats itself and you sit back and, seemingly, enjoy it.

 

[jowwy]

Well this will blow your tiny mind...
The Barnet formula is based on rounding, not absolutes...

maybe you should have highlighted this bit - which is now to 2 decimal places

The ratios were revised in the 1992 Autumn Statement such that with effect from 1993-94, Scotland received a 10.66% share of additional spending on comparable programmes in England and Wales (10.06% of programmes which were comparable with England alone); the Welsh Office was allocated 6.02% of comparable English programmes; and the Northern Ireland Office and departments received resources allocated on a 2.87% UK-based population formula applied to comparable programmes in Great Britain.

 

[Deleted member 28]

If you don't agree with someone on a discussion forum, it's convention to actually post evidence and reasoning as to why you disagree.

In all fairness I've tried that in the past when the subject was someone's opinion rather than a factual statement.

I was still accused of trolling.

 

[jowwy]

I refer the member to post no 4620.

And no-one packed me off. Although, I am earning triple what I would get in the UK and with a tax rate of just 17%, no VAT.

One way seems to be the best solution just now while the UK eats itself and you sit back and, seemingly, enjoy it.

ah so andy is everyone is he??? i mean i know he got multiple personalities, but classing him as everyone is a bit off the mark.

 

[cookiemonster]

i didn't tell everyone to eff off....and i gave a case, whether you agree or not, is up to to you. But if you don't agree, you will be called a TROLL

Erm, @AndyRM would def disagree with that.

You don't give a case either.

 

[jowwy]

Erm, @AndyRM would def disagree with that.

You don't give a case either.

he may well do....but as stated above, he isn't everyone as per you post. So lets be factually accurate "Troll"

 

[icowden]

maybe you should have highlighted this bit - which is now to 2 decimal places

And maybe you should have read my final paragraph which explains *why*.

 

[newfhouse]

maybe you should have highlighted this bit - which is now to 2 decimal places

The ratios were revised in the 1992 Autumn Statement such that with effect from 1993-94, Scotland received a 10.66% share of additional spending on comparable programmes in England and Wales (10.06% of programmes which were comparable with England alone); the Welsh Office was allocated 6.02% of comparable English programmes; and the Northern Ireland Office and departments received resources allocated on a 2.87% UK-based population formula applied to comparable programmes in Great Britain.

Precise percentages of an estimate. Great work.

 

[jowwy]

And maybe you should have read my final paragraph which explains *why*.

the usual bollocks....you dont understand this, you dont undestand that........what a farking original comment to make.

 

[jowwy]

Precise percentages of an estimate. Great work.

Or totally new way of workings, rather than using estimates........i mean an average of an average is still an average.

 

[jowwy]

We now got clowns researching the barnet formula, just because i used its wording to make a point.......fark me, you couldnt explain this place to real people, as it would blow their farking minds

 

[AndyRM]

Ooohh, I'm getting dragged in to this hey?

@cookiemonster is a wonderful human being.

@jowwy is a doss c*nt who can barely write. And pretends he doesn't swear, yet does.

I know who I am, and I'm happy about that.