User talk:Ezny

Hi Ezny,

You've been adding some great material to the article on Barnett formula. However, could I ask that you try to write from a more neutral position?

That's not to say that the meat of the argument has to be altered, merely that you have to be careful about adding 'value' terms before facts, and also about presenting 'opinions' as resolved fact.

For example, you added a new section to the article today called 'Options for change'. In that you wrote '[the SNP] rejects the well-established data that show Scotland having a fiscal deficit [...]'

Saying 'well-established data' is a bit of a value judgement about the data. You can get the same point across by saying 'The SNP reject the argument that Scotland has a fiscal deficit', etc. (Because I'm pretty sure the SNP don't consider it 'well established'...)

Cheers, Mauls 20:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments - will do! (is this the right way of responding to posts like this)?

Cheers,

          Ezny 20:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation - I see what you're saying, but I included mention of inflation as a reminder that public spending tends to increase over time even if the 'in real terms' spending stays the same... Don't know if including it would begin to overegg the paragraph, so I'll leave your changes be. Liked the comment about the population change also being a valid factor in the 'squeeze' - good addition.

Mauls 01:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]