Talk:Welsh fiscal balance

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Welsh fiscal deficit was higher than Greece's throughout the Greek government-debt crisis? Source: Compare Exhibit 2 in this source with the first graph in the Welsh fiscal deficit article (can also be found here

• Reviewed: Khotin Uprising

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 04:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC).

• Article was created on 23 April, is long enough, appears neutral, cites sources inline, no apparent copyvio. Hook is interesting and meets requirements, its verification requires comparing two sources but this seems fine (the period of the Greek government-debt crisis is not defined in the article but the comparison is true across all recent time periods presented in the article and in the sources so that doesn't seem to matter). QPQ done. Whizz40 (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, I came by to promote this, but I'm not as adept at comparing charts as Whizz40 seems to be and I'm finding it hard to verify the hook fact. Why are you even comparing the Welsh fiscal crisis to that of Greece? Yoninah (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yoninah, This NYT article makes the compraison, but it is from 2012 so it can't be cited for the entire period. If you look at the graph the worst Greek deficit was in 2009, when the Greek deficit was 15% and the Welsh deficit was 30%. For other years the Greek deficit has been 13% or less, while the Welsh deficit has been greater than 15%. buidhe 04:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• OK, restoring tick, but I still don't see it. Leaving it to another promoter to double-check the figures. Yoninah (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

first sentence of implications

Buidhe, who is claiming this, and what is the source? I checked the source for the next sentence and the website appeared to be unavailable. —valereee (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, It looks like Cardiff University's website is temporarily offline. It will be correctly sourced once the website is back online. IIRC Poole was referring to some sort of advertising on buses, but I would have to double check. buidhe 15:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, thanks! —valereee (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, OK, the website is available now and I was wrong. The exact quote is "Total spending per head in Wales is significantly lower than claims that Wales “gets £120 for every £100 that's spent in England”. This 120% spending level only relates to Welsh Government funding received through the block grant. Total spending for Wales is just 11% per person higher than in England." The quote does not appear in the full report [1]. Should it be removed because it's not clear who's making it? buidhe 17:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, yeah, I think we almost have to if we can't figure out who is making these claims, otherwise we look non-neutral. —valereee (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality and pov

I am very concerned about the above discussions and the neutrality of the article as it stood. I have been on Wikipedia for quite a few years and have never come across anything as blatantly biased. This is very worrying. John Jones (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Problem with your edits is that you add content that's not supported by the source, for instance saying that spending is due to "For many reasons such as poverty, demographics and geographic factors, " which is not supported by the cited source.[2] You also added SYNTH content such as the bit about HS2 which does not mention deficits at all. If we're going to compare to the UK national deficit it should be on a per capita/percent of GDP basis since that's how sources do it. (t · c) buidhe 19:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I've added most of my edits one by one, with reasoning fyi. Address each one before amending in any way. To answer your 3 points:

'poverty, demographics and geographic factors' are mentioned throughout the sources included in this article.

I referenced Mark Barry's article ('We do know for example, that Wales is allocated expenditure for items that do not directly benefit Wales') where he mentions HS2, the cost of the British army to Wales etc etc. This is notWP:SYNTH as it's in the source and has a direct effect on the implied deficit. Here's the exact wording, as you missed it first time round:

We do know for example, that Wales is allocated expenditure for items that do not directly benefit Wales (e.g. HS2[xxiv]) and has to carry more costs than a country the size of Wales would normally be expected to (e.g. military expenditure). Furthermore, some of the tax take in Wales is not counted in Wales (e.g. some corporation tax given location of HQ).

UK national deficit - you noted the Welsh deficit of around $13.7 billion; I compared this with the UK national deficit of £350 billion as that is what the cited sources said. Deleting this becomes sensoring information and goes aginst WP ethos. As you requested gdp I've also added, for comparison, the gdp of other nations such as Spain, Portugal (and, yes, they are fully sourced, with no SYNCH!

Take care, and please read POV. John Jones (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

"The fiscal policies which create the economy of Wales are, on the whole, created by the UK Government and as such, Wales is not allowed to borrow money, issue bonds, exercise quantitative easing etc" this purely unsourced, POV language. The "Forecast" section shouldn't be there, maybe it would have been like that but for COVID-19 but it is WP:CRYSTAL (and wrong). And you cite the same blog for HS2 which does not say anything about deficits, as before. Not to mention confusing national debt with deficit, these are two separate things. (t · c) buidhe 23:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

"The fiscal policies...' - I didn't add a source as it was in the opening paragraph; and would have expanded on the sources in the body of the article tomorrow. But, at your request, I've now done so. What part of the sentence is 'POV language'? It's a fact. Like it or not.

WP:CRYSTAL is about unverifiable speculation or presumptions; 'Forecast' was verifiable, and a scientific forecast of where the deficit would be in a year's time. Re-read WP:CRYSTAL, as it's completely irrelevant. The 'Forecast' mentions the fact that the deficit would be less - is this why you didn't want to include it? The whole article was negative, and tried to denigrate Wales throughout. A neutral point of view is essential in all articles.

Confusion with deficit and debt? Not at all; read it again. By the way, odd that you have written Welsh fiscal deficit and Northern Ireland fiscal deficit, but not English fiscal deficit or UK fiscal deficit. This alone is bias. John Jones (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Your second revert has been done with no reasoning in any way. I've given reasons for every one of my edits. Please discuss rationally. John Jones (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

You have to cite reliable sources. These are not reliable. If you disagree you can post at WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. (t · c) buidhe 00:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I've now added a Political POV tag on this article. The onus is on you to prove that my references are unreliable. Revert the others as you have so far failed to provide any solid reasons why you have reverted my edits. John Jones (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

No, actually WP:ONUS says that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." (t · c) buidhe 00:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The reliable sources cited by me are: www.businesstimes.com, swalesmetroprof.blog (Prof. Mark barry, Cardiff University), Nation.Cymru and International Institute for Strategic Studies. None of these are banned on Wikipedia. State which ones are "unreliable". John Jones (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

1. Based on his blog profile,[3] it looks like Barry may qualify as an expert in transportation or urban planning, but I see no evidence that he has expertise in economics as required by WP:SPS.
2. Nation.Cymru sources are opinion pieces, they are only reliable for the opinion of their author, not factual information. (Although I suspect they are WP:UNDUE, see below.)
3. The business times source does not mention Wales, it is WP:OR to cite it here.
4. IISS source does not mention deficits or Wales, it is WP:OR. (t · c) buidhe 00:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

1. Your addition of the word may here is an attempt to denigrate Barry's authority. Mark Barry's blog, which you are using as a criterium, confirms that he has authority in this field: provides support & advice in the fields of economic development and transport strategy. It also mentions 30 years experience in finance (and) economic development. Did you find the word 'may' in any reliable sources? No. Unquestionably an authority in transport, and fiscal matters relating to Wales.

2. Nation.Cymru has been verified by WP:Reliable sources noticeboard as: one of the most extensive sources of news and commentary on Welsh topics and a second user says: I don't see anything questionable in Nation.Cymru as a source. They have an editorial board, subscribe to the Editors' Code of Practice, and label opinion pieces to distinguish them. and I would consider it generally reliable for news.. It was you who suggested using Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and the comments therein agree that Nation.Cymru is a reliable source. WP:UNDUE? Not at all. Read what those guidelines say: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints. You did not do this. My edits are an attempt to add 'all significant viewpoints' rather than one negative, unionist viewpoint.

3. www.businesstimes.com doesn't mention Wales, but wasn't used as a reference for Wales. The reference was for the UK fiscal deficit:

This compares to the [[UK fiscal deficit]] of £350 billion between 2019-2020<ref>{{cite news |title=UK set to borrow £350b and more is likely: think tank |url=https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/government-economy/uk-set-to-borrow-£350b-and-more-is-likely-think-tank |access-date=30 January 2021 |publisher=Business Times |date=9 July 2020}}</ref>

This is very relevant to the article and gives a linear perspective and a wider context to the Welsh figures. No original research was involved, once again, as you can see if you read the above text once again. The research is in the cited source. The precedent was set by you, when you compared England and Wales in other parts of the article.

4. IISS - referenced the UK military spend, and does not reference the rest of the sentence. however, this new refernces does quailfy military spend in Wales:

UK government spends £1.75bn per year on the military in Wales which is almost as much as Wales spend on education every year (£1.8 billion in 2018/19) and five times as much as the total amount spent on the police in Wales (£365 million).

or will you question that www.gov.uk is a reliable source? I haven't included sources for education and police costs, as these are freely available elshwere. @Cell Danwydd: may know.

These 4 references are now watertight (with the above (4) amendment).

I move that my good faith edits be reinstated. John Jones (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

1. You haven't addressed the issue that self-published materials "are largely not acceptable as sources" and to be considered reliable it is *required* that the author is "an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". The relevant field is economics, what is the evidence that he is an expert economist?
2. The issue with Nation Cymru is not the newspaper, but the fact that opinion pieces are not usually fact-checked, and therefore are not usually reliable for facts. This holds for opinion pieces published by any newspaper.
3. The business times source would be suitable for an article on UK fiscal deficit but since it does not say anything about Wales, it is irrelevant here.
4. The new source you refer to doesn't say anything about deficits. Adding it to this article is WP:OR. (t · c) buidhe 10:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Support John Jones's edits - User:Buidhe obviously picks parts of the references, avoiding others thus we have a highly biased article, reflecting his pov. As mentioned by John Jones, Mark Barry's academic blog is reliable and links to other reliable sources. Nation.Cymru - take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard! No 3 and 4 are relevant to the text they reference. This was clearly stated by JJ. Cell Danwydd (talk) 10:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC) I note that you reverted much of JJ's edits even though they included this reference, which you added a number of times throughout the article! You dispute your own reference or did you add unreliable refences? Cell Danwydd (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The only thing that I reverted was inappropriate use of the "forecast" from 2019 predicting what would happen in the future. 2 years down the line the forecast is out of date. (t · c) buidhe 11:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

---

There has been much editing, with no discussion on this Talk page, therefore I've reverted to the last discussion's point in time. User:BritishFinance's edit removed a whole section. The section is explains that no one knows what the fiscal deficit of Wales is, as information is held back by the ONS etc (under 'England and Wales'). I've now amended the section 'Identifiable and non-identifiable expenditure' and renamed it 'Identifiable and non-identifiable expenditure'. It was deleted by User:BritishFinance as "this section is not adding to the topic or explaining the criticism". I hope now you understand it's importance. Secondly, creating a section named 'criticism' is a really handy way of placing anything you don't like into a bin. This is not how WP articles work. Facts are not criticisms - only in the pov's eyes. This section you deleted was referenced to citations from Wales Fiscal Analysis Wales Governance Centre at Cardiff University; these are not criticisms, and saying that says a lot about the impartiality of User:BritishFinance. Cell Danwydd (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Support - Cell Danwydd, where we discuss every part rationally, rather than a demolition job as per BritishFinance and buidhe, where both have WP:POV, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH in their edits. John Jones (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Support - Cell Danwydd The major problem that this article and this discussion have isn't bias, but incompatibility. One side is trying to make the case for an abstract Welsh deficit whilst the other side is trying to make an argument about a concrete deficit.
The UK government allocates debt and taxes to regions of the UK based on an abstract allocation. Project A is for the sole benefit of the region, project B benefits the whole of the UK. This creates anomalies. Improving Merseyrail benefits north west England and is costed as a north west project. Improving London Underground however, because it's in the capital, is costed as a whole UK project, and is divided between all regions.
If I buy crisps in Asda Llandudno tomorrow my VAT will be collected in England, if you by Crisps in Iceland Birmingham your VAT will be collected in Wales
The concrete argument is how much deficit does Wales actually have, or potentially have, if it became independent. The answer to that question in international law is £0. Whilst there is a live debate going on about Welsh independence, any article that doesn't quote the fact that international law says that Wales actually "owes" Westminster FA is biased and negligent of the facts. AlwynapHuw (talk) 06:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Strong Support keeping the existing version; work down from top, per paragraph. I think AlwynapHuw has hit the nail on its head regarding buidhe's The new source you refer to doesn't say anything about deficits and Britishfinance's OR and WP:COATRACK. Alwyn is 100% correct. Wales isn't a sovereign nation, and most fiscal policies are made by the UK Government (this is in the article), therefore Wales can't have a 'fiscal debt'; it is the UK debt attributed to Wales. Britishfinance's suggestion of having a 'Criticism' section for explanations of a debt is way out. It's impossible to criticise a debt! You criticise the debtor, unless that debt is a good thing. So who is the debtor in this case? Mainly the UK Government, and to a lesser extent the Welsh Government. The criticism should be relative to apportioned financial power of these two governments. Ultimate power, here is in the hands of the UK Gov. That's why even the title is incorrect and should be changed to UK 'Government's fiscal debt in Wales'. Lastly, Buidhe needs to refresh himself / herself with PG and OR, as the user deleted a whole paragraph, which had been discussed above (see section titled: WP:OR comparison), where Cell Danwydd proved beyond doubt that OR and WP:SYNTH did not apply, and that the citations were reliable and good. No person from the UK would use 'Welch', however Britishfinance has done so at least 3 times. I find this very odd as its usually used by people from the USA (or from the 19c), and although Britishfinance's edits, in other articles seem to be good, such a faux pas suggests that the editor would best not edit articles about which he / she knows very little about. We are here to create a fair, balanced article, so lets start from the top of the existing article, and work down. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Strong Support for the reasons explained by Alwyn and Llywelyn2000, John Jones and Cell Danwydd. Keep existing article, and work down from top. I'm not an expert in finance, but adding both sides of the story is essential. Thanks John jones and Cell Danwydd for all you hard work in doing this. I've just had a look at how the article read before John's additions, and it seems to me that the English Wikipedia are looking at the world through very imperialist, colonialist and unionist eyes. Sad world. Tegwen Llyfr a Gwin (talk) 08:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Just looking at a few reliable sources easily found with Google search:

• https://fullfact.org/economy/wales-fiscal-deficit-gap-between-tax-and-spend/
• https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-49127308
• https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/15bn-tax-deficit-heart-wales-11131738
• https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2019/08/welsh-spending-cuts-cause-deficit-reduction-says-study
• https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2016/04/welsh-fiscal-deficit-stands-24-gdp-report-finds
• https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/englands-great-river-of-cash-keeps-nations-afloat-t95q65567
• https://www.centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk/opinions/new-report-detailing-welsh-public-finances-finds-deficit-ps147bn

I.e. it looks like most RS on this subject are not written from Welsh pro-independence perspective, the article should not overly reflect Welsh pro-independence perspective. (t · c) buidhe 00:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

As it stands, your article reflects English anti-independence / unionist perspective. John Jones (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually it reflects what reliable sources say. (t · c) buidhe 01:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Only your selected sources! Odd you didn't include: Government Expenditure and Revenue Wales which is the authority on fiscal analysis in Wales. Cell Danwydd (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, the report is also a reliable source. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. (t · c) buidhe 11:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:OR comparison

It's claimed that "The UK government spends £1.75bn per year on the military in Wales which is almost as much as Wales spend on education every year (£1.8 billion in 2018/19)." The source makes no such comparison. (t · c) buidhe 10:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Grasping straws! The citation is to the first part of the sentence: government spends £1.75bn per year on the military in Wales. Adding a second reference (to education costs) is easy. Government Expenditure and Revenue Wales 2019 by https://www.cardiff.ac.uk mentions:

UK government spending on defence apportioned to Wales amounted to £1.8 billion. and

Cumulative identifiable spending, 2013-14 to 2017-18 (Education and training) = 1,805.. So, in short: NOT WP:OR! Cell Danwydd (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

You have two sources put together to reach a conclusion (comparison of education and defense spending) which is not stated in either. That is a classic example of WP:SYNTH. (t · c) buidhe 11:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

It's one source, one document. In fact both military and educ are placed together in that one document, for comparison. I'll create a graph later of the costs. From the reader's point of view, it places the cost of defence in the perspective of others (here, edu). Cell Danwydd (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The source doesn't actually compare education and defense spending. You aren't allowed to draw a conclusion that's not in the source. (t · c) buidhe 11:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes they do: Figure 4.4 (page 44) and Figure 4.7 (p. 47) and Figure 4.19 (p. 55). Cell Danwydd (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Article needs to be re-structured

This used to be an article about the Welsh fiscal deficit with a section describing the "Deficit" (which is encyclopedic), and a section on "Implications" (which can be encyclopedic but only if structured and sourced properly with no WP:OR). Now it is less coherent with disconnected sections on aspects of Welsh GDP etc. (and apples-to-oranges material), that is not coherent with the topic. I understand that the topic creates sensitivities to Welsh nationalists and that the metric has many dimensions to it (and can be misinterpreted if just read in isolation). I propose we build a structured/coherent section inside the "Implications" section that deals with criticisms of the metric as representative of the true underlying financial position of the Welsh economy etc. Britishfinance (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I have made the first stab at this, but left a tag on the Critism section to get it cleaned up; there seem to be loads of sources online on this exact issue (i.e. that the current "deficit" is not representative of the true potential deficit), so it should be doable and useful for readers. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Restructuring should be based on the above ongoing discussions. Cell Danwydd (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I did, and was thanked by others for doing it. I have proposed below that your BOLD reversion be reverted, and the version we worked on restoring. Very happy to discuss changes you wish to make, but let us do so one-by-one, as some of your changes are tangential to the topic, and some are WP:OR (or even WP:COATRACK). I completely get that this metric as a standalone figure could be misinterpreted vis-a-vis Welch independence, however, we need to record that in a focused way (i.e. the Criticism section), that captures the statements of the most notable critics, and only where they are specifically discussing the Welch deficit (otherwise, it is OR). We have to keep an encyclopedic focus here and will work with you to resolve anything that is potentially POV/misleading etc. on this topic. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Which edits are tangenial? Discussions were happening until three days ago, when you started deleting whole sections without discussion. Discuss. Cell Danwydd (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of 2 sections without discussion in Talk

@Buidhe: Can you explain why you have deleted these two paragraphs? You say: first paragraph is made up of SYNTH, second paragraph fails verification in cited source.

• Paragraph one (By UK law, Wales must pay for items...) - this is a list of items which effect the fiscal deficit. The list has two items: HS2 and military costs. If this was SYNTH, then combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. However, the first reference (Prof M Barry) mentions both. JohnJones informed you of this here, and yet you continue to delete, with no discussion on this Talk page.

• Paragraph 2 (Among other areas where Wales, presently...) - which bit is not in the source? Once again: discuss rather than delete willy-nilly!

Cell Danwydd (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Cell Danwydd, you must have sources that are specifically discussing the Welch deficit. WP:SYNTH, is where you integrate related topics together yourself (which are not integrated in the references), to draw your own conclusions. There are lots of good pieces that I saw online about Welch economists directly criticizing the "Welch Deficit" figure as not being representative of the financial reality of an independent Wales – these are the kind of references you need in this article. Also, we need to ensure that we separate the task of describing the metric, from criticism of the metric. You have a tendency to want to critique the metric in every section, which is not helpful to readers. Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

How dare you! Welch deficit and Welch economists!!! You have no idea what you're talking about - you can't even spell the name of our country! It's Welsh! You call yourself "British" yet can't spell Welsh!!! What a con! You are nothing of the sort. Regarding Paragraph 1 WP:SYNTH - conclusions are in the mind of the beholder; I see only two facts - both related through the sources. The subject itself is a negative one ('Welsh fiscal deficit'), and used until recently to convey that "Wales is too poor to stand on its own two feet". The whole article contained negative points, all written from an English / British perspective, with no neutrality. As we don't have an article on English fiscal deficit or British fiscal deficit, then the whole article should be renamed Welsh finance or deleted. Cell Danwydd (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

No personal attacks please Cell Danwydd. If you can't, or refuse to, understand WP:SYNTH, or you demonstrate a strong POV here, then editors will stop listening to you and your edits will just get reverted. You are completely welcome to write an article on the English fiscal deficit or British fiscal deficit, assuming that it follows Wikipedia WP:PAG. The metric of the Welsh fiscal decficit (apologies on the spelling) is an encyclopedic topic (so much so that it was a DYK on the Mainpage, per above), that quality independentsources discuss in detail.

Per my comments above, I also believe that there are other quality sources that criticize its conclusions for Welsh independent viability, but we have not gotten those into this article yet. We have disparate facts, many from sources that don't even mention the deficit (and are thus SYNTH and likely comparing apples-to-oranges). If you are unwilling to engage collaboratively in building a proper criticism section that meets WP:PAG, then your edits will unlikely pass the community and will get reverted. Britishfinance (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Cell Danwydd: made No personal attacks. He noted your inability to spell 'Welsh', even though 'Welsh' is in the title of this article. It's also obvious that you don't understand WP:SYNTH, as no details have been supplied. Not all sources need to mention the subject of an article, as you well know. Deleting en mass as you have done and your strong POV is frowned upon by the community; try and be more patient and reasonable in your edits. A poll was started on 17th February; a second one is not needed. What is needed is a rational discussion, which , so far, from you remains very limited. John Jones (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to revert Cell Danwydd's reversion

I propose that we undo Cell Danwydd's BOLD reversion today, and restore the version Buidhe, Laurel Lodged, Gråbergs Gråa Sång and myself worked on. There are too many issues with Cell Danwydd's version (including WP:POV, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH), and we have a section on Criticism that Cell Danwydd can focus on (which also needs fixing). Britishfinance (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Suppport. As nominator. Britishfinance (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• I don't currently have an informed opinion, but in my experience Britishfinance know what they're talking about. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per the reasons stated above. (t · c) buidhe 23:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

A proposal was made on the 17th of February. This second one is void. John Jones (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• See above Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - I feel that the username Britishfinance, though presumably not intended to mislead, is incorrectly being taken as evidence of expertise on this topic. The very first comment in this proposal constitutes canvassing. Deb (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

  Britishfinance has indeed written several good articles about finances in the British isles, so yes, I'd say they have the expertise that their username suggests. Commenting in a discussion is not canvassing. Posting [4] a biased message to a wikiproject *is* canvassing. (t · c) buidhe 19:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

  • And you're qualified to comment on their expertise because...? Deb (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 28 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Welsh fiscal balance, Northern Ireland fiscal balance, and London fiscal balance. (non-admin closure) Vpab15 (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

---

• Welsh fiscal deficit → Government spending in Wales
• Northern Ireland fiscal deficit → Government spending in Northern Ireland

– "Deficit" is a loaded term. Even if the word "deficit" is meaningful in the context of UK finance, it refers to a current situation that may not exist in the future. It seems to me that it would be more useful to look at the whole question of the financing of countries with devolved governments rather than dwelling on one aspect of it. Although the title I'm suggesting is based on existing articles such as Government spending in the United Kingdom and Government spending in the United States, I'm open to suggestions for alternative article titles. I'm bringing this here because discussion on the Talk page suggests it is likely to be controversial, with opinion evenly divided between those who see a "fiscal deficit" as a problem and those who see it in a historical context. Deb (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose A separate article can be created about government spending. These articles are about the gap between spending and revenue. We have articles about both National debt of the United States and Government spending in the United States, which should not be merged. In this case, debt is not accumulated but the Welsh and Northern Irish governments do run a fiscal deficit, while there is also a London fiscal surplus. Whether fiscal deficit is a problem is irrelevant to the question of whether it's a notable topic. You should try AfD if you want the articles deleted, rather than attempting deletion through move procedure. (t · c) buidhe 16:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Strong agree with Deb here. If Welsh Government was in charge of all Welsh fiscal policies, this would hold. But it doesn't, most of the purse strings are held by the UK Government, so 'Welsh fiscal deficit' does not exist, or at best states that the deficit is a Welsh one (ie Welsh Gov) rather than being an UK deficit attributed to Wales. As it stands, the article places all the blame on the Welsh Government, yet it is not allowed to regulate most taxes, VAT, spending on HS2, monarchy, military etc etc etc. If changed to 'Government spending in Wales', then the UK deficit in Wales as well as the limits of Welsh Gov spending - both - could be explained in order to create a neutral article. As it stands, this article is biased, anti-Welsh Government, does not take into account the latest figures and statements from Welsh sources, and should be deleted. 86.176.57.160 (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • 86.176.57.160, please log in! Deb (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Government spending is only one part. There are also revenues. Wales "fiscal balance" would be the preferable neutral term. Walrasiad (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• Move to Welsh fiscal balance and Northern Irish fiscal balance, or alternatively Northern Ireland fiscal balance, and move London fiscal surplus to London fiscal balance, per Walrasiad. Ham II (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd support such a move. Deb (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support moves to Welsh fiscal balance, Northern Ireland fiscal balance, and London fiscal balance. There is also an indefinite possibility that any deficit can turn into a surplus and vice versa, so we may as well have titles that cover both contingencies. BD2412 T 05:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly agree with both Ham II, Deb and BD2412. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 09:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Correction

I'd like to correct my edit which contained in the edit window that UserBuide is banned. The banned editor, of course, is User:BritishFinance, who mis-edited much of this article. I do apologise for this mistake. Cell Danwydd (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Continually downplaying the deficit compared to reliable sources

I'm disappointed by edits that seek to downplay the deficit according to reliable sources and give undue weight to minority view that the deficit is not important or would be easily reversed in the event of Welsh independence. When we have this source it is blatantly POV to be giving equal or GREATER weight to the opposite claim, which does not appear in peer reviewed sources. (t · c) buidhe 01:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you that more content should be given in the independence section on a potentially negative fiscal balance in the event of independence. The source you mention already been quoted, but the content in the article using the source could be expanded. If you can find any other sources that refer to a negative fiscal balance with independence, I would encourage you to add relevant content also. Titus Gold (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I also removed the following text from the lead which was not cited in the body nor the lead, "Some state that the deficit is not a Welsh deficit as Wales does not have significant powers over taxation and does not set its own budget, in that the UK Government holds many of these fiscal powers."

I would try to avoid blanket statements to describe multiple edits. Titus Gold (talk) 01:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The main point that you find in reliable sources and that this article should be making—that Wales has continuously run a deficit greater than the UK deficit since the beginning of devolution—should be the first sentence of the article, but instead is getting lost. (t · c) buidhe 02:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The first sentene of the lead literally says that, "From 1999-2022 Wales has had a negative fiscal balance, due to public spending in Wales exceeding tax revenue." Titus Gold (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)