I continued to find myself in the middle of a Twitter and blogging storm yesterday as a result of my comments on the quality of the data in what is called GERS (Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland) made on this blog over the last couple of days, here and here. Much of the commentary comes from the usual Twitter gutter and makes me think Owen Jones is right to get a life by leaving social media behind. Some has come from, or is about, people who I had not until Tuesday heard of. One is called Wings over Scotland, who appears universally hated by unionists. I have not bothered to find out why. Another is a person called Kevin Hague, who appears to enjoy much the same status with nationalists, who appear all too keen to mention the fact that he makes his living selling dog food, as if that disqualifies him from comment: that I would not agree with. Kevin Hague does however have an unusual style of argument and a surprising following. He has published a blog under the title Richard Murphy, GERS Denier which seems to require somecomment before I then explore bigger issues.
GERS Denier
It's clear that anyone who questions the quality of data in GERS will be on the wrong side of Mr Hague. It is, apparently, sacrosanct in his opinion. I have already made my opinion clear on that. I am not going to reiterate it. I am, however, apparently quite wrong to question its status according to Mr Hague for three reasons. The first is that it's right because it says it's right: he quotes its own stated confidence levels as proof of that. But this is not an argument. No one is right because they are confident that they are.
Then he says I should not question GERS because two academic macroeconomists he has spoken to agree that its right. Professor Ronald McDonald comes to this view because, apparently, GERS is produced in accordance with approved best practice. That provides me with no confidence at all. I questioned the quality of the data, and not what was done with it. Doing good things to bad data in accordance with the best statistical standards in the world still results in bad data. My point has not been addressed by Professor McDonald as a result. I suggested the GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) principle applied here and that issue has not been addressed.
And then Hague quotes a Professor Angus Armstrong who apparently says:
All economic statistics involve sampling and estimates. But when the UK Statistics Authority designate figures as ‘National Statistics' that's hugely significant. This is a kite-mark showing they meet international statistical standards. Anybody who says these figures are “easily rigged” or “nonsense data” frankly doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. The people who work to create these statistics are honest, hard-working and dedicated public servants who aren't allowed to answer back to defend themselves. Anyone who questions our national statisticians' honesty and integrity should take a hard look at themselves.
But then note that Armstrong was apparently previously Head of Macroeconomic Analysis at HM Treasury. That hardly suggests impartiality when they were the people who I was criticising for failing to collect the data that Scotland needs and for providing what may be some pretty poor estimates in their place. What the stated opinion actually represents is a very typical view from the Westminster Treasury that suggests that they know what's right on all occasions and no one has the right to question them. I'd remind anyone that attitudes like that got us to 2008. I'd also suggest that this quote takes us back to Hague's first argument: the variation is that the data is now right because those preparing it say it is. With respect, I spent many years as an auditor and the whole premise of that profession is that such claims cannot be accepted at face value. I do not then accept Professor Armstrong's argument: its whole foundation is unjustifiable.
Third, it seems I am wrong because the SNP has used the data. But that was not a point I made, and won't. If the SNP have got this wrong, then it's time they put this right in my opinion. In that regard I noticed a Common Weal article by Margaret Cuthbert, a noted commentator on the issue as I now understand it, that said:
It is becoming a trademark of Scottish Government reports that important statements are not backed up by relevant data or by references to where relevant data can be found.
GERS was one of her targets. Another was data on Scottish imports and exports. I'd happily support her argument that much better data is needed. If that implies there has been apparent inaction by successive Scottish governments to achieve this, so be it: I will address why that might be the case below. But what none of this implies is that I am a GERS denier. It does say I'd like GERS to be useful. So let me move on to discuss why data is not available, data related issues and how progress could be made.
Why data is not available
Let's be clear, what we measure matters. As importantly, what we do not measure also matters. Both indicate what we think important. Both indicate what we intend to manage. Both suggest how we intend to manage. And such decisions are not free from bias: all decisions do reflect bias because we always come to them with our own prejudices. This point is vital in this debate. As GERS shows, Scotland has almost no real data on its economy. Whether its tax income, savings, investment, imports, exports and much else, what I am saying (and what it seems Margaret Cuthbert is saying) is that there is simply no data available for Scotland. And that means that the decision has been taken by those who might collect this data - which for these purposes would all seem to be London based agencies - not to collect it.
I stress that this point is vital. What those who might have collected this data have said as a result is that Scotland does not matter. And that nor does its economy. They don't think Scotland is important enough to have reliable data prepared for it. And they very clearly imply as a result that they do not think that the Scottish economy should be managed independently. They are sating that these issues don't think matter. So they have not allocated resources to them. They have supplied some extrapolations instead. There is no way they know if those extrapolations are appropriate: the data does not exist to test that. The result is that the Scottish economic debate is denied the data it needs because of a decision, or a whole series of decisions, in London, which was my whole initial argument. This is precisely why Angus Armstrong is wrong, for example. London decided Scotland did not need statistics so they did not get them.
Why this has not been raised before I do not know, but I can speculate. When Labour was in office in Scotland and London I strongly suspect there was little incentive to change the arrangement. That's not been true under SNP governments. But I suspect that if they have asked for better data they came straight up against the type of argument already noted: you've got data of a high standard and we're not going to collect anything else for you. And the Scottish government has not got the power to change that at present. I stress, I don't know this has happened. I hope it has. But the key point is, if better data is not available that is not the SNP's fault: it is London's because they refuse Scotland the right to collect it because the agencies that could do so are not devolved. That's why I think Margaret Cuthbert's criticism of the SNP may be wrong, but I stress I am speculating and the real issue is not what might have been said: the core issue is that London decided not to collect data so that Scotland could manage its own economy because it did not think that important. But it clearly is.
Data measurement
What data is needed then? I teach my students (yes, I teach this stuff unlike most economists) that decision useful information is:
- Relevant
- Reliable
- Complete (i.e. it covers the whole population at least in principle)
- Comprehensive (i.e. the subset of data variables being tested is available for all within the population)
- Comparable (over time, or with other sources)
- Comprehensible (does it make sense?)
To go back to GERS, the data is not relevant to Scotland because it is an abstract of UK data: it is not Scottish data. It is not reliable because it is not clear that the estimates made meet that criteria (although others disagree, I note). It is not complete because the Scottish population (of taxpayers, company with Scottish profits, sales, etc etc etc) is not defined and not used as a basis for the work. In that case the data is not comprehensive. Nor is it comparable because there is nothing to compare it with, barring itself, on which grounds alone it does work. And as a result it is in my opinion not comprehensible because it is on somewhere that may, quite simply, not be Scotland. For those reasons I fail it.
I stress though that's not because GERS includes estimates. They say it does. No one denies it. And it is true that all financial measures include estimates. They have to. I suggest it fails because there comes a point where reality fades and estimates take over. That's my whole criticism of GERS. I reiterate my example hinted at yesterday. Suppose a supermarket presented its accounts and said that the figure for income was based on a random survey of households in which they asked those householders how much they'd spent at the shop in question over a short period. Based on the responses the supermarket had then extrapolated the spend to the whole population and for the year as a whole and said this was its income instead of using the records it had maintained at its tills. What might the reasonable response be? I think we can be sure that the auditors would say this was unacceptable and that the claimed income was not supported by economic fact and that there was a failure of the reported accounts to reflect the reality of the business. There was better data available. And so there is in Scotland, but there's a refusal to collect it.
Let me offer another example. Suppose that to find out the economic performance of Rumania we took that for the EU as a whole and then apportioned it to that country. Would anyone think that reliable even if some adjusting factors were taken into account when we could instead use the data that Romania itself collects? Of course they would not. But that's what's happening in Scotland.
So use estimates by all means. But you can't use them for almost everything and then claim the result is meaningful. It is not. And I stress, I offer both examples to reiterate my point that suggesting the Scottish national accounts can be prepared on the basis of extrapolation of what is already estimated data for the UK as a whole (which may not always be that reliable in itself) is wholly inappropriate when Scottish data could be measured. Worse, it could be an extremely bad basis for informing such an important decision as whether to become independent or not, whichever way you might be inclined in that debate.
In that case what I suggest is that Scotland start demanding better data that is sourced in Scotland, whether or not there is to be independence. It needs it. So too does Wales. And the other regions of the UK, including Northern Ireland. London may like to think this is one country with one government but that is very obviously untrue. In which case there are a lot of people who should be joining in with this demand.
It is a demand that will meet the contemptuous response of the type Kevin Hague notes has been aimed at me. But I am used to being told such things. Remember, I was told country-by-country reporting was impossible, too costly and undeliverable. But it is happening.
And I was told that we would never get automatic information exchange from tax havens as recently as 2009. But that too is now happening.
Likewise tax havens repeatedly said they were beneficial to the world economy and I did not know what I was talking about. Times have changed.
I've fought battles for data because my instincts that we did not know the truth at cost to society at large were right, and change has resulted. The battle for economic data for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions of the UK is based on the same instinct. And remember the absence of this data is not a necessity. It's a decision made by London that the view of London should prevail and that the only data available should support that view. And that's no longer acceptable. What is more, it is a massive part of the reason for the alienation of people from government in this country. And their sense of alienation may be justified: the data proves London thinks they do not count. They do. And the data has to change to prove it.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
“Let’s be clear, what we measure matters. As importantly, what we do not measure also matters”. How we measure it also matters.
There is a more general and serious problem with the use of statistics underlying this problem in economics that extends into the sciences, although least with ‘hard sciences’ (eg., phyisics). In physics however, and ironically in the context of this debate, there is a much more rigorous approach to the nature of what constitutes ‘evidence’ or ‘facts’, and how to use statistics effectively, reliably and with great precision where required: and where the evidence is not directly observable or accessible.
From the perspective of the social sciences and the defects in the use of statistics, I would refer readers to Ziliak and McCloskey “The Cult of Statistical Significance” (2008) if you wish to explore the nature of the underlying problem in the social sciences. I could as easily provide an avalanche of other sources for this endemic problem, for other scientific disciplines. The problem is endemic.
Your argument, Mr Murphy, is well made.
Thank you
I am familiar with some of that literature
Excellent post Richard.
FYI WingsOverScotland is an unashamedly Pro-Independence site run by (the self styled) Rev Stuart Campbell, who was, as far as I could see from Hove, pretty influential in the 2014 IndyRef, publishing and distributing ‘The Wee Blue Book’ a pretty well sourced pro-indy booklet that was distributed widely in the Summer of 2014. He has since published ‘The Wee Black Book’ which detailed a selection of the broken promises of Better Together.
The site still appears to be very popular — their reported hits are high and their current funding drive has raised £120,000 with 18 days to go.
These funds are used to print and distribute their publications, for other expenses and commission opinion polls to ask questions ignored elsewhere.
The Rev’ was repeatedly ignored, and then smeared, in 2014 — accused of all sorts of vile-Cybernattery — never with any evidence and he received damages from the Scotsman for one such smear. He has the temerity to note, follow-up on and debunk many of the headline claims of CyberNat abuse when they are made (Kezia Dugdale has just done it again).
Personally I think he’s an essential, often amusing, counterpoint to the relentless pro-unionist / SNP-bad coverage of the mainstream media. Yes he’s partial, but he’s up front about it, always stresses that debate should be carried out politely (although he was a bit rude to JK Rowling and Muriel Gray) and almost always backs up his posts with verifiable links.
While I’m on the subject, I’d also recommend another pro-independence site, ScotGoesPop, a blog by James Kelly who always has much of interest to say regarding the relative merits of the various polls published on the matter:
http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/
Thanks
Appreciated
Just a short comment Richard. The fact that Scotland does not have meaaningful data to help it manage the economy might just align nicely with the post-indyref1 refusal to provide Scotland with the means to manage the economy.
The response to that ever since has been a demand from the Secretary of State for Scotland (our one remaining Tory MP) for the Scottish Government to use the powers they were given and stop complaining. Of course this demand has been re-iterated ad nauseum by the Scottish Tories, and by Scottish Labour and LibDems.
Scottish Labour in particular has demanded an increase in the basic rate of Scottish income tax to counter UK Tory austerity – in the vernacular, ye couldnae mak it up!
It shows how much they have to learn…
Is it not possible that separate data is indeed collected for Scotland, but is deliberately withheld by the UK Government?
Very unlikely indeed
Interesting post.
It’s good to debate this as it is such a fundamental argument in the independence debate.
Whilst I remain open minded on this, I find Mr Hague’s approach to disagreement aggressive and unpleasant. He is clearly aggressively pro-unionist, but claims his analysis is impartial, which is suspect given his partisan views.
Economists are not dictators. There is nothing to say that an amateur blogger cannot produce sound economic analysis. But when disagreement with that analysis leads to hysterical and aggressive rebuttals, it rather underlines his status rather than transcend it.
You focus solely on the quality of GERS data, not on whether it may or may not be reasonably reliable as an indication of our fiscal position within the UK. That’s like shooting the messenger rather than trying to understand the message.
Come on, one step at a time
Brian, any statistics may or may not be reliable but unless you have access to the underlying data, and understand the data collection methodologies used, then you’re left with having to take the statistics at face value. At best it can only ever be an assumption.
Great article and easy to understand for a layman with no economic background, other than managing to keep out of debt for the last 60 years. Thanks again for your excellent articles on GERS. Many in Scotland believe that the lack of any financial figures from London is more to do with hiding its value rather than through lack of interest.
I hadn’t heard of the Wings over Scotland blog until late 2014. I now read it daily. The reason Scottish Unionist hate it is because it holds the media, which is hugely biased in their favour, to account. If you have time have a read of some of the excellent articles and below the line comments. It will give you an idea of how vibrant politics is in Scotland. You would be more than welcome to join in and give your insight on the many issues raised. Don’t confuse his twitter account with his blog. I think he occassionally uses twitter as a release valve to let off steam. Given that he monitors the media on a daily basis I applaud his restraint.
There is some appreciation of this type of data issues on the margins of the great and good. I was at the launch of Stephanie Flanders’ Inclusive Growth Commission last week – this came up as an issue in the context of city/regional economic policy in England. I think you are right: this could be a runner.
The APPG I spoke at in parliament on Tuesday is related to that Commission
There’s really a Professor Ronald McDonald? http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/mugen/images/b/b0/Donald_McDonald.png/revision/latest?cb=20160408141557
Personally, I’d be wary of Wings
Lesson learned
Why? What’s to be wary of? Opinionated , certainly but less than the newspapers and comes complete with verifiable proof. Whilst I’m here you both might care to look at the McCrone Report , submerged by London for decades for exactly the same reasons as GERs are publicised.
Indeed
No game playing going on at all….
Forgive me – after reading this blog, you seem to be treading over the same ground; you’re criticizing GERS, making claims the data isn’t relevant, reliable etc.
By your very own definition, your blog is worthless. There is no data within it. You are simply voicing an opinion on something (demonstrably proven in this and previous blogs) you know very little about. I understand your bias. I understand you support Yes. Understand that whilst you write about unfounded claims, pro-Yes supporters will cling onto your words as it satisfies their cognitive dissonance. If I was to be brutally honest, on the basis that bad data is worse than no data, you should be deleting all GERS-related blogs until you’ve a better understanding yourself.
Here are the details for those you should be speaking to prior to making ill-based assumptions:
Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS)
Office of the Chief Economic Adviser
Scottish Government
St Andrew’s House
Regent Road
Edinburgh
EH1 3DG
Email: economic.statistics@gov.scot
Telephone: 0131 244 2825
You also mentioned Margaret Cuthbert. She’s very pro-Independence. Speak to her about GERS. Personally, you couldn’t pick anyone more appropriate.
I look forward to your next blog where you will no doubt include communications from aforementioned parties.
I note what you say
Respectfully you actually say nothing except to suggest I know nothing
But there is ample evidence that is not true
So if there is bias I am afraid it is all yours
Please don’t waste my time again
Data is the past, the present we cannot be sure about. The future even less so. As for some of the debate, Richard Nixon in 1969 said “In these difficult years, America has suffered from a fever of words; from inflated rhetoric that promises more than it can deliver; from angry rhetoric that fans discontents into hatreds; from bombastic rhetoric that postures instead of persuading. We cannot learn from one another until we stop shouting at one another, until we speak quietly enough so that our words can be heard as well as our voices.” It seems near the mark.
Wow, and that was Tricky Dicky
Whatever next?
Did he tape it?
Thank you for the clarity and rationality of this essay: I bet your lectures get your students out of bed in the morning!
Bertrand Russell, of course, proposed as one of his principles of practical scepticism, that when the qualified experts differ on a substantial issue, the interested and rational onlooker should not regard either point of view as certainly true. This raises the whole issue of the use of economic arguments as the basis for political discussion, and for popular political decision making. Tentatively, I suggest that most people would privately acknowledge that their political opinions are not based solely or even primarily on economic arguments: ‘which course of action or social policy will bring most money to me and mine?’ Economic arguments are mainly deployed not to oneself, but in an effort to persuade others — and, of course, the fact that one can usually find an economist to argue that either side of a proposition offers the largest economic return, makes economic arguments ideally suited to political rhetoric. Fortunately, or unfortunately, the rational people one is disagreeing with have also made up their minds, to your contrary, without using economic arguments, and nothing but heated rhetoric comes out of the discussion………
I am entirely happy to be doubted
And I never mark down a student who disagrees with me: indeed, I respect their courage
There are no final answers on issues like these. But settling for what is way below what is possible seems to me to represent a poverty of aspiration or another agenda
Have you seen on the Band of England Bank Underground site the following from 15 March, yesterday? Title is “An Intuitive Interpretation Of Factor Models”. Interesting in this context.
I did scan it
And re-read it at your invitation
What it does not overcome is the failure to collect real data
Don’t worry about the unionist backlash.
Wings consistently exposes their nonsense – and you stood on one of their sacred cows when you pointed out the GIGO nature of Gers.
I am interested in your point that the lack of Scottish Data is not likely to be caused by it being collected and concealed – but simply not collected.
This approach would fit with the original purpose of Gers which was to provide undercover support for the dampening down of Scottish aspirations.
Why bother to go to the trouble of collecting data you never intend to use when you can just make it up?
Precisely
I agree with everything you say, especially the bit about the best data we have about Scotland not being Scottish data.
If only people were as sceptical as you when manipulated Greek data told us Greece was fit to join the Eurozone, or data from the OECD in Paris is used to inform British policy.
Well Richard, you have certainly not done any harm to your readership figures for your blog that is for sure!
I too see myself as a sceptic – and this means demanding a higher level of truth for important matters.
I would wholeheartedly commend this approach to the Scottish people and to their politicians.
The consequences of seeking independence on incomplete or faulty data is too awful to comprehend – despite being told to be ‘brave’ by commentators.
Yes Scotland – be brave – but also BE SMART!
You’re the wrong type of sceptic for Richard. As you say, his readership is going up. He’s found an easy new audience.
I note Tubby Isaacs is very unlikely to be any part of your real name
And your lack of courage means I am deleting your comments
Sorry a bit off topic. I’m looking for Northern Ireland data at present. Figures are bandied around in the press such as a £10 Bn annual nett funding from Westminster and that 60% of NI’s exports go to the EU with half of those (30%) going to the Republic.
It also seems there is no good data on NI. Given the likely disastrous effect Brexit will have on NI we really need to analyze the least worst outcome and come to semi-rational conclusions. I would love also to know the extent of British/NI inter-trade. I like argument to be data driven. As a Physicist I would recommend Quantum Mechanics to be taught more widely – just to show how poorly human intuition works in the modern world.
I strongly suspect you will look in vain Sean
There used to be an official GERW but it was stopped, so Cardiff university do a good effort. I couldn’t find any equivalent about NI when I looked weeks ago, but did find something under nisassebly (I think) using google. Not a GERNI though, I don’t think there ever was one.
Mmm, looking just now for “Government Expenditure and Revenue Northern Ireland” I did find this (haven’t read it, qhick look might be what you’re looking for):
https://www.finance-ni.gov.uk/publications/northern-ireland-net-fiscal-balance-report-2012-13-and-2013-14
Hi yesindiref2
thanks. The NI fiscal balance report comes with a “health warning”: “the net fiscal balance estimates presented in this report are subject to some statistical uncertainty” but does indeed seem to confirm the £10bn figure for example “For 2012/13 the estimated fiscal balance in NI was a deficit of £9.5 billion.”
Happy St Patrick’s Day!
Sean
Excellent.
An area not touched on is, (I doubt there is fiscal terminology for this), the truth clearly and accurately stated which when fully understood, has no relevance.
An example could help to remove the fog!
After a recent debate in the Lords, one of them declared to the BBC, who let him, “Not a single SNP member voted in favour of supporting EU nationals during the coming problems with Brexit.”
One hundred percent true but of course, there are no SNP members in that chamber.
There is a lot of that type of behaviour around.
GERS seems to show the amount Westminster pushes in to support Scotland over and above what Scotland produces.
My question is not whether it is right or wrong but why?
Why would this government, that unashamedly handles mass suicides in groups they’ve taken support from, worry about thrusting £15 billion into supporting Scotland.
There are huge management charges in GERS but no effort to apportion them fairly.
Keep at them, the truth will out, rather like the Crone report!
Thanks
Thanks for keeping up with this Richard. From a webpage wot I wrote (hope the cut ‘n paste works):
GERS follows the “ESA” standard of accounting, but by “ESA” in GERS is currently meant ESA95 also known as 1995 ESA as followed by the UK Treasury and the ONS (Office for National Statistics). The current EU approved implementation of ESA since 2014 is ESA2010. The UK along with some other EU countries currently has at least a partial derogation (in this case delay in full implementation).
“. . . but the further detail will only be available in 2017.”
http://www.ons.gov.uk/guide-method/method-quality/specific/economy/national-accounts/articles/2011-present/update-to-asset-classifications-under-esa2010.pdf
Also: “The revised standards will change the way in which National Accounts and Balance of Payments across the EU Member States are produced and bring them into line with the updated worldwide System of National Accounts 2008 (SNA 2008) already adopted by other parts of the world including Canada, the United States and Australia.”
Current version of the EU ESA standards: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/esa-2010
“Since September 2014, ESA95 has been replaced by ESA 2010.”
ESA2010 caused a lot of fuss in Ireland with the Leprechaun Economics tag being given by Paul Krugerman last year over the 26% rise in GDP. https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2017/0204/850115-leprechaun-economics/
Indeed!
Big rise. I thought there were only a few members that hadn’t rolled out ESA2010. Ah well. One thing that does of course is very much reduce the debt to GDP ratio – and annual deficit in %terms. And that surely helps the credit ratings. Makes you wonder why the UK has been slow, though they did do some stats in November (forget what) on the new ESA. Ah yes, pensions will show up as debt. Whoops.
I’m looking forward to seeing the new GERS to see if it makes any difference when they’re on ESA2010.
It’s important to note that, even if GERS figures were entirely accurate and honestly produced, all they wouldbe able to measure would be westminster’s mismanagement of our economy. It says absolutely nothing about how an independent scotland could be.
Also, please note that we do not criticise mr hague for being a dog food salesman, bad tho he may be at that. We criticise him for pretending to be an economist, while in reality being a dog food salesman.
Keep searching and keep up the good work.
GERS, I underdstand, was set up when Ian Lang was Secretary of State for Scotland.
One of the main aims was to disguise the productivity and wealth that was created in Scotland.
As we all probably know, many of the exports from Scotland are sent abroad from English ports, or again as book entries from the English head office.
The UK Treasury are to blame for all this misinformation
Very impressed with your blog,both literary and audit wise.
I would like to ask: If Gers is a very crude measure, what would it cost to be more accurate, indeed definitive?
Does it cost hundreds of millions of pounds to collate the data for the UK, by which case it would cost 30 million say to do the proper job on Scotland’s economy.
(my guessing), you see I cant understand if figures are so very important, then why does not the Scottish Govt, or indeed one of their sympathetic billionaire friends, weigh-in and put the matter beyond doubt.
I would suspect this has already been considered by those parties and deemed either too expensive, or too much pain for a little gain.
This is as much about politics as cost
First data for income tax and NI could be secured : the time has come to know this for Revenue Scotland purposes
Then there is reliable VAT data. I would require this from all businesses turning over more than £10 million; I accept the rest could be extrapolated from that
Excise duties should be capable of relatively straightforward data collection
Corporation tax would be much harder – an estimate would last for some time here
As for savings and investment etc, I fear surveys will survive
But the tax moves are really important and they could start now
Richard thank you very much for clarifying why The Scottish Government never disputed GERS. I have often felt really frustrated by their acceptance; now I know why.