The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

It is unbelievably tiresome to hear you continue to trot this mixture of opinion conjecture & guesswork out as fact.

It is unbelievably tiresome to hear you continue to reject the facts of oil prices and claims of the white paper on the basis of nothing.

You make comments like these because you have nothing to argue back with.

Unlike you, I never professed an infallible insight into the future nor did I base my arguments on a list of numbers I found in the comments section of the guardian.

Unlike you, I've gained understanding by knowledge.

Unlike you, I found numbers on the Scottish govt's own website, that blows away the baseless blind faith you adhere to.

Unlike you, I didn't decide that crossing my fingers and hoping everything is all right was all I needed to do.

I am continually amused at your ability to find a negative outcome for Scotland for any given circumstances.

Low oil price = bad

High oil price =bad

Use the pound = bad

Don't use the pound=bad

Join eu=bad

Don't join euro=bad

Banks leave=bad

Banks stay=bad

Hilarious.

If I didn't have my special pants on I'd PMSL.

I'm continually amused that nothing of real life is able to penetrate your brain and dislodge just how bitter you still are.

There's things to be learned and understood, or there's crossing your fingers and jumping off a cliff .... and dying when you hit the rocks below.

Use the pound = bad

Don't use the pound=bad

What did your glorious leader's white paper say? You know, the thing you hailed as a breakthru when published?

Use the pound = bad

Don't use the pound=bad

You told me that. Now you reject what you used to say.

What changed? You did. The rational position you took at the start didn't hold up, so you've had to resort to a different stance.

Edited October 17, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/with-scotland-camerons-taken-broken-promises-to-a-whole-new-level-9799747.html#

:lol:

I'm a big fan of Mark Steel, but he's lost the plot there.

Two days after signing a “vow” to hand over “extensive new powers”, David Cameron announced he would indeed act swiftly to ensure Scottish MPs had less power.

Either the Scottish govt hold the handles of power for Scotland, or Westminster does.

Both holding the same powers is a logical and rational impossibility.

[russycarps]

It is unbelievably tiresome to hear you continue to trot this mixture of opinion conjecture & guesswork out as fact.

Unlike you, I never professed an infallible insight into the future nor did I base my arguments on a list of numbers I found in the comments section of the guardian.

I am continually amused at your ability to find a negative outcome for Scotland for any given circumstances.

Low oil price = bad

High oil price =bad

Use the pound = bad

Don't use the pound=bad

Join eu=bad

Don't join euro=bad

Banks leave=bad

Banks stay=bad

Hilarious.

If I didn't have my special pants on I'd PMSL.

guesswork?

since when does $85 = $113?

basic mathematics prove that a budget relying on an oil price of $113 a barrel cannot be achieved if oil prices are in fact (FACT) less than $90 a barrel, and falling.

This was predicted, and the predictions have proved to be true.

Thank god for scotland that over 50% of voters were intelligent enough to recognise the absurdity of the sums used by the SNP.

Edited October 17, 2014 by russycarps

[LondonTom]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/with-scotland-camerons-taken-broken-

Did like this comment on the article:

"Utter claptrap and paranoia. Everyone had one vote. The fact is, the wealthier areas voted no. It appears that in general people with nothing or little to lose votes yes and those with something to lose voted no and weren't going to stake what they had on a chancer."

Which is pretty much how most people vote regardless of what its for and nothing to do with any vows any polticians may make.

[Comfy Bean]

:lol:

I'm a big fan of Mark Steel, but he's lost the plot there.

He disagrees with you sir......clearly he has lost the plot then.

[Comfy Bean]

Did like this comment on the article:

"Utter claptrap and paranoia. Everyone had one vote. The fact is, the wealthier areas voted no. It appears that in general people with nothing or little to lose votes yes and those with something to lose voted no and weren't going to stake what they had on a chancer."

Which is pretty much how most people vote regardless of what its for and nothing to do with any vows any polticians may make.

I`m pretty much agreeing with you here Tom. The more affluent areas voted for the status quo and took care of number 1 but on the last point ( the vow ), this came in the last few days and came as the Westminster 3 appeared in Scotland and on the front page of the Record. By that point, most folks were decided but a " significant number " were still claiming to be undecided. I think it`s fair to say that this group were Labour voters and Brown was called in to deliver his speech ( not Milliband for obvious reasons ). If 200,00 people stuck with Labour and NO based on the vow then it changed the outcome. Of course, I cannot say that 200,000 people were influenced as I`m not the guy with the crystal ball. I believe that some people were influenced and if the powers are not delivered then there will be a backlash at the next Scottish election against Labour in my opinion.

[Comfy Bean]

My comment wasn't really about oil or petro dollars. It was about the factual basis or otherwise of some of the anti independence arguments/scares.

I`m sure I read that a YES vote would lead to a FTSE crash and that a NO vote would secure my pension

To be clear, I`m not suggesting for a second that the NO vote led to the FTSE collapse but some of the drivel being spouted by better together has been shown to be just that. The idea that there would be no consequences ( ever ) if we voted NO was always overlooked on here ( by the NO side ).

We are not better together and by " we " I mean none of us.

I remember posting on here after the event in my town hall about Jim Sillars saying that the only way he could see himself voting Labour ever again was with a YES vote. They are a shambles and a YES vote could / would have led to a return to " real " Labour. Are we all agreed that as we stand today, policy wise, the SNP are to the left of Labour ?

UKIP ( at the moment ) aren`t a player up here. Has Labour morphing into the Tories meant that UKIP are the only ones offering an " alternative " to English voters? Serious question.

Also, why are UKIP getting so much coverage from the BBC ? The Greens have had a seat for ages and have never had coverage like it. I disagreed with the BBC bias during the referendum but it was always likely that they would want to side with the " establishment " but what is their obsession with Farage all about ?

I hope that they continue to be irrelevant in Scotland.

Anywayz,,,, Better Together my arse !

[Comfy Bean]

Some of the 5% swing that could have changed the result believed that a NO vote protected their pension....because that`s what Darling vowed !

These generous pensions are only possible remember if we remain together as a bigger pool. Allegedly.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/11152794/Millions-face-tax-rises-or-derisory-state-pension-report-claims.html

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-2514378/Only-Mexico-worse-state-pension-UK.html

Edited October 17, 2014 by comfortablynumb1910

[eFestivals]

He disagrees with you sir......clearly he has lost the plot then.

It's not that he disagrees with me, it's that he's not getting that a transfer of powers away from Westminster by-default lessens the powers of MPs at Westminster.

That was the big thing in the indyref - people not getting that there's more than just opinions. There's a real world, and facts.

[eFestivals]

I`m pretty much agreeing with you here Tom. The more affluent areas voted for the status quo and took care of number 1

and the less-affulent areas did what? Might they have also been taking care of number 1?

Or are you mad enough to think that every yes voter is righteously motivated, and every no voter wasn't?

Mind you, it does make a change to hear a yes-ers say that no voters were voting for number 1. The normal narrative is that they only voted yes because they were scared little boys hiding from the scary new world of the yes-ers.

but on the last point ( the vow ), this came in the last few days and came as the Westminster 3 appeared in Scotland and on the front page of the Record. By that point, most folks were decided but a " significant number " were still claiming to be undecided. I think it`s fair to say that this group were Labour voters and Brown was called in to deliver his speech ( not Milliband for obvious reasons ). If 200,00 people stuck with Labour and NO based on the vow then it changed the outcome. Of course, I cannot say that 200,000 people were influenced as I`m not the guy with the crystal ball. I believe that some people were influenced and if the powers are not delivered then there will be a backlash at the next Scottish election against Labour in my opinion.

so if the tories don't deliver, it's Labour's fault?

And if Scotland doesn't vote Labour and Labour acts for their supporters, nothing of that will be the fault of Scottish voters?

Cake, and eating it. Does reality exist?

Edited October 18, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

To be clear, I`m not suggesting for a second that the NO vote led to the FTSE collapse but some of the drivel being spouted by better together has been shown to be just that. The idea that there would be no consequences ( ever ) if we voted NO was always overlooked on here ( by the NO side ).

A narrative just like the one that says no voters were all scared.

There are always consequences. Some consequences are worse than the alternative consequences.

[eFestivals]

Some of the 5% swing that could have changed the result believed that a NO vote protected their pension....because that`s what Darling vowed !

These generous pensions are only possible remember if we remain together as a bigger pool. Allegedly.

I refer you to Salmond's economic plans (what there was of them, which was not a lot), and that claimed $113 a barrel oil price.

I allege that an iScotland would have found paying pensions at the same rate as the UK much more difficult than the UK does.

I make that allegation on the basis of facts. Facts like:-

1. Scotland having a bigger deficit than UK

2. oil at $80 a barrel, and not $113 a barrel.

3. Scotland's GDP being more volatile due to oil price fluctuations.

4. the £50Bn cost of establishing a new iScottish currency.

5. Scotland having a less diverse economy than UK

6. Scottish expectations of greater spending on other public services post-indy.

7. a shrinking Scottish economy post-indy as new 'domestic' interests are pursued post-indy in both iScotland and rUK, where Scotland's current 67% 'export' market to rUK shrinks.

8. there is nothing exceptional about Scotland to justify the claims of Scottish exceptionalism.

The 2013-14 GERS numbers are going to be interesting.

The 2014-15 GERS numbers are going to bring the thinking yes-ers back down to earth.

Edited October 18, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

PS: those pension comparisons of different country's are rarely accurate representations of the real world situation, because they don't look at the whole picture.

For example, do they include things like the housing costs support that is available to pensioners in the UK but not ijn other countries? The free healthcare available in the UK but not in other countries? The free prescriptions? The free public transport? The council tax benefits?

Etc, etc, etc.

I'm not trying to claim the UK's pension is brilliant. I'm pointing out that I've yet to see a pensions comparison which takes everything into account.

[eFestivals]

Might that be because we're currently in the biggest economic downturn since records began?

It does no good to point and say "that's a bad thing" if you're ignoring everything of why it's happening that cannot be separated from the situation.

Yes, there's alternative paths we could have taken when the financial crisis hit, but those are not consequence-free either. While I personally would have chosen to let the banks fail, I'm not so daft as to be sure that the impact would have been lesser.

And I'll point out that had Salmond had had a successful indyref a decade before the failed indyref that Scotland wouldn't have been gloriously wealthy. Salmond's past statements get to prove that an iScotland would have been deeper in the shit via even-greater neoliberalism than happened for the UK.

Edited October 18, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

And I'll point out that had Salmond had had a successful indyref a decade before the failed indyref that Scotland wouldn't have been gloriously wealthy. Salmond's past statements get to prove that an iScotland would have been deeper in the shit via even-greater neoliberalism than happened for the UK.

Thanks again for your opinion (not a fact)

[LondonTom]

Know its only 1% and not sure what the sample was...but tories above Labour it would seem in scotland!

https://twitter.com/LouiseMensch/status/523189660034826240

[eFestivals]

Thanks again for your opinion (not a fact)

it is a fact that Salmond advocated the most extreme neoloberalism of any politician in regard to the banks.

His soulmate with wanting less bank regulation is John Redwood, the most heinous of tories.

A fact!!!

(cue UKIPper type reactions, of denial or pretending it doesn't matter, because he's 'different'. )

Edited October 19, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Know its only 1% and not sure what the sample was...but tories above Labour it would seem in scotland!

https://twitter.com/LouiseMensch/status/523189660034826240

Don't think it has quite come to that yet...

Scottish voting intentions for the May 2015 UK general election :

SNP 42.1% (-0.7)

Labour 24.9% (-2.1)

Conservatives 18.2% (+2.5)

Liberal Democrats 6.4% (-0.6)

UKIP 5.1% (+0.

Greens 2.6% (+0.5)

http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/snp-notch-up-astonishing-17-lead-in.html?m=1

But there certainly does seem to be the prospect of a pretty significant fall in the labour vote - Although whether that will hold up until the spring remains to be seen.

Considering labour notched up 42% & the SNP 19.9% in the last Westminster election - anything approaching these figures would be spectacular. We are in kind of uncharted territory here as conventional wisdom would suggest that the SNP should be lying in a corner licking their wounds rather than tripling their membership & doubling their poll ratings.

My considered view is that i have absolutely no idea what will happen next!!

I suspect Neil will know.

[LJS]

it is a fact that Salmond advocated the most extreme neoloberalism of any politician in regard to the banks.

His soulmate with wanting less bank regulation is John Redwood, the most heinous of tories.

A fact!!!

(cue UKIPper type reactions, of denial or pretending it doesn't matter, because he's 'different'. )

really got no idea what that has to do with the point I was making - unless you are just trying to prove you do know at least one fact...although even that doesn't really bear much examination - "the most extreme neoloberalism of any politician in regard to the banks" is a pretty spectacular claim. It is true that he wrote a letter to Freddo Shreddo congratulating him on being the greatest ever living Scotsman (or something similar) & encouraging him to buy a Dutch Bank which was worth about 6 euros for several hundred gazilion pounds. It is also true that in hindsight that letter seems about as clever as Neville Chamberlain's celebrated "piece of paper"

But sadly, his was far from a lone voice & of course, no matter how much neo liberalism he was allegedly advocating - to suggest that he is as culpable as those who were not only advocating it, but also enabling. permitting & encouraging it is frankly bizarre.

The sad fact is very few people recognised the abyss we were walking into & to single out Alex for special opprobrium for this just underlines your unhealthy obsession with him.

Anyway, he is heading off into the sunset (& HIGNFY) I suggest you expend your energies trying to find out what silly things Nichola has said.

[eFestivals]

We are in kind of uncharted territory here as conventional wisdom would suggest that the SNP should be lying in a corner licking their wounds rather than tripling their membership & doubling their poll ratings.

eh? Why?

Yes, they lost the indyref, but they got 45% in a binary choice. Given what the binary choice was, it's not really a surprise it's mostly standing up.

Membership levels mean fuck all tho. It doesn't mean more supporters, it means existing supporters are joining the party.

But ... while those poll results (why are yes-ers now seeing poll results as meaningful? ) have those current levels, I'm thinking they'll be significant drop-off come polling day*. Because of the indyref Scotland is in a slightly different political cycle to the rest of the UK at the mo, and the further things get away from the big event of the indyref the more that voters will return to their normal position - as seen by how the UKIP vote is seemingly much lower now than it achieved in the Euro elections.

(* I'm meaning 5%-ish, tho it could turn out to be more)

My considered view is that i have absolutely no idea what will happen next!!

I suspect Neil will know.

I don't know, but there's a few options.

Such as Scotland imposing a tory govt onto itself. That'll be a great result by Scotland, eh?

If that's what Scotland causes onto itself, there'll be a lot of peeps up there going doh! and the SNP will quite possibly have fucked themselves.

Me, i'll be laughing a lot at those people who have said they've no idea what will happen next, when the possibility of Scotland imposing a tory govt onto itself is quite strong. Talk about numpties.

[eFestivals]

Edited October 20, 2014 by eFestivals

[5co77ie]

Thought Gordon Brown made a good case against EvEl:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/17/united-kingdom-english-votes-english-laws-ukip

[eFestivals]

Thought Gordon Brown made a good case against EvEl:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/17/united-kingdom-english-votes-english-laws-ukip

I'll re-post what i've just posted in the other thread where you made similar comment.....

------------

Hmmm, the Labour party with Gordon near the top creates the problem on Gordon's bidding; Gordon creates a bigger problem during the indyref; Gordon now tries to bail himself out of the problem he's created.

Frankly it was a crock of shit. The only thing it had going for it was that it is against the stitch-up that Cameron is trying to wangle.

And yet the Labour plans are no less of a stitch up. Just as the tory plans are about trying to protect the tory party from better democracy, it's the same thing going on with the Labour plans.

------------

I'm now firmly of the opinion that devolution was a bad mistake, that's only to the benefit of the political classes.

Breaking up lawmaking to try and keep self-serving control of lawmaking is no substitute for a proper democratic process. We should have had PR for the whole-UK in 1997 and not devolution.

After a period of time (I'd guess 2 decades) for that to bed-in then the need for devolution could have been looked at again, if necessary. Tho I suspect that it wouldn't have been necessary, had we had a parliament that actually represents the views of the people of the country.

Swerving PR to keep self-serving control as the tories and Labour are doing is only causing a rise in the nutters, who are able to pretend that their chosen alternatives are anything they want them to be, just on the basis that they're not the other lot.

That's what you get from self-serving policies and a lack of real democratic accountability.

[LondonTom]

Thought Gordon Brown made a good case against EvEl:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/17/united-kingdom-english-votes-english-laws-ukip

His example of the US is wrong though as Wyoming doesn't vote on California state laws but they have the same representation in the National Government. Which is sort of what EvEl would do ?

[kaosmark2]

Breaking up lawmaking to try and keep self-serving control of lawmaking is no substitute for a proper democratic process. We should have had PR for the whole-UK in 1997 and not devolution.

After a period of time (I'd guess 2 decades) for that to bed-in then the need for devolution could have been looked at again, if necessary. Tho I suspect that it wouldn't have been necessary, had we had a parliament that actually represents the views of the people of the country.

Swerving PR to keep self-serving control as the tories and Labour are doing is only causing a rise in the nutters, who are able to pretend that their chosen alternatives are anything they want them to be, just on the basis that they're not the other lot.

That's what you get from self-serving policies and a lack of real democratic accountability.

Agree with this so strongly. It's why I blame the Labour old guard the most for our failed political change. They decided to scrap the promised change to AV+ in favour of short-term power for themselves. A horrible decision that is still having repercussions, dividing the UK against itself and electoral reform campaigns against themselves.