The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

he who lives by the sword...

Mr Barroso has warned that the PM's hopes of curbing EU immigration could be illegal.

In a speech at think tank Chatham House in London, he repeated his view that an "arbitrary cap" on immigration would not accepted by other EU states, saying the EU was willing to "accommodate the UK's legitimate concerns" but not if they challenged the fundamental principles of the organisation.

Thoroughly enjoying Tories squirming & arguing that EU treaties are flexible. Really?

[LJS]

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)

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.

Your logic is impeccable...we will impose a Tory government on ourselves by, in all probability electing between zero & two Tory MP's. Does Scotland somehow have a moral responsibility to act as the political conscience of the UK? Would the English Tory voters bear no responsibility for saddling us with another Tory government?

The fact is, if the Scottish Labour vote does collapse & we send less Labour MP's to Westminster, that could have the effect of making the Tories the largest single party. But the "missing" labour MP's would almost without exception be replaced with SNP MP's. Now, I suspect there is too much ingrained hatred for Labour to work with the SNP in coalition, but equally there is no way the SNP would either form a coalition with the Tories or prop up a minority Tory government. So there is no realistic prospect of the scenario you suggest.

On increasing membership numbers ... are they as meaningless as you suggest? As i have said before, i am sure some will be the equivalent of new Gym memberships in January. But if a tripling of the membership results in, say, a doubling of activists on the ground in an election campaign, what effect will that have?

A recent TNS poll indicated there is a significant increase in political engagement in the wake of the referendum. i am sure you will agree that can only be a good thing

http://www.tns-bmrb.co.uk/news/referendum-effect-set-to-increase-political-activity-but-trust-in-main-part

[eFestivals]

he who lives by the sword...

Thoroughly enjoying Tories squirming & arguing that EU treaties are flexible. Really?

So Barroso does tell the truth after all? Who knew?

Not the yes-ers, just like the kippers. That's another thing they both share.

[eFestivals]

Your logic is impeccable...we will impose a Tory government on ourselves by, in all probability electing between zero & two Tory MP's.

You know when Scotland votes for its one tory seat? Does that become the result for all of Scotland?

Or is the overall result instead decided by a combination of the results from all of the electoral area?

I guess you're shocked after every general election when you find out that the people who've been voted in sit down in Westminster and not in Edinburgh.

Does Scotland somehow have a moral responsibility to act as the political conscience of the UK? Would the English Tory voters bear no responsibility for saddling us with another Tory government?

Does Scotland has responsibility only for itself?

Or is Scotland part of a union, where it's the combination of all results - including the ones in Scotland - that decides who leads the govt?

In case it passed you by, Scotland didn't vote to be independent. That means how it votes is combined with votes from the rest of the union.

Forget that at your peril. Pretend it doesn't matter and repent for the next five years.

The fact is, if the Scottish Labour vote does collapse & we send less Labour MP's to Westminster, that could have the effect of making the Tories the largest single party.

No shit sherlock. I've been telling you that for weeks.

But the "missing" labour MP's would almost without exception be replaced with SNP MP's. Now, I suspect there is too much ingrained hatred for Labour to work with the SNP in coalition, but equally there is no way the SNP would either form a coalition with the Tories or prop up a minority Tory government. So there is no realistic prospect of the scenario you suggest.

Who gets first shout at forming a goivt? Might it be the party with the largest number of seats?

And i think you're forgetting the five years where the SNP in Holyrood were happily propped up by tories. But the opposite could never happen, yeah?

On increasing membership numbers ... are they as meaningless as you suggest?

Yep. Are those new members new supporters, or were they supporters who've become members?

Do the extra members mean extra supporting voters?

As i have said before, i am sure some will be the equivalent of new Gym memberships in January. But if a tripling of the membership results in, say, a doubling of activists on the ground in an election campaign, what effect will that have?

I remember being told that the "grass roots" feet on the ground in Scotland meant a yes victory. What happened?

A recent TNS poll indicated there is a significant increase in political engagement in the wake of the referendum. i am sure you will agree that can only be a good thing

In theory it's a good thing, yep.

Then again, Hitler increased political engagement in Weimar Germany.

[eFestivals]

I see that the Smith Commission is already a fuck up, with having decided two irreconcilable ideas as part of its terms of reference - with none of the parties involved having even noticed it;l either that, or pretending it's not there.

Firstly, it has "causing neither the UK nor Scottish govt to gain or lose financially as a consequence of devolving a specific power".

And then it intends to devolve tax raising powers, which makes that an impossibility.

Unless all the devolved powers are going to be totally meaningless, and any lost income to either party is matched by a gain to the other side, and the difference is going to be transferred from one to the other?

It's still fruitcake land up there.

[LJS]

I see that the Smith Commission is already a fuck up, with having decided two irreconcilable ideas as part of its terms of reference - with none of the parties involved having even noticed it;l either that, or pretending it's not there.

Firstly, it has "causing neither the UK nor Scottish govt to gain or lose financially as a consequence of devolving a specific power".

And then it intends to devolve tax raising powers, which makes that an impossibility.

Unless all the devolved powers are going to be totally meaningless, and any lost income to either party is matched by a gain to the other side, and the difference is going to be transferred from one to the other?

It's still fruitcake land up there.

Not so. You just agree a transfer of funds so that if Scotland levies tax at the same rate as now it has the same amount of money.

[eFestivals]

Not so. You just agree a transfer of funds so that if Scotland levies tax at the same rate as now it has the same amount of money.

Eh?

Are you saying that Scotland will continue to do everything identically to now, and that rUK will continue to top-up Scotland's money?

Cos that's the only possible way that what's implemented is "causing neither the UK nor Scottish govt to gain or lose financially as a consequence of devolving a specific power".

But anyway, where all of this ends is already clear to see. London will build its own little empire and tell the rest of the UK to go shove itself - and Scotland will be worse off, Wales will be worse of, NI will be worse off, the north of England will be worse off.

And the likes of you will go 'whoops', that wasn't how we thought it would work.

Edited October 23, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Eh?

Are you saying that Scotland will continue to do everything identically to now, and that rUK will continue to top-up Scotland's money?

Cos that's the only possible way that what's implemented is "causing neither the UK nor Scottish govt to gain or lose financially as a consequence of devolving a specific power".

But anyway, where all of this ends is already clear to see. London will build its own little empire and tell the rest of the UK to go shove itself - and Scotland will be worse off, Wales will be worse of, NI will be worse off, the north of England will be worse off.

And the likes of you will go 'whoops', that wasn't how we thought it would work.

You think so? I would imagine they would still be looking for the rest of us to contribute to their monstrous infrastructure expenditure.

[Comfy Bean]

But anyway, where all of this ends is already clear to see. London will build its own little empire and tell the rest of the UK to go shove itself - and Scotland will be worse off, Wales will be worse of, NI will be worse off, the north of England will be worse off.

You should have posted this decades ago sir !

Wise words indeed. For 1 day in September we had our freedom and the opportunity to chose a different path but it was not to be................for now

Anywayz, your hero and mine is on QT tonight.Oh and can someone call Sir Ian ( yet again ).More stories about Billion pond investments ( 10-ten ) and another oil find.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-29739085

[russycarps]

The London situation is dire. What is the answer though? How do you stop the London dominance?

[lost]

Didn't really understand the government pushing London's tech city/silicon roundabout at the turn of the decade. For an industry that probably is the least dependent on location due to the internet, slapping it in the middle of the countries most expensive real estate area seemed puzzling?! Maybe its for the Americans that London is Britain as far as they are concerned?

It will be interesting to see what happens if Labours mansion tax comes in though. Alot of Labour MP's in London marginals now seem to be getting squeaky bums so I can see it being watered down.

Edited October 23, 2014 by lost

[eFestivals]

You think so? I would imagine they would still be looking for the rest of us to contribute to their monstrous infrastructure expenditure.

You mean the infrastructure expenditure that they more-than pay for via their own earnings, and that has zero effect on Scotland's already-worse-than-UK position within Alex's GERS numbers?

(Alex excludes from GERS any spending that he's decided is not beneficial for Scotland; it definitely excludes London infrastructure spending, the Olympics, HS1 & HS2, etc, etc, etc).

Firstly "the rest of us" would have to be paying for London when we're not. London is paying for us.

(Somewhere I saw a breakdown of income and spending by region within the last couple of weeks, and now I can't find that or anything similar to it. If anyone can find something I'll be happy to see it)

[eFestivals]

Didn't really understand the government pushing London's tech city/silicon roundabout at the turn of the decade. For an industry that probably is the least dependent on location due to the internet, slapping it in the middle of the countries most expensive real estate area seemed puzzling?! Maybe its for the Americans that London is Britain as far as they are concerned?

I'll just point out that where its sited certainly wasn't "the countries most expensive real estate area" at the time of site-ing it there - it was a deprived area that these businesses have helped to regenerate.

(Of course, there were other deprived parts of the country that could have benefitted in a similar way. I'm merely pointing out that that part of London classed as deprived too).

Nowadays it's Bristol that's the tech-boom-town, not London. That probably explains why I've seen over a 20% pa price increase in my house value for the last 3 years.

It will be interesting to see what happens if Labours mansion tax comes in though. Alot of Labour MP's in London marginals now seem to be getting squeaky bums so I can see it being watered down.

Just as the poll tax was and the council tax is, the various 'mansion tax' ideas are a way of continuing to absolve the richer types of their responsibilities towards the country.

We had the fairest method there can be when we had a ratings system. An important but always-ignored factor is that land is a unique resource because it is finite.

[eFestivals]

Anywayz, your hero and mine is on QT tonight.

So I've just read (I didn't see it, dozed off). I see he's yet to put his ego away, or his desire to keep on riding the gravy train. Isn't it good to see non-establishment and different politicians just like UKIP?

Oh and can someone call Sir Ian ( yet again ).More stories about Billion pond investments ( 10-ten ) and another oil find.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-29739085

I hope you've noted that the new find isn't anywhere near that mysterious new secret find that peeps like you were banging on about?

And I do hope you're noting that new finds like these do not increase oil extraction, they merely slow down the rate of decline?

And I do hope you're also noting that the predictions of people like Ian Wood - and even Salmond's outrageous lying forecasts - include yet-to-be-discovered fields such as these. They're known to be out there, they're known to be not-massively significant, it's only *exactly* where they are that's the unknown.

[LJS]

You mean the infrastructure expenditure that they more-than pay for via their own earnings, and that has zero effect on Scotland's already-worse-than-UK position within Alex's GERS numbers?

(Alex excludes from GERS any spending that he's decided is not beneficial for Scotland; it definitely excludes London infrastructure spending, the Olympics, HS1 & HS2, etc, etc, etc).

Firstly "the rest of us" would have to be paying for London when we're not. London is paying for us.

(Somewhere I saw a breakdown of income and spending by region within the last couple of weeks, and now I can't find that or anything similar to it. If anyone can find something I'll be happy to see it)

I believe infrastructure spending is "shared" by is all. I'm pretty sure your income expenditure figures will not have London paying for all its own spending.

[lost]

I'll just point out that where its sited certainly wasn't "the countries most expensive real estate area" at the time of site-ing it there - it was a deprived area that these businesses have helped to regenerate.

(Of course, there were other deprived parts of the country that could have benefitted in a similar way. I'm merely pointing out that that part of London classed as deprived too).

Nowadays it's Bristol that's the tech-boom-town, not London. That probably explains why I've seen over a 20% pa price increase in my house value for the last 3 years.

Really? I'm well aware shoreditch used to be poor hence the rhyme but from memory I'd say it was pretty gentrified by 2010.

[eFestivals]

I believe infrastructure spending is "shared" by is all. I'm pretty sure your income expenditure figures will not have London paying for all its own spending.

yep, there are projects that are (rightly or wrongly) deemed as being "national projects" and so are in-theory paid for by all regions.

But those expenses are absent from the 'official' (GERS) Scottish finances. If they were included then the Scottish finances would look worse than GERS says they are.

And London is the biggest tax earner of the whole country, supporting all other parts of the country - even if these "national" expenses are allocated to London.

Believing that London infrastructure expenses are a drain on the regions is bollocks. London is supporting most of the rest of the UK, and not the other way around.

[russycarps]

I believe infrastructure spending is "shared" by is all. I'm pretty sure your income expenditure figures will not have London paying for all its own spending.

do you really think scotland isnt propped up by london?

[eFestivals]

Really? I'm well aware shoreditch used to be poor hence the rhyme but from memory I'd say it was pretty gentrified by 2010.

Doh! I took your "turn of the decade" to be "turn of the century".

The area was becoming a new-tech centre from around that time (the turn of the century). I was doing efests business with a few firms around there back then, and visited a few times. And it was certainly a very long way from 'gentrified' at that point, it was clearly deprived, with a lot of derelict stuff.

It was something that grew organically in that area. The government's "pushing" of that area was it merely bigging up the self-generated success that pre-dated the tory govt.

While the govt could have created another hub somewhere else in the country, it's probably the case that East London would have been much the same as it's become anyway. If it had fragmented, it would have probably meant that the UK's 'tech boom' wouldn't have become as successful as it has become.

Mind you, unless the fuckers are properly taxed, it all ends up as pretty meaningless.

[lost]

Doh! I took your "turn of the decade" to be "turn of the century".

The area was becoming a new-tech centre from around that time (the turn of the century). I was doing efests business with a few firms around there back then, and visited a few times. And it was certainly a very long way from 'gentrified' at that point, it was clearly deprived, with a lot of derelict stuff.

It was something that grew organically in that area. The government's "pushing" of that area was it merely bigging up the self-generated success that pre-dated the tory govt.

While the govt could have created another hub somewhere else in the country, it's probably the case that East London would have been much the same as it's become anyway. If it had fragmented, it would have probably meant that the UK's 'tech boom' wouldn't have become as successful as it has become.

Mind you, unless the fuckers are properly taxed, it all ends up as pretty meaningless.

Yes.. as I'm a bit younger I can only remember Shoreditch resembling an episode of Nathan Barley

[5co77ie]

I see Glastonbury attempted to leave Europe on Tuesday:

http://www.centralsomersetgazette.co.uk/Protesters-seize-Glastonbury-Town-Hall/story-23345736-detail/story.html

Edited October 24, 2014 by 5co77ie

[LJS]

do you really think scotland isnt propped up by london?

I think the truth is, you can make a plausible case for London propping up the rest of the UK & vice versa. Which is nice as we can all believe we are right.

[russycarps]

I think the truth is, you can make a plausible case for London propping up the rest of the UK & vice versa. Which is nice as we can all believe we are right.

go on then, make your case.

[eFestivals]

I think the truth is, you can make a plausible case for London propping up the rest of the UK & vice versa. Which is nice as we can all believe we are right.

I think it's the case that London is the only part of the UK which has consistently (tho not necessarily 'always') runs a surplus - you know, no deficit at all.

Yes, it has a greater spending per-person (because of those infrastructure projects to a large extent, but also because of much higher housing benefit costs, and other things too), but it also contributes a much greater amount per-person in tax as well.

Given that you wish to believe (as you stated in this thread) that Scotland is around the UK average for its deficit, and it's well known that both Wales and NI are both massively propped up by the rest of the UK, that gets to mean that the money to prop-up Wales and NI is coming from somewhere that isn't Scotland.

Which means England is propping up the union. Is it the 'poor' bits of England which are doing that, or might it be the richest?

Thinking that the rest of the UK props up London as you've suggested above is fruitcake land.

Then again, you've refused to accept anything that doesn't portray Scotland in a fantastic light, so I'm guessing there'll be nothing different here.

[eFestivals]

go on then, make your case.

You'll be waiting a long time I suspect. It took LJS three months to attempt an answer to the question "what is a currency?"

I've yet to see him even accept that the infrastructure projects that he likes to believe Scotland pays for (see just above) are excluded from the Scottish finances as published by Alex - despite there being a clear statement that they are on the Scottish Govts own website.