The Dirty Independence Question

[Comfy Bean]

You aint daft Neil so I`ll go with you on that poster. Salmond`s big smug coupon looks as if it`s been stuck on there so is it for real ?

I`m not sure your right about Salmond wanting the Tories to rule over us. You may remember his dream, you know the one that will never die . If he had got his way then the Tories would never have ruled over me for the rest of my lifetime !

The irony of you now urging Scottish folks to vote in such a way as to end Tories Ruling over them ( again ) is not lost on me . Lets not forget we currently have 1 ( one ) Tory MP.

Just catching up on the new house buying tax. Before even getting to the new figures, I doubt anyone will ever describe Swinney as being left wing ! NS must be in control as we move forward.

Properties to attract the new top rate of tax ( 12% ) :

Scotland over £750,000.01

Rest of UK over £1,500,000.01

NS currently making her mind up on new options for " fairer " Council Tax and figures now showing higher % of employers ( including Scottish Govt staff ) paying the living wage in Scotland than in rUK.

All Scottish NHS nursing staff to receive 1% pay rise in April with new Health and Social Care integration plans kicking in on 01/04. Business Rates Exemptions for shooting estates now in the bin.

Meanwhile Jim Murphy has written to Dave to see if Billy McNeil and John Greig ( former Celtic & Rangers Captains ) can be knighted. Other Scottish teams are available

[Comfy Bean]

Take Take Take....He forgot to mention Separatists and Hitler but this nice mans " on message " Neil

http://youtu.be/R7qA8wDUiXo

[LJS]

when things get tricky for those who voted yes ... look over there, a squirrel.

oh look a Neil

& another one

Oh... & one more

[LJS]

So, I've had a wee break from this as i felt we were going round in circles .... & guess what we're still going round in circles ..l at least I know its not just me

I am sure you have all missed my input into the debate but i hope you have not interpreted my absence as any sort of admission that Neil's continuing stream of nonsense bears any relation to reality. I'm sure you are all wise enough to his ways ... but better safe than sorry so here I am to deflate his Unionist balloon (if Me & comfy are Separatists, I assume Neil will be happy to be described as a Unionist)

Where to begin?

1: well what about his continuing claim that

" the economic case for indie Scotland has been destroyed unless Scotland is happy to be voting itself poorer.

The very fact that the indie campaign didn't put forwards the idea of voting yourself poorer and instead promised new extra riches shows where Scottish thinking is. 'Poorer' isn't wanted.

And that poorer, it should be noted, is indefinite

Now that is a really serious allegation, and you would assume he could provide figures to back it up. For some reason he hasn't. He has provided numbers (from some guy in Slovenia) & has consistently dodged all requests to prove that these are accurate. Tellingly he recently made great play of some document from the Scottish government website which gave a pretty sober & balanced assessment of how an oil fund might or might not work. I am pleased to see Neil accepted this document, which presumably means he accepts this part of it as well... "Scotland has been in a relatively stronger fiscal position than the UK as a whole in recent years."

This is clearly at odds with his claims that Scotland has more often than not been more in deficit than England

And talking of straightforwards, you can't even accept what those GERS figures say only for themselves, that for 17 years out of the last 24 years Scotland's deficit was greater than the whole-UK's.

for the thousandth time show me this ... cos i can't see it

2:of course the big thing with an election looming is how us Scots will install Dave into no. 10 despite only about 2 dozen of us actually voting Tory. This is Magic worthy of David Copperfield.

So let's just examine (again) your claim that " Scotland is likely to hold the responsibility for a Tory win" & "Scotland could choose to stop the Tories, 100% guaranteed" (quotes from Neil)

If we can assume that the number or Tories elected in Scotland does not increase. (pretty much no one is suggesting otherwise) & accept that the normal definition of a "win" in a UK general election is an overall majority, then

1: Scotland mathematically cannot be responsible for a Tory win - it matters not a jot whether we vote Lab, SNP, Green, UKIP, Libdem. As long as we don't vote Tory, we mathematically cannot be responsible for a Tory victory.

2: It is, however mathematically possible that we can deprive Labour of enough seats so that the Tories are the largest single party. Most projections at present suggest this would still leave the Tories well short of an overall majority. Who exactly are they going to form a coalition with? There are unlikely to be enough libdems (even if they were crazy enough to commit political suicide again) it would need to be very very tight before the DUP were an option. UKIP despite all the hype won't get enough seats & even if they did, how long could you imagine their discipline holding to keep a coalition going?

So Neil, tell us where is this "Tory win" coming from?

3: The main plank of your argument is that all of us who oppose the Tories (which is nearly everyone on here) has a duty to vote Labour because they are the only realistic alternative & they are not as bad as the Tories (both of these statements are correct in my view)

However the dilemma is that by falling for this line you simply perpetuate the two party system & reduce the possibility of change at any time in the foreseeable future. So bizarrely, if we follow the advice of Neil, who is passionately committed to reform of the UK electoral system, we will perpetuate the unfair status quo.

As ever, Neil sees it in black & white: the reality is more complex.

Edited January 24, 2015 by LJS

[Ted Dansons Wig]

This is a genuine Tory election campaign poster, released in the last few days (as you can see here).....

.

Ignoring my political convictions - it's a pretty good ad. Hits the English dislike of Salmond and looks to strengthening the SNP vote in Scotland. Respect for the scumbags in that context.

Will be happier when there are some clear messages from Labour. They (including Jimbo) just seem to be reacting at the mo.

[LJS]

Ignoring my political convictions - it's a pretty good ad. Hits the English dislike of Salmond and looks to strengthening the SNP vote in Scotland. Respect for the scumbags in that context.

Will be happier when there are some clear messages from Labour. They (including Jimbo) just seem to be reacting at the mo.

you think this is a pretty good ad?

really?

So you think politics should be about personality & third rate photo-shopping.

excuse me if I beg to differ.

I wouldn't even expect Neil to support this.

I'm confused by your comment ... " Respect for the scumbags in that context." who are the scumbags?

[kaosmark2]

you think this is a pretty good ad?

really?

So you think politics should be about personality & third rate photo-shopping.

excuse me if I beg to differ.

I wouldn't even expect Neil to support this.

I'm confused by your comment ... " Respect for the scumbags in that context." who are the scumbags?

If I've interpreted Ted right, I think he believes it's an effective ad at winning the Tories votes, which is what it's designed to do. It will probably achieve its goal, which makes it "good" in that sense.

The scumbags would be the Tories, and more specifically the Tory PR machine.

[Ted Dansons Wig]

If I've interpreted Ted right, I think he believes it's an effective ad at winning the Tories votes, which is what it's designed to do. It will probably achieve its goal, which makes it "good" in that sense.

The scumbags would be the Tories, and more specifically the Tory PR machine.

My compadre kaosmark is correct as ever.

LJS: It's supposed to produce a strong reaction mainly in England and the naff Photoshop is part of that. Its SUPPOSED to look naff. Why on earth would the Tories portray Ed (and by association Alex S) as anything other than caricatures? my opinion mate - though Neil's view I always read with interest whether he agrees or not is immaterial.

And the scumbags are most definitely the Tories. Who did you think I meant?

Edited January 24, 2015 by Ted Dansons Wig

[eFestivals]

You aint daft Neil so I`ll go with you on that poster. Salmond`s big smug coupon looks as if it`s been stuck on there so is it for real ?

nope, of course it's not real.

When did you think that Miliband and Salmond and had been matey-ing it up outside No 10?

It's a pic of the two Eds, with Salmond's face laid over it.

Meanwhile, I see you have nothing else to say about it, about how the tories see your vote for the SNP as an enabling vote for the tories.

You know, how you voting SNP is likely to give Scotland a tory govt. Punch yourself in the face why don't you. ... oh, you are already.

I`m not sure your right about Salmond wanting the Tories to rule over us. You may remember his dream, you know the one that will never die . If he had got his way then the Tories would never have ruled over me for the rest of my lifetime !

]

And how to you think that dream "that will never die" comes to reality? Is it by Scotland having a UK govt it doesn't much mind, or is it by Scotland having a UK govt it detests?

Meanwhile the SNP bang on about how Smith is giving them nothing worthwhile, like Salmond's "penny for Scotland" had never happened. He cocked up with that one, not because Scotland told him to GTF, but because it proves the bollocks he's spouted ever since about how the devolved powers aren't enough to make a meqaningful difference.

Him suggesting that "penny for Scotland" shows that he thinks even the much-lesser '98 powers can make a meaningful difference.

The rejection of that "penny for Scotland" by the people of Scotland shows that the people of Scotland don't feel that Scotland needs that difference - and confirmed again just last September.

The irony of you now urging Scottish folks to vote in such a way as to end Tories Ruling over them ( again ) is not lost on me . Lets not forget we currently have 1 ( one ) Tory MP.

No, you have 300-odd of them, same as me. It's a UK election for Westminster, where Scotland has no special status - and the people of Scotland have just formally endorsed that scenario.

You only have a point by having a starting position based in bullshit.

Which leads to more bullshit.

Just catching up on the new house buying tax. Before even getting to the new figures, I doubt anyone will ever describe Swinney as being left wing ! NS must be in control as we move forward.

Properties to attract the new top rate of tax ( 12% ) :

Scotland over £750,000.01

Rest of UK over £1,500,000.01

It might have passed you by, but the range of property prices in England is quite different to the range of property prices in Scotland, and any policy needs to take the range it works with into account.

You've spent the last year (or longer) banging on about Scotland needs laws tailored to specifically Scotland, and when you get them you think that exposes something bad in rUK?

What it exposes are your own problems in reconciling reality.

[eFestivals]

Take Take Take....He forgot to mention Separatists and Hitler but this nice mans " on message " Neil

he's merely saying how it's taken by people like him and people far less extreme than him.

Which i've been pointing out to you for a while, but you'd prefer to punch yourself in the face.

When you do, don't take offence at those who'll laugh at you, will you? It's not like you've not been warned.

[eFestivals]

I am sure you have all missed my input into the debate but i hope you have not interpreted my absence as any sort of admission that Neil's continuing stream of nonsense bears any relation to reality.

I wouldn't think anything like that of you. That would first need you to do reality to recognise it.

That tory poster proves the reality of what I've been saying, but you just ignore that, eh?

(if Me & comfy are Separatists, I assume Neil will be happy to be described as a Unionist)

Yep, i'm a similar unionist as the SNP/you claim to be, but without the Thatcherite principles of "me first" that infect you.

Never mind, eh?

Now that is a really serious allegation, and you would assume he could provide figures to back it up.

I point you at the Scottish Govts white paper for independendence, which stipualted a 5%+ spending deficit AFTER 16% of expenditure revenue had been realised via an average oil price of greater than $113.

A figure that was based in worst case scenario of $77 a barrel - an explicit statement by Salmond that the price could not go lower, and as it has all his numbers are worthless.

But you've read the white paper, right? So you know all this, and so you also know you're putting forwards an empty argument.

(at least comfy has the excuse of never having read the white paper, which gives him the scope to make it up in his head. What's your excuse for posting what you know are lies?).

White Paper:-

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/11/9348

GERS 2012-13

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/03/7888

Historical Fiscal Balances 1980-81 to 2012-13

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Economy/GERS/RelatedAreas/LRfiscalbalances2014

All numbers approved and endorsed by St Alex.

For some reason he hasn't. He has provided numbers (from some guy in Slovenia)

fuck me you're getting desperate.

The numbers I've *ALWAYS* given you are GERS numbers.

You know, the sacred word of St Alex, your glorious leader - who you call a liar each time you call me one.

& has consistently dodged all requests to prove that these are accurate.

it requires you to read and understand them.

I can lead a horse to water but I can't make it drink.

I am pleased to see Neil accepted this document, which presumably means he accepts this part of it as well... "Scotland has been in a relatively stronger fiscal position than the UK as a whole in recent years."

fiscal

ˈfɪsk(ə)l/

adjective

adjective: fiscal

1.

relating to government revenue, especially taxes.

So that's income covered, shall we talk about Scottish expenditure too, which gives Scotland a significantly greater deficit?

Here's what the Scottish Govt themsaelves say....

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/03/7888

In 2012-13, the estimated current budget balance for the public sector in Scotland was a deficit of £14.2 billion (11.2% of GDP) excluding North Sea revenue, a deficit of £13.6 billion (10.6% of GDP) including a per capita share of North Sea revenue or a deficit of £8.6 billion (5.9% of GDP) including an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue.

In 2012-13, the UK as a whole ran a current budget deficit, including 100 per cent of North Sea revenue, of £91.9 billion (5.8% of GDP).

Oh look, Scotland is in a worse position than the UK.

This is clearly at odds with his claims that Scotland has more often than not been more in deficit than England

says the man who clearly doesn't understand what 'fiscal' means.

Edited January 25, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

2:of course the big thing with an election looming is how us Scots will install Dave into no. 10 despite only about 2 dozen of us actually voting Tory. This is Magic worthy of David Copperfield.

So let's just examine (again) your claim that " Scotland is likely to hold the responsibility for a Tory win" & "Scotland could choose to stop the Tories, 100% guaranteed" (quotes from Neil)

If we can assume that the number or Tories elected in Scotland does not increase. (pretty much no one is suggesting otherwise) & accept that the normal definition of a "win" in a UK general election is an overall majority, then

1: Scotland mathematically cannot be responsible for a Tory win - it matters not a jot whether we vote Lab, SNP, Green, UKIP, Libdem. As long as we don't vote Tory, we mathematically cannot be responsible for a Tory victory.

2: It is, however mathematically possible that we can deprive Labour of enough seats so that the Tories are the largest single party. Most projections at present suggest this would still leave the Tories well short of an overall majority. Who exactly are they going to form a coalition with? There are unlikely to be enough libdems (even if they were crazy enough to commit political suicide again) it would need to be very very tight before the DUP were an option. UKIP despite all the hype won't get enough seats & even if they did, how long could you imagine their discipline holding to keep a coalition going?

So Neil, tell us where is this "Tory win" coming from?

3: The main plank of your argument is that all of us who oppose the Tories (which is nearly everyone on here) has a duty to vote Labour because they are the only realistic alternative & they are not as bad as the Tories (both of these statements are correct in my view)

However the dilemma is that by falling for this line you simply perpetuate the two party system & reduce the possibility of change at any time in the foreseeable future. So bizarrely, if we follow the advice of Neil, who is passionately committed to reform of the UK electoral system, we will perpetuate the unfair status quo.

As ever, Neil sees it in black & white: the reality is more complex.

It's a UK election; Scotland means fuck all. But just ignore that inconvenient fact, eh?

The result is a UK wide result. Every vote counts equally towards that result.

Edited January 25, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Ignoring my political convictions - it's a pretty good ad. Hits the English dislike of Salmond and looks to strengthening the SNP vote in Scotland. Respect for the scumbags in that context.

^^^^

Anyone pretending that it doesn't work only needs to look at current Scottish voting intentions, where SNP voters get to be the tories patsies, their enablers.

[eFestivals]

you think this is a pretty good ad?

really?

So you think politics should be about personality & third rate photo-shopping.

excuse me if I beg to differ.

I wouldn't even expect Neil to support this.

I'm confused by your comment ... " Respect for the scumbags in that context." who are the scumbags?

recognising the power that that ad has is not an endorsement of it.

I'm not trying to tell anyone that a tory win would be a good thing, I'm merely telling you how you voting for the SNP is likely to have the tories win.

If you want to punch yourself in the face by helping the tories win, you go ahead - but just don't go moaning about the tory victory you'll have helped create.

After all, you won't need to. You'll have Alex telling everyone for you, while he's also cheering so very loudly inside at the people of Scotland suffering as a result of you doing what he's asked of you.

Edited January 25, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

My compadre kaosmark is correct as ever.

LJS: It's supposed to produce a strong reaction mainly in England and the naff Photoshop is part of that. Its SUPPOSED to look naff. Why on earth would the Tories portray Ed (and by association Alex S) as anything other than caricatures? my opinion mate - though Neil's view I always read with interest whether he agrees or not is immaterial.

And the scumbags are most definitely the Tories. Who did you think I meant?

you're looking at it in the exact same way as me.

What's funny here is that the tory's poodles can't see they're the tories poodles even when the tories produce an ad that makes clear they're poodles.

[kaosmark2]

Divide and conquer at its finest.

[eFestivals]

Divide and conquer at its finest.

absolutely!

The tories have played it extremely well from their point of view. What's so astounding (or perhaps not) is that those self-proclaiming themselves as the most politically astute in the UK can't see even a smidgen of what's going on and how they're being played.

And it's not only the tories who are playing them. Their own heroes are taking the piss out of many Scots to no less of a degree.

Edited January 25, 2015 by eFestivals

[Ted Dansons Wig]

you're looking at it in the exact same way as me.What's funny here is that the tory's poodles can't see they're the tories poodles even when the tories produce an ad that makes clear they're poodles.

Although my perceptive brilliance is somewhat dimmed by the fact that I thought it was a real ad......

One or two on here are a bit over-sensitive aren't they? You've been throwing them bones for nigh on 300 pages and they haven't stopped snapping yet

[eFestivals]

Although my perceptive brilliance is somewhat dimmed by the fact that I thought it was a real ad......

it *IS* a real ad!

My apologies for the wrong link in my initial post about it. The Guardian story about that real tory poster is here:-

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/23/photoshop-nightmare-tory-poster-snp-labour

[Ted Dansons Wig]

it *IS* a real ad!My apologies for the wrong link in my initial post about it. The Guardian story about that real tory poster is here:-http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/23/photoshop-nightmare-tory-poster-snp-labour

Cool - I shall re-assume my previous smug tone then

[eFestivals]

and talking of bad links, I also got the "Historical Fiscal Balances 1980-81 to 2012-13" one wrong above, which i've now corrected with an edit to that post.

[eFestivals]

and for the horse that won't drink, perhaps this'll help?

(click on the image to see a bigger version).

It's a graph built directly from the GERS numbers for 1980 to 2011.

Edited January 25, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

The 80s look great for Scotland .... but for going forwards, it means fuck all. It's gone, never to return.

Since 1990, there's just 7 years where Scotland's income/expenditure has been better than whole-UKs.

(and those better years don't cover off the worse years)

That means that even with the oil - at high prices, and at extraction levels that won't be seen again (extraction has more-than halved since 2000) - iScotland would be in a worse financial position than it is within the UK, with everything else being equal.

The next nat claim is always "but everything else wouldn't be equal". True.

Unfortunately, all the things which get flagged up by nats for why iscotland would be riolling in cash also don't work - using only Salmond's white paper to blow them away.

The most common one is "Scotland wouldn't fund trident or invade countries". And yet Salmond had iScotland using 85% of its contribution to UK military expenditure being spent on iScottish military expenditure, but without that new iScottish military covering all its needs (admitted in that part of the white paper). It actually says that rUK will provide iScotland with facilities such as spying and plane refuelling free-of-charge (which is of course ridiculous).

The next thing that gets said is that "at least all that military expenditure will be within Scotland, which a fair proportion isn't currently". Unfortunately for iScotland, that's not true'; Scotland gets a disproportionate amount spent in Scotland currently.

Etc, etc, etc.

There is no magic money tree, but if there is Salmond certainly doesn't know where it is himself, and neither does Swinney.

Which is why there's documents with Swinney's name on making explicit that iScotland would need to increase borrowing (if it can find a lender), increase taxes or reduce spending.

Perhaps those nats could lead us all to their magic money tree and we can all be rich together?

[Comfy Bean]

I`m not sure there is much to be gained about discussing the possible riches of an Indy Scotland in the 80`s. Some could argue that a Scottish Govt led by Labour or the SNP over the past 3 decades may have invested some of the money in a oil fund which could now be offsetting the drop in oil price. Perhaps they would have invested in manufacturing and industry or we could have been making the most of our vast natural resources ( away from the oil ).

No-one really knows but we may well have been on a different " path " than the debt ridden one we are on now as part of the empire. Instead of austerity and foodbanks we " could " have been building on the " good times ".

We will never know and I`m sure some would argue we would have been skint anywayz cause that Slamond is a prick etc.

Here`s an article about the here and now :

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/19/austerity-failed-incomes-deficit-votes-cameron

[Comfy Bean]

It might have passed you by, but the range of property prices in England is quite different to the range of property prices in Scotland, and any policy needs to take the range it works with into account.

You've spent the last year (or longer) banging on about Scotland needs laws tailored to specifically Scotland, and when you get them you think that exposes something bad in rUK?

What it exposes are your own problems in reconciling reality.

Not sure this is a fair response to what I posted about the first tax change the SNP have introduced since we voted NO.

I think you are now in a position where whatever the SNP do you will refuse to accept that it could be a good thing. You have posted on page after page about how the SNP take take take from the poor and give to the rich. You have ignored ( or moved goal posts ) the fact that the SNP mitigated against the bedrrom tax from other budgets and then abolished it. You failed to see the good when the SNP provided money to insulate the homes of folk living in fuel poverty and now folk that can afford to buy a big hoose will pay 12% in tax up from 7%.

Serious questions : do you think this increase is a good move ? Do you recognise that NS is getting somewhere on the living wage ? I`ll assume your happy with the Bedroom tax being binned along with the end of rates exemptions for shooting estates. Surely these should make us all pleased or are you sticking with Salmond eats too much and has a smug coupon