The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

I went with your graph... of the five most recent years you chose to post, Scotland was better off than the the UK in 4 of them . Only going with your figures

Also in 17 of the 32 years covered in your graph , we were better off, which I'm pretty sure contradicts your claims, but hey, I won't pmsl or insult your intelligence cos i'm not an arrogant Twat (in my opinion)

[eFestivals]

1: The SNP will demand a price which is more than Labour will be prepared to pay:

Will they? Are you really sure about that? I assume you are talking about Trident, the scrapping of which has been touted as the SNP's price for a deal.

PMSL - you support them, but you know nothing about them. Perhaps try listening to them?

That's just one item on their shopping list. Their biggest item is the one where Scotland gets 10% greater cuts than the tories will give Scotland, via the SNP's wanted "full fiscal autonomy".

But do you think the UK's defence policy should be set by a party in one corner of the nation who have 4% of the nation's votes?

I'm sure you'll say 'yes' if that party is the one you love. I doubt your enthusiasm for that idea holds true if the defence policy is set by UKIP tho - who have around 5 times the national support as your favourites do.

2: A coalition would be political suicide for the SNP

well, firstly there won't be a coalition: that much we are agreed on. Some sort of confidence & supply arrangement is not impossible.

Confidence and supply comes at a price.

In the SNP's case, that price would be supporting policies that SNP voters had just expressed their disgust at by voting SNP and not Labour who they 'hate' (with that word, expressed endlessly).

Have you not noticed how that's played out for the LibDems?

Or do you think every policy that the SNP would support in a deal would be everything the SNP supports anyway?

(clue: that wouldn't be 'a deal').

3. Labour would be irrevocably damaged by doing a deal with a Party dedicated to the destruction of the UK or as you put it "Even a slightest hint that they're dancing to the SNP's tune will destroy them forever in England."

Well, this again hangs, to a great extent on how high a price the SNP try to extract for whatever support they offer to Labour.

and with those words you make clear that you just don't get it.

There is nothing at all that Labour could bend to of what the SNP want - not even hint at it - without it fatally damaging them.

2: A coalition would be political But on the other hand, you all begged us to stay. You told us how important a part of the Union we were. You told us how diminished you would be if we left... I take it from your comment that that was all bullshit.

the UK appealled to the better judgement of Scots, and that better judgement won out.

You seem to have missed that part?

The UK told Scotland what an important part of the union it was, and the Scots agreed.

If Scotland votes pretend-no-union - SNP voting - then the UK will ignore that and instead reference back to the more-important statement by Scots, that they wish to be a part of the union.

As I've said a few times, Scotland voting SNP is Scotland voting itself irrelevant to the UK political process.

Which you'll find out is the case in May, I guarantee.

Edited February 6, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I went with your graph... of the five most recent years you chose to post, Scotland was better off the the UK. Only going with your figures

they are NOT "years you chose to post", they are the years contained within that GERS document that the graph is generated from.

I was hoping that you were aware of Scotland enough to know the following story. In fact you DO know the following story (cos you've acknowledged it previously) but here you've chosen to forget it to present a better Scxotland than the reality.

And you know that's what you've done, you know you're trying to paint a false picture. You ain't fooling me, it's the standard WoS trick of presenting self-serving misleading bollocks.

Also in 17 of the 32 years covered in your graph , we were better off, whihch I'm pretty sure contradicts your claims, but hey, I won't pmsl or insult your intelligence cos i'm not an arrogant Twat (in my opinion)

My claim was of the years since 1990. But you know that.

But you don't seem to know that Scotland's oil was mostly sucked dry in the 80s. You don't seem to know that the 80s are irrelevant for going fowards, the point of this discussion.

Throw in a squirrel, and pretend that all is great for the future of Scotland.

Are you really that daft, that you think everyone else is more daft than you?

[gary1979666]

Can I ask for a clarification on the graph. The Scotland bit I get, but the UK bit is that full UK or rUK?

Ta

[LJS]

PMSL - you support them, but you know nothing about them. Perhaps try listening to them?

That's just one item on their shopping list. Their biggest item is the one where Scotland gets 10% greater cuts than the tories will give Scotland, via the SNP's wanted "full fiscal autonomy".

But do you think the UK's defence policy should be set by a party in one corner of the nation who have 4% of the nation's votes?

I'm sure you'll say 'yes' if that party is the one you love. I doubt your enthusiasm for that idea holds true if the defence policy is set by UKIP tho - who have around 5 times the national support as your favourites do.

Confidence and supply comes at a price.

In the SNP's case, that price would be supporting policies that SNP voters had just expressed their disgust at by voting SNP and not Labour who they 'hate' (with that word, expressed endlessly).

Have you not noticed how that's played out for the LibDems?

Or do you think every policy that the SNP would support in a deal would be everything the SNP supports anyway?

(clue: that wouldn't be 'a deal').

and with those words you make clear that you just don't get it.

There is nothing at all that Labour could bend to of what the SNP want - not even hint at it - without it fatally damaging them.

the UK appealled to the better judgement of Scots, and that better judgement won out.

You seem to have missed that part?

The UK told Scotland what an important part of the union it was, and the Scots agreed.

If Scotland votes pretend-no-union - SNP voting - then the UK will ignore that and instead reference back to the more-important statement by Scots, that they wish to be a part of the union.

As I've said a few times, Scotland voting SNP is Scotland voting itself irrelevant to the UK political process.

Which you'll find out is the case in May, I guarantee.

Oh Neil, guess we'll just have to disagree. Difference is I'm not arrogant enough to think everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot.

Have a nice day.

[eFestivals]

why does LJS think that Scotland still has massive oil revenues?

Does he have a secret oil well as well as a magic money tree?

[eFestivals]

Can I ask for a clarification on the graph. The Scotland bit I get, but the UK bit is that full UK or rUK?

Ta

it's whole-UK.

I suggest you go and look at the GERS spreadsheet directly, if your understanding of numbers goes beyond needing pretty pictures.

[LJS]

they are NOT "years you chose to post", they are the years contained within that GERS document that the graph is generated from.

I was hoping that you were aware of Scotland enough to know the following story. In fact you DO know the following story (cos you've acknowledged it previously) but here you've chosen to forget it to present a better Scxotland than the reality.

And you know that's what you've done, you know you're trying to paint a false picture. You ain't fooling me, it's the standard WoS trick of presenting self-serving misleading bollocks.

My claim was of the years since 1990. But you know that.

But you don't seem to know that Scotland's oil was mostly sucked dry in the 80s. You don't seem to know that the 80s are irrelevant for going fowards, the point of this discussion.

Throw in a squirrel, and pretend that all is great for the future of Scotland.

Are you really that daft, that you think everyone else is more daft than you?

And what do the 5 most recent years in your graph show?

[eFestivals]

Oh Neil, guess we'll just have to disagree. Difference is I'm not arrogant enough to think everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot.

Have a nice day.

It's not me you're disagreeing with, it's the SNP's won stated policies.

It helps when discussing their policies if you know what they are.

[eFestivals]

And what do the 5 most recent years in your graph show?

they show the years 2006-07 to 2011-12. It might have passed you by, but we're now in 2015.

You asked me to give you something from THESE SPECIFIC NUMBERS.

If your understanding of them is so poor, how is that my error?

[LJS]

why does LJS think that Scotland still has massive oil revenues?

Does he have a secret oil well as well as a magic money tree?

Depends what you call massive. But as you yourself have constantly pointed out its not so much the amount of oil as the viability of drilling for it which is of course dependent on the price of oil.

[gary1979666]

it's whole-UK.

I suggest you go and look at the GERS spreadsheet directly, if your understanding of numbers goes beyond needing pretty pictures.

So for the recent years where Scotland has a deficit and the UK has a bigger deficit, then rUK's deficit is just the tiny difference. So how if LJS saying Scotland is better off? I'm sure a graph showing Scotland vs rUK would paint a much scarier pretty picture. Or have I misunderstood?

[LJS]

they show the years 2006-07 to 2011-12. It might have passed you by, but we're now in 2015.

You asked me to give you something from THESE SPECIFIC NUMBERS.

If your understanding of them is so poor, how is that my error?

And in 4 of them Scotland had a smaller deficit than the UK.

[LJS]

So for the recent years where Scotland has a deficit and the UK has a bigger deficit, then rUK's deficit is just the tiny difference. So how if LJS saying Scotland is better off? I'm sure a graph showing Scotland vs rUK would paint a much scarier pretty picture. Or have I misunderstood?

You will find I haven't really been arguing Scotland would be financially better off at least in the short time & it certainly was no part of my reason for voting yes. I have been challenging Neil's assertion of financial Armageddon for iScotland.

[gary1979666]

You will find I haven't really been arguing Scotland would be financially better off at least in the short time & it certainly was no part of my reason for voting yes. I have been challenging Neil's assertion of financial Armageddon for iScotland.

But you're arguing that Scotland had a smaller deficit than the UK. But as most of the UK's deficit related to Scotland, then the only way for Scotland>UK deficit is for rUK to run a surplus.

[LJS]

It's not me you're disagreeing with, it's the SNP's won stated policies.

It helps when discussing their policies if you know what they are.

Are you really stupid enough to think they would expect all their policies enacted as part of any deal?

[russycarps]

I cant see how anyone can argue the scottish economy is anything but shagged at the moment. Luckily, the price of oil being so low is a net positive for the UK economy which will mitigate the utter disaster in scotland.

If this isnt the perfect example of why the union is a good thing then what hope is there?

When prices of oil rise again of course the raving yes-ers will be crying into their haggis over the fact they have to share the profits with the rest of the UK, conveniently forgetting all the previous years they've been propped up. As usual.

[eFestivals]

Depends what you call massive. But as you yourself have constantly pointed out its not so much the amount of oil as the viability of drilling for it which is of course dependent on the price of oil.

yep, and the good oil money came in a few years when the price was historically very high. If you go back to 1999 it was just $10 a barrel.

The current industry forecasts (revised again very recently) are for prices to be around the current price for 3 to 4 years - which means just about every penny of the £5bn to £10Bn that was raised in 'offshore taxes' in the good years has now gone (and the impact doesn't stop with just a drop in the offshore money, the on-shore job cuts and investment reversals will impact too).

The price will go up again, yep. Whether it will (proportionally) ever again hit the same heights is a matter for speculation in a world that is moving away from oil dependence.

[eFestivals]

And in 4 of them Scotland had a smaller deficit than the UK.

Let's say it in full, shall we?

For 17 years in 23, Scotland's economic position was worse than whole-UK's position (and the good years fell well-short of making up for the bad years).

And was Scotland better than whole-UK in those better years because Scotland's economy had improved? Nope, Scotland was better than whole-UK in those years because whole-UK was completely fucked by the financial crisis.

So you saying "4 years are good" is actually you saying "4 years is when Scotland is *REALLY* fucked".

There is no angle that can be taken with GERS numbers (the only numbers!) which demonstrates Scotland's position as good, unless using fantasy as your rationale.

Edited February 6, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I have been challenging Neil's assertion of financial Armageddon for iScotland.

but refuse to actually think about the facts that exist in reaching your view.

It's taken 5 goes for you to even start to discuss these numbers. It's a start, but you still need to *actually* reference the numbers!

[eFestivals]

Are you really stupid enough to think they would expect all their policies enacted as part of any deal?

Not at all. In any deal, both sides would have to back down on some of their positions.

Which would have the SNP supporting Labour policies that are hated by SNP voters, and so turn the SNP into the LibDems.

The SNP cannot look good via a deal, and Labour cannot look good via a deal.

So why would either do that deal? This is the point I keep making.

[LJS]

Not at all. In any deal, both sides would have to back down on some of their positions.

Which would have the SNP supporting Labour policies that are hated by SNP voters, and so turn the SNP into the LibDems.

The SNP cannot look good via a deal, and Labour cannot look good via a deal.

So why would either do that deal? This is the point I keep making.

P-O-W-E-R

I think you underestimate it's attraction.

Edited February 6, 2015 by LJS

[LJS]

Let's say it in full, shall we?

For 17 years in 23, Scotland's economic position was worse than whole-UK's position (and the good years fell well-short of making up for the bad years).

And was Scotland better than whole-UK in those better years because Scotland's economy had improved? Nope, Scotland was better than whole-UK in those years because whole-UK was completely fucked by the financial crisis.

So you saying "4 years are good" is actually you saying "4 years is when Scotland is *REALLY* fucked".

There is no angle that can be taken with GERS numbers (the only numbers!) which demonstrates Scotland's position as good, unless using fantasy as your rationale.

I make it 15 (assuming this is from the graph) but what's a couple of years between friends?

I assume you thought I was too stupid to noticed that your selection of years conveniently gave a worse outcome for iScotland than the whole graph or the past 10 years for example.

Amazing what you can do with statistics.

[LJS]

The problem with the "Vote SNP get Tory" line, is that in my lifetime there have been 14 general elections. In every single one of these Scotland has elected a majority of Labour MP's. But only 7 times that got us a Labour government & because of the two elections in 1974 this means for More than 50% of my lifetime, Scotland has been governed by a Party it didn't vote for.

So "Vote Labour get Tory" has a pretty good track record.

[Comfy Bean]

The problem with the "Vote SNP get Tory" line, is that in my lifetime there have been 14 general elections. In every single one of these Scotland has elected a majority of Labour MP's. But only 7 times that got us a Labour government & because of the two elections in 1974 this means for More than 50% of my lifetime, Scotland has been governed by a Party it didn't vote for.

So "Vote Labour get Tory" has a pretty good track record.

Indeed it has sir. Unlike " Vote SNP get Tory ". Utter drivel to deflect from the fact that Scotland will NOT vote Tory. To think that is Jimbo`s only line . After the cuts we have ALL faced over the past few years under Tory rule the fact that Jimbo has no other cards is shameful stuff. Labour councilors now making the switch and if Unite come in behind the SNP for our elections then the red rosette on a monkey days will be gone forever.

As I mentioned the other day, the oil price is down the shitter and everyone in Scotland is very much aware of this fact but still the polls show the momentum is with both the Indy campaign and the SNP. The patter about greed / jam is being proved to be as daft / ignorant as you have always said it was.

Labour backing the continued austerity plans of the Tories will some day be seen as significant in my view. I won`t post the debt bomb ( again ). Loads of folks in England actually want to vote for the Tories. They are entitled to want to continue down that road just as " we " are entitled to want to leave them to it.