The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

that is clearly your invention not anything ever said.

not quite true. It's a paraphrasing of what NS has said. After all, she's said "spend more money" but said nothing about how that money is available to be spent.

Do you have any other squirrels you want to show me, to help you avoid facing up to the truth of the SNP?

[LJS]

not quite true. It's a paraphrasing of what NS has said. After all, she's said "spend more money" but said nothing about how that money is available to be spent.

Do you have any other squirrels you want to show me, to help you avoid facing up to the truth of the SNP?

you are the squirrel man. I don't do them.

[eFestivals]

you are the squirrel man. I don't do them.

True. You don't seem to feel the need to divert gazes away from your desire for your kids to pay your bills by your support of NS's plans.

Me, I'd feel embarrassed enough about that to want it hidden.

[tolywoly]

True. You don't seem to feel the need to divert gazes away from your desire for your kids to pay your bills by your support of NS's plans.

Me, I'd feel embarrassed enough about that to want it hidden.

This time last year the SNP were fantasising about squirreling money away in an oil fund for the benefit of future generations. Now she has the kids paying off our debts. The latter demonstrates the political reality that there's no votes in saying - less have less today, so the kids can have more.

[eFestivals]

This time last year the SNP were fantasising about squirreling money away in an oil fund for the benefit of future generations. Now she has the kids paying off our debts. The latter demonstrates the political reality that there's no votes in saying - less have less today, so the kids can have more.

or probably more accurately, there's votes in saying whatever might sound wonderful but it doesn't matter if its true or not.

[LJS]

And yet we have, for the first time in 25 years, a distinct threat from another European country.

Like nukes or not, it would take someone pretty dim-witted to think the existence of them isn't impacting in a good way for the UK into what is being played out right now.

It's probably the case that in the minds of the British public, nukes are a more important part of British defences than they've been for a long long while.

And anyway, Scotland's share of the money spent on nukes is just a tiny share of the extra money Scotland gets via Barnet. There's no big bonus for Scotland from the abolishion of nukes, it's the exact opposite.

We have a distinct threat from Russia? Well, if we do we have it despite having Nukes, If you really think Russia are about to invade and you really think us having some nukes will make any difference to their decision, continue to support us wasting money on them. I'll continue to take a different view. Presumably all the non-nuclear states between Russia & the UK will be first on their list though?

I've opposed the UK's nuclear "deterrent" for many years longer than I have supported independence. The size of Scotland's share of the cost has no significant bearing on my view. I would still oppose them if the UK paid Scotland £10bn a year to house them.

Here's what you said about Nukes a mere 10 months ago

which non-nuke state has been threatened with nukes and backed down?

Which nuke state has been threatened with nukes and backed down?

The answer to both is "none at all". And so, to date, nukes have had no meaningful military or political effect. Zero. Nothing. Nada.

Looks awfully much like another example of you opposing everything said by the SNP whether you agree or not

Edited February 21, 2015 by LJS

[LJS]

True. You don't seem to feel the need to divert gazes away from your desire for your kids to pay your bills by your support of NS's plans.

Me, I'd feel embarrassed enough about that to want it hidden.

This time last year the SNP were fantasising about squirreling money away in an oil fund for the benefit of future generations. Now she has the kids paying off our debts. The latter demonstrates the political reality that there's no votes in saying - less have less today, so the kids can have more.

My kids will be paying off the National debt whichever party or combination of parties is in power after May. there seems to be a lost of support on here for Labour whose policy is to pay off the debt a bit slower than the Tories. The SNP just want to pay it off a bit slower than that. Of course by spending more money, you can stimulate growth in the economy which may in the long run result in the debt being paid off as quickly or even quicker.

There is no magic "right number" for this. The Tories have reaped the rewards of cutting too fast which meant the government's income was short of what they expected

[LJS]

My kids will be paying off the National debt whichever party or combination of parties is in power after May. there seems to be a lot of support on here for Labour whose policy is to pay off the debt a bit slower than the Tories. The SNP just want to pay it off a bit slower than that. Of course by spending more money, you can stimulate growth in the economy which may in the long run result in the debt being paid off as quickly or even quicker.

There is no magic "right number" for this. The Tories have reaped the rewards of cutting too fast which meant the government's income was short of what they expected

[eFestivals]

We have a distinct threat from Russia? Well, if we do we have it despite having Nukes,

do you think the existence of the UK's nukes are making zero difference to what Putin decides to do?

Or might hey be tempering his actions to some extent?

If you really think Russia are about to invade and you really think us having some nukes will make any difference to their decision, continue to support us wasting money on them.

I don't think Russia are about to invade. Why do you think I said that they are?

And yes, I do think the existence of the UK nukes are impacting into the decisions that Putin is making. How much I'm not sure, but is he acting in the same way as he'd act if we didn't have them? Very unlikely.

I've opposed the UK's nuclear "deterrent" for many years

and so have I.

But does it deter? It would be a dim man who thought it didn't.

The size of Scotland's share of the cost has no significant bearing on my view.

that's fair enough.

However, yours is not the only view in Scotland. There's plenty of Scots who believe (cos they say it) that money would fall from the sky in Scotland if those nukes didn't exist. Do you think their mis-placed belief might be a part of their anti-nuke stance?

I would still oppose them if the UK paid Scotland £10bn a year to house them.

but the majority of people in Scotland wouldn't, as a recent poll demonstrated.

Those polls say that Scotland is anti-nuke only on the basis of the perceived cost, and the stated benefits of no nukes those people say they'll get show those people have fucked up their considerations.

Here's what you said about Nukes a mere 10 months ago

Looks awfully much like another example of you opposing everything said by the SNP whether you agree or not

Without seeing the full context that you've taken my words from I can't explain their context. Care to give me the opportunity to do so?

(the lack of a link from you will show you've knowingly misconstrued them).

I'm against nukes for a number of different reasons no differently to how I have been for over 40 years, but that doesn't mean I think they have no impact into people's thinking.

[eFestivals]

My kids will be paying off the National debt whichever party or combination of parties is in power after May. there seems to be a lost of support on here for Labour whose policy is to pay off the debt a bit slower than the Tories.

Your kids (and mine) will be paying off the national debt anyway - but you and me have a choice about how much that might impact into their lives.

Or put another way: Your kids (and mine) will be giving their work to the banksters, and we can let our kids be robbed a lot or we can let them be robbed by less.

I'd much prefer my kids weren't robbed, and i'd much prefer the banksters had to give up their thievery by us stopping playing the game where they win and we lose. How about you?

The SNP just want to pay it off a bit slower than that.

not true. They have no plans to reduce the deficit to zero, let alone "pay it off" (where the 'it' is the full debt).

In fact, *you* have said the debt is not Scotland's, and should be left with rUK.

So you want to rob me and my children. You might have a bit of difficulty to get me to agree to that.

Of course by spending more money, you can stimulate growth in the economy which may in the long run result in the debt being paid off as quickly or even quicker.

the key word there is "can".

If it was the guaranteed win with absolute certainty that you suggest, why is not every economist in the world agreeing with you?

There is no magic "right number" for this. The Tories have reaped the rewards of cutting too fast which meant the government's income was short of what they expected

Hmmmm .... the tories cutting and spending over this parliament is just about at the levels that Labour said it would do in 2010 - cos the tories quietly switched to 'plan b' and most people didn't notice.

It's true that initial cuts cut-off a starting recovery, tho there's no guarantee that would have continued. Just as worldwide problems caused the 2008 dip, Euro problems did hit the UK economy hard in 2010/11.

(it ain't fair to let the tories get away with "Labour caused 2008", so it ain't fair to make similar lies about 2010/11 either ).

As you say, there is no magic "right number" for this.

But what is the wrong number is giving the bankers ever-more money for having robbed us, and so to have them rob us further.

I refer you to what someone called Karl had to say about those lovely bankers who you want to give your money and your children's money.

You do not get a more-socialist world via a greater play in the capitalist's game.

[LJS]

do you think the existence of the UK's nukes are making zero difference to what Putin decides to do?

Or might hey be tempering his actions to some extent?

I doubt it. They certainly aren't stopping his planes flirting with our air space.

I don't think Russia are about to invade. Why do you think I said that they are?

I don't really... but you were kind of talking up the threat which is the opposite of what you usually do.

And yes, I do think the existence of the UK nukes are impacting into the decisions that Putin is making. How much I'm not sure, but is he acting in the same way as he'd act if we didn't have them? Very unlikely.

So what would he be doing differently if the UK did not have nukes? ...we are agreed he isn't likely to invade us.

and so have I.

But does it deter? It would be a dim man who thought it didn't.

According to you "nukes have had no meaningful military or political effect. Zero. Nothing. Nada." I presume you would count deterrence as a "meaningful military or political effect" I also assume you would not describe yourself as dim.

http://www.efestivals.co.uk/forums/topic/184799-trident-nuclear-deterrent-renewal/

that's fair enough.

However, yours is not the only view in Scotland. There's plenty of Scots who believe (cos they say it) that money would fall from the sky in Scotland if those nukes didn't exist. Do you think their mis-placed belief might be a part of their anti-nuke stance?

People for their views on all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons. Some like me oppose nukes on principle, others because they don't think they can afford them. Within a UK context, which is where we are just now both positions are perfectly valid. Whether this holds in an independent Scotland is different question.

but the majority of people in Scotland wouldn't, as a recent poll demonstrated.

Those polls say that Scotland is anti-nuke only on the basis of the perceived cost, and the stated benefits of no nukes those people say they'll get show those people have fucked up their considerations.

Three points about this:

1: on this issue the answer given is particularly influenced by how the question is asked and you can find polls to suit both sides

2: the cost is a significant factor to consider when deciding whether we should have nukes or not.

3: You (& I) and pretty much everyone else are happy to invoke public opinion when it supports their case. but I doubt very much if you (or I) are in favour of bringing back capital punishment which is always supported in polls.

Without seeing the full context that you've taken my words from I can't explain their context. Care to give me the opportunity to do so?

(the lack of a link from you will show you've knowingly misconstrued them).

see link above

I'm against nukes for a number of different reasons no differently to how I have been for over 40 years, but that doesn't mean I think they have no impact into people's thinking.

I completely agree with you. The major impact on people's thinking comes from the Nukes held by the USA & Russia. Britain is a sideshow. I am realistic enough to know that neither of these powers are going to ditch their bombs. It's good to know that you agree with me & Nicola that we should not renew trident.

Edited February 22, 2015 by LJS

[LJS]

Your kids (and mine) will be paying off the national debt anyway - but you and me have a choice about how much that might impact into their lives.

Or put another way: Your kids (and mine) will be giving their work to the banksters, and we can let our kids be robbed a lot or we can let them be robbed by less.

I'd much prefer my kids weren't robbed, and i'd much prefer the banksters had to give up their thievery by us stopping playing the game where they win and we lose. How about you?

I would prefer a position where we balance the need to pay off the debt with the need to protect the poorest & most vulnerable in society. You have criticised the Tories (if I understand you right) for using austerity as a cover for ideologically motivated cuts. It is my view that Labour have gone along with much of this for fear of being accused of being profligate. The banksters have been let off the hook - I don't see either Labour or the Tories (or for that matter an SNP supported Labour government putting them onto the hook. That battle is lost.

not true. They have no plans to reduce the deficit to zero, let alone "pay it off" (where the 'it' is the full debt).

In fact, *you* have said the debt is not Scotland's, and should be left with rUK.

So you want to rob me and my children. You might have a bit of difficulty to get me to agree to that.

They are committed to ending the deficit & presumably once you end the deficit you then start actually paying off the debt. i think the Tories have demonstrated that making extravagant claims for when this can be achieved is pretty foolish. In practice any influence they might have on policy would be very much as a junior partner.

the key word there is "can".

If it was the guaranteed win with absolute certainty that you suggest, why is not every economist in the world agreeing with you?

Yup, I don't think I said this was guaranteed. it is however a demonstrable fact that if you put money in the pockets of the poor they spend it & hence stimulate the economy & some of hat money then comes back to government in taxes. If (as the Tories have done) you give the money to the rich, they, as is regularly demonstrated, avoid paying tax on it a t all costs & squirrel most of it away abroad. Now I know you are not advocating more money for the rich & I would imagine we are broadly agreed on this

Hmmmm .... the tories cutting and spending over this parliament is just about at the levels that Labour said it would do in 2010 - cos the tories quietly switched to 'plan b' and most people didn't notice.

It's true that initial cuts cut-off a starting recovery, tho there's no guarantee that would have continued. Just as worldwide problems caused the 2008 dip, Euro problems did hit the UK economy hard in 2010/11.

(it ain't fair to let the tories get away with "Labour caused 2008", so it ain't fair to make similar lies about 2010/11 either ).

As you say, there is no magic "right number" for this.

But what is the wrong number is giving the bankers ever-more money for having robbed us, and so to have them rob us further.

I refer you to what someone called Karl had to say about those lovely bankers who you want to give your money and your children's money.

You do not get a more-socialist world via a greater play in the capitalist's game.

Sadly the Capitalist's Game is the only game in town

I'm not entirely sure what your point is regarding the banksters - are you referring to our debt repayments as the money we are giving to the banksters? If so, whilst I agree with you in principle, we are stuck with that debt & it will need to be repaid - how fast it should be repaid should be determined by the greater national good - if in the process the banksters get even more of our money than that, sadly, is a price worth paying.

If you mean something else (QE?) I woudl certainly be happy to be corrected.

As I've said before, there is no magic "right number." There are a variety of opinions. I am not saying the SNP are in any way perfect - as I have repeatedly said, part of the solution should be taxing the rich (ideally with something a bit less random than the mansion tax)

[Comfy Bean]

Following on from our recent corrupt Westminster discussion, Jack straw has been suspended.

[tolywoly]

Following on from our recent corrupt Westminster discussion, Jack straw has been suspended.

Yep, and as has been said - Westminster doesn't enjoy exclusivity on political corruption. It's everywhere, right down to local government. Scotland's not immune. Remember our own former first minster offered to lobby the UK government on behalf of Rupert Murdoch to help him with his Sky takeover.

[eFestivals]

Following on from our recent corrupt Westminster discussion, Jack straw has been suspended.

And Salmond's secret meetings with Murdoch....? What are those?

[Comfy Bean]

Yeah....

Let's talk about Salmond again. Hear he's put a bit of the weight back on.

[eFestivals]

I doubt it. They certainly aren't stopping his planes flirting with our air space.

true - tho might he be doing more if we were undefended?

I don't really... but you were kind of talking up the threat which is the opposite of what you usually do.

I wasn't talking up anything. I was simply stating the fact of what Putin is doing as it's of relevance to defence matters such as nukes.

Just because our views are a certain way doesn't mean that everyone in the country's views are the same. You're happy to recognise an England with many tories but you seem less happy to recogise what that actually means.

Even in Scotland the majority are pro-nuke for the UK. The Scottish dislike is more about the4 cost and where they're sited than their existence.

So what would he be doing differently if the UK did not have nukes? ...we are agreed he isn't likely to invade us.

he'd be likely to provoking more than he is.

When anyone probes another's defences, they're aware of those others defences.

According to you "nukes have had no meaningful military or political effect. Zero. Nothing. Nada." I presume you would count deterrence as a "meaningful military or political effect" I also assume you would not describe yourself as dim.

http://www.efestivals.co.uk/forums/topic/184799-trident-nuclear-deterrent-renewal/

as the link gets to show, you've taken my words out of context.

Oh dear. He's the full context, which is very different to what I said here....

which non-nuke state has been threatened with nukes and backed down?

Which nuke state has been threatened with nukes and backed down?

The answer to both is "none at all". And so, to date, nukes have had no meaningful military or political effect. Zero. Nothing. Nada.

Three points about this:

1: on this issue the answer given is particularly influenced by how the question is asked and you can find polls to suit both sides

2: the cost is a significant factor to consider when deciding whether we should have nukes or not.

3: You (& I) and pretty much everyone else are happy to invoke public opinion when it supports their case. but I doubt very much if you (or I) are in favour of bringing back capital punishment which is always supported in polls.

I agree it's not clear-cut - but the SNP certainly present it as tho it is.

Which is rather apt for your point 3.

Without seeing the full context that you've taken my words from I can't explain their context. Care to give me the opportunity to do so?

(the lack of a link from you will show you've knowingly misconstrued them).

see link above

yep - which shows you've deliberately misconstrued them.

I completely agree with you. The major impact on people's thinking comes from the Nukes held by the USA & Russia. Britain is a sideshow. I am realistic enough to know that neither of these powers are going to ditch their bombs. It's good to know that you agree with me & Nicola that we should not renew trident.

I agree that we shouldn't renew trident. I don't agree with Nicola and you.

For example, I don't agree with presenting non-renewal as a win for Scotland as NS does, because it's not in how she is choosing to present it. If Scots wish to vote for a 2% reduction in their GDP I'm happy for them to do so, but they should be informed that that is part of what they're voting for.

[eFestivals]

Edited February 23, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Yeah....

Let's talk about Salmond again. Hear he's put a bit of the weight back on.

Oh look, a squirrel.

I was simply pointing out some of the corruption that happens within the Scottish process, that you laughably believe to be corruption-free.

[Comfy Bean]

I do not believe that it is corruption free. I have said this before.....more than once :-)

What about sir malky claiming he has a lot of time on his hands and doesn't get paid a salary! what a roaster.

[eFestivals]

I do not believe that it is corruption free. I have said this before.....more than once :-)

Do you think the powers each parliament has might have something to do with how much large-scale corruption each has?

After all, there's corruption in every county and local council too, but it's at a far lesser level than corruption at Westminster.

If/when anyone in Scotland has a solution for corruption in a nation's executive, and i'm sure the whole world would like to hear it.

In the meantime, you're just spouting empty claims of non-existent Scottish exceptionalism.

What about sir malky claiming he has a lot of time on his hands and doesn't get paid a salary! what a roaster.

that's tories for you. They think of running the country as their right, not their job.

If/when Scotland has Scots running it, I'm sure nothing different will happen from at least one party (whoever they might be).

Edited February 23, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Oh look, a squirrel.

I was simply pointing out some of the corruption that happens within the Scottish process, that you laughably believe to be corruption-free.

There has been a constant stream of sleaze and corruption associated with Westminster throughout much of my life. The relatively minor & unproven examples from the SNP which you constantly dredge up whenever anyone dares to comment on Westminster's long & ignominious roll of dishonour, pale into insignificance. Even after all the times MP's have been caught, they still astonishingly, sit as judge & jury on each other. Just part of the reason, I would gladly be governed from elsewhere.

No comment on Rifkind & Straw. Just your tired old slurs on the SNP.

[eFestivals]

The relatively minor & unproven examples from the SNP

Just think how smart you'd be if you actually paid attention to things that the SNP do. :lol:

Proven.

which you constantly dredge up whenever anyone dares to comment on Westminster's long & ignominious roll of dishonour, pale into insignificance.

Westminster is more corrupt than all other UK democratic chambers. Is that good enough for you?

The Scottish Parliament is about as corrupt as Boris in London, a similar sized county council.

Now, can you keep up, please?

Just your tired old slurs on the SNP.

But what about the truth? To get tired of that you'd first have to face it.

To your closed mind the SNP fart perfume. I suggest you try following what they do.

[LJS]

Westminster is more corrupt than all other UK democratic chambers. Is that good enough for you?

It's like getting blood out a stone.

[eFestivals]

It's like getting blood out a stone.

Now.... has Salmond had secret meetings with Murdoch, that he tried to keep hidden from the people of Scotland....?