The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

[LJS]

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

I believe he has

[eFestivals]

I believe he has

Corruption in Scotland.

It's everywhere, and its level is dependent on the amount of power in that place to be corrupted.

[LJS]

And that's my take too - but a version where the deficit and debt is still paid down and not kicked along the road as NS wants to do, where she has the poor still picking up the tab.

Tax the rich. It's the socialist principle which the great lauded socialist ( ) Nicola doesn't have an ounce of.

Her version of 'socialism' that you buy into is one where the poor are robbed to give privileges to the well-off.

Just think how much could be done for Scotland's poor without those privileges for the well-off - but she won't do them.

Fuck the poor, the middle classes want free uni. But let's pretend that's socialist.

let's see if your view matches the facts.

Do Labour plan to reduce govt spending as a proportion of GDP as the tories do? No they don't.

It's a shame that your view doesn't match the facts.

but (if everything is equal) less comes back than gets spent, and the deficit is increased.

Of course, we don't want everything to be equal, but it's just as likely that what might be attempted will make things worse as they'd make things better - which is why those economists disagree.

Every country is trying to work the trick you're suggesting, and there's no guarantees it'll work and where it's tried it only has limited success.

So we need the details of where that extra money will be spent to try and work out if there's a good effect or a bad one from a 'spend' policy ... tho NS has only suggested spending money on the poor, which will - without doubt - not cause that 'good' effect.

No it's not. All the while you're advocating spending the money of those capitalists, you're locked into their game.

There's a way out of their game, and that's by not giving them money for doing nothing, and that's achieved by not borrowing.

You know, living within our means. What so many yes voters believed they were doing 'for Scotland', but have now abandoned.

How many times during the indyref did you hear yes-ers point at the UK's debts and laugh, LJS? If you were as engrossed within the debate as I was you'll have heard it hundreds (perhaps thousands) of times.

And now the same people are pointing at it and saying "make it bigger, making it bigger is a good thing". It's laughable.

If you can't see the SNP and their supporters for what they are via that, there's no hope for you.

how can it be in the national good to give the nation's wealth away?

There is only that 'national wealth' to work with, and if we're giving part of it away (about 8% each year currently) that's not being spent on the nation.

Just think how much better the poor could be supported with that extra 8% - an extra £1Bn a week (every week) to spend on 'the people'.

Let's put it into context, shall we? It's about 20 times the money that would be saved by no-nukes, where you think that no-nukes saving is too good a saving to not cash in.

Surely a saving that's 20 times as large - and for all of eternity (not just 30 years) - is a much better saving to make?

Then why not support a party that has policies that you agree with rather than a party that does not have policies you agree with?

Why support a continuation of all that's wrong, as the SNP want?

You are basing your argument on a number of fallacies

1: Nicola does not propose to increase the deficit. She proposes to reduce it slower.

2: Unless you are suggesting we default on our debts, then we have to pay the banksters, no matter which government we elect. Saying paying them all that money is horrid is true but it won't make it go away.

3: you say spending extra money on the poor will not have a good effect. Aside form the obvious good effect on the poor. It is a fact that for every extra pound a poor person get they will spend a much higher proportion of it than a rich person would. This will stimulate the economy & generate additional tax revenues. I wouldn't dole it all out to the poor, I would invest some of it in job creation schemes which will reduce benefits expenditure, stimulate the economy & increase tax revenue. Nowhere have i suggested that you will get anything like every penny back that you spend but if you take Nicola's figure of £180bn over the life of a Parliament, it would be reasonable to expect a significant proportion of that back - meaning £180bn is a gross cost - the net cost would be lower. Of course in the long term, it is not inconceivable that better economic performance means the net cost is actually nil. That is in no way guaranteed & like any economic policy can go wrong for any number of reasons (like Osborne's did)

4: you say "Every country is trying to work the trick you're suggesting" I say "bollox" Britain isn't. none of the EU bailout countries are.

[LJS]

Corruption in Scotland.

It's everywhere, and its level is dependent on the amount of power in that place to be corrupted.

I know you downplay the significance of our Parish Council in Holyrood, but by my reckoning if the corruption is proportional to power then Holyrood must actually have less power than your average parish council.

This is not because Scots are naturally more honest, god-fearing & upstanding than anyone else. It is because corruption is not institutionalised in Holyrood, partly, no doubt due to our good luck in having a 300 year parliamentary recess.

[LJS]

So the vote Oasis get Blur nonsense reaches new heights

I know this is not necessarily official labour policy but it does serve to highlight the nonsense at the heart of what labour seems to making the central plank of their campaign.

[eFestivals]

I am not demanding people agree with me, I am freely expressing my opinion. Unless we have moved to Switzerland, it is not a requirement for the government to demonstrate public support for every policy.

true, but any policy has to be seen as well-placed, else the govt trying to push thru a policy is fucked. Just think back to the poll tax, for example.

It couldn't be further from me, but having been brought up surrounded by army bases I'm well aware of the attitudes some have towards defence, and how far they'll let themselves get pushed. I'd say we're about on the limits of what they'll accept at the moment (and for the next 5-10 years), and losing the back-up of Trident that just about makes the cuts acceptable would flip them over the edge.

And while you or others might say "spend the Trident saving on conventional forces", you've just knocked down one of the justifications you've given for abolishing it, and so weakened your case.

What i'm getting at is that abandoning Trident at the current time is just about politically impossible, unless the heads of the forces themselves were to come out in favour of it - but when they've just agreed to cuts on the basis of having the back-up of Trident, I can't see how they will.

And don't forget, Labour gets Trident renewed with ease with tory support. The SNP can't stop it, no matter which party is the party the SNP supports as the party of govt.

No it's word for word what I originally quoted from you in my post on saturday

word for word, but outside of the context it was used in, a very clearly different context to where you presented it to suggest I was giving a different opinion to an opinion i'D given before.

I'm consistent. Any issue is around me communicating or you understanding the nuances i'm working to.

So, to sum up Nicola myself & Neil are all opposed to renewing Trident in the UK, but Neil doesn't agree with me & Nicola presumably because of something in the Indy white paper. Yeah makes perfect sense.

I'm simply saying that I recognise the biggest argument against nukes in Scotland that is "we don't want these nukes in Scotland".

That's fine, as long Scotland is properly considering all consequences for scotland, both good and bad.

It's called democracy, in full, with nothing hidden. I don't wish to win with bullshit, which isn't really a win, it's a con.

If the no-nukes side can't win that argument they don't deserve for there to be no-nukes in this democracy.

You do do democracy, yeah?

The simple fact is you are psychologically incapable of being positive about anything the SNP does.

I've yet to hear of anything worth complimenting from them that I've not previously complemented.

They certainly don't have the best plans for the UK following the GE. The best plans have "tax the rich" within them.

Meanwhile, you say you want to help the poor but are voting in support of the poor having to pay for the few crumbs you might chuck them.

Read the feckin' policies!!

Edited February 23, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

You are basing your argument on a number of fallacies

1: Nicola does not propose to increase the deficit. She proposes to reduce it slower.

Sorry, not enough thinking, too fast typing. You're correcxtr, she doesn't want to increase the deficit.

It's the debt she wants to increase, a debt she says is nothing to do with Scotland when it suits her.

2: Unless you are suggesting we default on our debts, then we have to pay the banksters, no matter which government we elect. Saying paying them all that money is horrid is true but it won't make it go away.

I'm not saying to default, i'm saying to pay them.

Pay them off just about entirely; no borrowing for day-to-day spending - whereby they currently run off with £1Bn a week.

3: you say spending extra money on the poor will not have a good effect.

not quite what I said.

Aside form the obvious good effect on the poor.

we were discussing the economic argument, where you'd claimed the fallacy of spending more on the poor would at-least pay for itself with higher tax returns, but I see you've just found a squirrel.

It is a fact that for every extra pound a poor person get they will spend a much higher proportion of it than a rich person would.

true.

This will stimulate the economy & generate additional tax revenues.

true again - but it doesn't generate as enough tax revenue to cover the higher spending.

I would invest some of it in job creation schemes which will reduce benefits expenditure, stimulate the economy & increase tax revenue.

that's what all people are aiming at with the investments they make.

Sadly, a huge number of investments end up being money pissed up the wall, and only a few pay off.

Given that the SNP have already shown they'll go along with economic illiteracy if it can win them a few votes, any suggestions for why this new plan is better than their many previous poor attempts?

Nowhere have i suggested that you will get anything like every penny back that you spend but if you take Nicola's figure of £180bn over the life of a Parliament, it would be reasonable to expect a significant proportion of that back - meaning £180bn is a gross cost - the net cost would be lower. Of course in the long term, it is not inconceivable that better economic performance means the net cost is actually nil. That is in no way guaranteed & like any economic policy can go wrong for any number of reasons (like Osborne's did)

But when there's a cut of £30bn in a year, won't you also call *that* "austerity, and demand the spending continues?

Why is a cut of £30Bn OK when the SNP say so, but not now?

Why is more spending a boost to the economy, but it's withdrawal not a cut to the economy?

Will Scotland take responsibility for its share of the existing debts, seeing as it seems to now recognise benefits to Scotland can come from them?

Will Scotland take responsibility for its share of the new debts it wants to run up?

4: you say "Every country is trying to work the trick you're suggesting" I say "bollox" Britain isn't. none of the EU bailout countries are.

Next up, will you be saying "it's all rosy in Iceland cos they jailed the bankers"?

Edited February 23, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I know you downplay the significance of our Parish Council in Holyrood, but by my reckoning if the corruption is proportional to power then Holyrood must actually have less power than your average parish council.

More of that Scottish exceptionalism, LJS?

There's a long list just for saintly Alex.

[eFestivals]

So the vote Oasis get Blur nonsense reaches new heights

I'm sure you'll claim that "vote SNP get marginalised" was a surprise to you on May 8th.

[LJS]

Neil I am disappointed that you feel I quoted you out of context. I do try & quote people accurately & have never edited a quote for effect.

So I was concerned when you accused me of this so I re-read the thread it came from which was entitled

"Trident nuclear deterrent renewal."

so that context is pretty clear. I cannot find one word form you in the thread which justifies your claim that I quoted you out of context - most of the thread ends up being you justifying/explaining Russian foreign policy & you & Barry insulting each other (thank god you two don't have nukes) but everything

you say supports my conclusion that you were wholeheartedly opposed the the renewal of trident then.

Here's another out of context quote...

Spain has no nukes, France does. So how come Spain doesn't feel it needs a nuke counterbalance to France, and doesn't feel under threat at all?

Nukes are about exerting power over others, and not about any justified exertion of power over others. Only the power crazy want or need them.

[LJS]

More of that Scottish exceptionalism, LJS?

There's a long list just for saintly Alex.

you have the brass neck to accuse me of quoting you out of context when you omitted this bit

"This is not because Scots are naturally more honest, god-fearing & upstanding than anyone else. "

[eFestivals]

so that context is pretty clear.

you only need to read the other two lines which are within the post you took the one line from that you quoted to see they're talking about a different context to the one I said here.

[eFestivals]

you have the brass neck to accuse me of quoting you out of context when you omitted this bit

"This is not because Scots are naturally more honest, god-fearing & upstanding than anyone else. "

meanwhile, there's a long list just for saintly Alex - about the only person in Scotland whose corruption gets publicised in England. I'm sure there's plenty down the ranks too (and not just within the SNP, just to be clear).

[LJS]

meanwhile, there's a long list just for saintly Alex - about the only person in Scotland whose corruption gets publicised in England. I'm sure there's plenty down the ranks too (and not just within the SNP, just to be clear).

Rule 1 of Neil's debating technique: When you're losing the debate insult Alex Squirrel oops Salmond

[LJS]

true, but any policy has to be seen as well-placed, else the govt trying to push thru a policy is fucked. Just think back to the poll tax, for example.

It couldn't be further from me, but having been brought up surrounded by army bases I'm well aware of the attitudes some have towards defence, and how far they'll let themselves get pushed. I'd say we're about on the limits of what they'll accept at the moment (and for the next 5-10 years), and losing the back-up of Trident that just about makes the cuts acceptable would flip them over the edge.

And while you or others might say "spend the Trident saving on conventional forces", you've just knocked down one of the justifications you've given for abolishing it, and so weakened your case.

What i'm getting at is that abandoning Trident at the current time is just about politically impossible, unless the heads of the forces themselves were to come out in favour of it - but when they've just agreed to cuts on the basis of having the back-up of Trident, I can't see how they will.

And don't forget, Labour gets Trident renewed with ease with tory support. The SNP can't stop it, no matter which party is the party the SNP supports as the party of govt.

word for word, but outside of the context it was used in, a very clearly different context to where you presented it to suggest I was giving a different opinion to an opinion i'D given before.

I'm consistent. Any issue is around me communicating or you understanding the nuances i'm working to.

I'm simply saying that I recognise the biggest argument against nukes in Scotland that is "we don't want these nukes in Scotland".

That's fine, as long Scotland is properly considering all consequences for scotland, both good and bad.

It's called democracy, in full, with nothing hidden. I don't wish to win with bullshit, which isn't really a win, it's a con.

If the no-nukes side can't win that argument they don't deserve for there to be no-nukes in this democracy.

You do do democracy, yeah?

I've yet to hear of anything worth complimenting from them that I've not previously complemented.

They certainly don't have the best plans for the UK following the GE. The best plans have "tax the rich" within them.

I agree. In our modern world where most commentators suggest a hung parliament to be the most likely outcome, the best for the UK is Labour's "tax the rich" ( a wee bit but don't tell Peter or tony) combined with the SNP's "Whoa! not so fast, let's take our time cutting this deficit & balance it with growing the economy"*

*quotation marks do not indicate anyone has actually said this - it is entirely my interpretation.

Neil' we have agreed that there is no "magic right answer" to the question of how fast to eliminate the deficit & then start paying off the debt. You seem to take the view that Labour's number is "better" than the SNP's because it pays it off quicker - why, by that logic, is the Tories' number not even better? Why are you not prepared to have a grown up debate about it rather than keep dredging up referendum stuff. Didn't you hear? Yes lost the referendum: we all need to move on.

[kaosmark2]

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

Quoted for truth.

As bad as Boris. As irrationally loved as Boris. As intelligent policies as Boris. As credit stealing as Boris.

[eFestivals]

Rule 1 of Neil's debating technique: When you're losing the debate insult Alex Squirrel oops Salmond

we were talking about corruption in Scotland. I posted about corruption in Scotland.

You posted about a squirrel.

[eFestivals]

Neil' we have agreed that there is no "magic right answer" to the question of how fast to eliminate the deficit & then start paying off the debt. You seem to take the view that Labour's number is "better" than the SNP's because it pays it off quicker - why, by that logic, is the Tories' number not even better? Why are you not prepared to have a grown up debate about it rather than keep dredging up referendum stuff. Didn't you hear? Yes lost the referendum: we all need to move on.

Utterly wrong.

Labour are better because they will tax the rich, and don't leave the debts to be paid off by the very people they say they're acting to help.

Read the feckin' policies, and don't self-invent a load of bullshit that the SNP have never said.

[eFestivals]

I read some words by a random the other day which I think summed it up absolutely perfectly....

-----

It looks like there's only two possible outcomes for Scotland from the General Election:-

1. the tories win and the SNP spend the next five years moaning that Scotland is being mistreated.

2. Labour win and the SNP spend the next 5 years moaning that Scotland is being mistreated.

Note: no actual mistreatment is required.

-----

Go on, tell me I'm wrong.

[LJS]

we were talking about corruption in Scotland. I posted about corruption in Scotland.

You posted about a squirrel.

We were actually talking about corruption in Westminster. As usual your response is an attack on Salmond/Snp.

'tis partlyy fault for posting in this thread. I should probably have put in the general news or general election thread.

[eFestivals]

We were actually talking about corruption in Westminster.

To be 100% accurate, we were talking about the corruption in both, cos comfy claimed Scotland as corruption free - which you've agreed it's not.

We'd covered Westminster once you'd got it in your head I accepted it as the most corrupt politrical institution in the UK, and we'd moved onto Scotland - where i pointed out the long list of documented corruption by Salmond.

And when i pointed out that proven corruption, you complain about Alex's proven corruption being pointed out.

As usual your response is an attack on Salmond/Snp.

for their proven corruption, which we were talking about.

Edited February 24, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Utterly wrong.

Labour are better because they will tax the rich, and don't leave the debts to be paid off by the very people they say they're acting to help.

Read the feckin' policies, and don't self-invent a load of bullshit that the SNP have never said.

Have you worked out that the SNP will not be able to form the next government?

The most they can hope for is to have some influence on a Labour government, so we still get Labour taxes hopefully with a bit less austerity. Sounds like the Best of both Worlds to me.

Incidentally, I believe they haven't outlined their taxation proposals for this election yet. When they do, if they don't include some use of taxation as a redistributive measure, I shall happily join you in condemning them.

[eFestivals]

Have you worked out that the SNP will not be able to form the next government?

The most they can hope for is to have some influence on a Labour government, so we still get Labour taxes hopefully with a bit less austerity. Sounds like the Best of both Worlds to me.

Oh look, that's what happens without any input from the SNP.

Which you'd know IF YOU READ THE FECKIN' POLICIES!!!!

Incidentally, I believe they haven't outlined their taxation proposals for this election yet. When they do, if they don't include some use of taxation as a redistributive measure, I shall happily join you in condemning them.

Labour haven't formally laid theirs out yet either, but it's not stopped them stating a principle.

You know, that thing the SNP don't have, apart from on just one issue. The principle that they're happy to drop any shit they can help cause onto Scotland to further their campaign for indie.

So how many major policy speeches do you think Nicola will need to make before she suddenly discovers that the bills have to be paid?

[eFestivals]

I read some words by a random the other day which I think summed it up absolutely perfectly....

-----

It looks like there's only two possible outcomes for Scotland from the General Election:-

1. the tories win and the SNP spend the next five years moaning that Scotland is being mistreated.

2. Labour win and the SNP spend the next 5 years moaning that Scotland is being mistreated.

Note: no actual mistreatment is required.

-----

Go on, tell me I'm wrong.