The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

Neil has amusingly(in his opinion) taken to referring to me & comfy &the SNP as snippers.

self-obsessed, much?

It might surprise you to know, but it's not all about you.

Tho you do a decent chicken act just like Chicken Dave, always scared of debating facts and policies. Why is that?

Edited March 25, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Morning Neil,you old Fuker, I trust you are well today.I note you & your fellow Labour Fukers are continuing to blame the SNP for all the Labour Party's woes, ignoring the fact that they should be massacring a Government with such an appaling record.

That's all us snippers' fault of course.

why would anyone that wants a prosperous Britain side with a party that has never paying the bills as a policy platform?

Because the SNP have that economic illiterate policy and are supported by fact-free snippers, it's losing Labour votes.

What don't you get about that?

PS: any more squirrels to avoid talking about how voting on English policies doesn't stand up as you claim?

[LJS]

why would anyone that wants a prosperous Britain side with a party that has never paying the bills as a policy platform?

Because the SNP have that economic illiterate policy and are supported by fact-free snippers, it's losing Labour votes.

What don't you get about that?

PS: any more squirrels to avoid talking about how voting on English policies doesn't stand up as you claim?

If that were their policy,you'd be right. Edited March 25, 2015 by LJS

[eFestivals]

If that were their policy,you'd be right.

how do you explain a policy of forever spending 0.5% more than is collected in taxes?

FFS. Still, I'd be a fool expecting economic literacy from a snipper.

[LJS]

how do you explain a policy of forever spending 0.5% more than is collected in taxes?

FFS. Still, I'd be a fool expecting economic literacy from a snipper.

Silly Fuker, that's not their policy.

[eFestivals]

Silly Fuker, that's not their policy.

OK, what is their policy that spends an extra £180Bn that we don't have, and leaves no leeway in the event of another financial crisis?

When do they plan to pay the money back? They don't say.

Meanwhile, when are they going to start selling their "full fiscal autonomy" for Scotland policy truthfully - admitting to the 15% cut in public spending they'd need to have?

How will Scotland spend money it doesn't have LJS? Perhaps take a look at GERS, and how the party you support have a policy to fuck Scotland over?

[LJS]

OK, what is their policy that spends an extra £180Bn that we don't have, and leaves no leeway in the event of another financial crisis?

When do they plan to pay the money back? They don't say.

Meanwhile, when are they going to start selling their "full fiscal autonomy" for Scotland policy truthfully - admitting to the 15% cut in public spending they'd need to have?

How will Scotland spend money it doesn't have LJS? Perhaps take a look at GERS, and how the party you support have a policy to fuck Scotland over?

We're all spending money we don't have. Their proposal was a 0.5% increase in departmental spending. Not spending 0.5% more than was raised in tax. & the IFS says it is do-able.

But the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said new figures in this week's Budget showed that not only was her plan feasible, but if Labour agreed to the proposals the party could still meet its aim to balance UK's books by 2020.

"When she made her call the SNP leader estimated that £180 billion would be required to meet her proposal - for a 0.5 per cent rise in departmental spending.

The IFS said that an analysis of the latest calculations in the Budget suggested that that figure had dropped dramatically.

Its analysis showed that Labour could meet its target for a balanced Budget by the last year of the next parliament and still increase departmental spending in real terms by £9bn a year between 2015-16 and 2019-20."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/politics/wider-political-news/ifs-labour-could-sign-up-to-nicola-sturgeons-call-for-billions-extra-i.121222793

[eFestivals]

We're all spending money we don't have

True, but only one party doesn't say when they plan to stop doing that. Guess who?

Their proposal was a 0.5% increase in departmental spending. Not spending 0.5% more than was raised in tax

When spending is more than taxation, an incerease in spending is spending money we don't have.

What didn't you understand?

the IFS says it is do-able.

it's do-able, but it's not free of consequences.

It will increase the cost of all other borrowing, thru increasing the risk of default or currency devaluation.

It also eats into the leeway the country has in the event of another crisis. There is a limit to how much can be sustainably borrowed, as Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and I9reland have all found to their cost.

Sooner or later we have to start living within our means. Putting it off only means you shift the pain onto your children because you can't face up to the fact that you think robbing your kids is a good idea.

But the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said new figures in this week's Budget showed that not only was her plan feasible, but if Labour agreed to the proposals the party could still meet its aim to balance UK's books by 2020.

"When she made her call the SNP leader estimated that £180 billion would be required to meet her proposal - for a 0.5 per cent rise in departmental spending.

The IFS said that an analysis of the latest calculations in the Budget suggested that that figure had dropped dramatically.

Its analysis showed that Labour could meet its target for a balanced Budget by the last year of the next parliament and still increase departmental spending in real terms by £9bn a year between 2015-16 and 2019-20."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/politics/wider-political-news/ifs-labour-could-sign-up-to-nicola-sturgeons-call-for-billions-extra-i.121222793

Nice quote LJS. Perhaps you should try and understand what it actually means?

What it means is that you've been spouting constant bollocks about Labour's nastiness, and where you favour extra-nastiness from the SNP.

Edited March 25, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

True, but only one party doesn't say when they plan to stop doing that. Guess who?

When spending is more than taxation, an incerease in spending is spending money we don't have.

What didn't you understand?

it's do-able, but it's not free of consequences.

It will increase the cost of all other borrowing, thru increasing the risk of default or currency devaluation.

It also eats into the leeway the country has in the event of another crisis. There is a limit to how much can be sustainably borrowed, as Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and I9reland have all found to their cost.

Sooner or later we have to start living within our means. Putting it off only means you shift the pain onto your children because you can't face up to the fact that you think robbing your kids is a good idea.

Nice quote LJS. Perhaps you should try and understand what it actually means?

What it means is that you've been spouting constant bollocks about Labour's nastiness, and where you favour extra-nastiness from the SNP.

You really are sounding more & more like a Labour spin doctor. Every single criticism you level at the SNP could be levelled at Labour who want to spend more than the Tories.

There is no "magic" right number. & no party's plan is likely to turn out exactly as they predict. But you cannot accept this because you cannot countenance the possibility that any SNP policy is a good idea.

It's called blind prejudice & all the Fukers seem to be suffering from it at present.

[eFestivals]

You really are sounding more & more like a Labour spin doctor. Every single criticism you level at the SNP could be levelled at Labour who want to spend more than the Tories.

Not true. Labour have a firm plan to spend within our means, the SNP do not.

There is no "magic" right number.

Yes there is - spending money we don't have is not sustainable.

& no party's plan is likely to turn out exactly as they predict.

True. The SNP don't predict bankruptcy, but that's where spending what we don't have takes us.

But you cannot accept this because you cannot countenance the possibility that any SNP policy is a good idea.

Not true. I can see the flaws in their plans, that scream loudly to anyone who references the facts.

You know, those facts you NEVER face up to?

What does GERS say about Scotland's economy compared to whole-UK's economy, LJS?

(go one, do the facts just once )

It's called blind prejudice & all the Fukers seem to be suffering from it at present.

when you get your indie dream, only then do you get the fukers. Until then, there are only economic incompetent fact-free snippers. And that's why there'll never be fukers, unless the snippers start facing the facts.

The blind prejudices are displayed by the people who won't even accept the words of their own glorious leader. What does GERS say about Scotland's economy compared to whole-UK's economy, LJS?

Edited March 25, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Not true. Labour have a firm plan to spend within our means, the SNP do not.

I don't think anyone is suggesting the SNP will be deciding the UK's budget but they may be in a position to influence Labour's budget. We all agree the Tories are ideologically wedded to cuts for cuts' sake. Equally we both agree that we should spend a bit more than the Tories would. The difference is around £180bn in the life of a parliament. Sounds massive but when you look at the scale of government spending it's not. But if its spent wisely it can make a difference for some of the neediest people in the country and as I've said before if some of that money finds its way into the pockets of the poorest they will spend it which will boost the economy,increase tax revenues & reduce benefits expenditure, meaning the £180bn extra actually ends up costing less than that.

Just as the Tories fucked up by cutting too much which had the effect of shrinking government revenues & increasing welfare expenditure. Of course in reality it wouldn't even cost that much as there would be some sort of compromise where we might spend a n extra £80-100bn over 5 years.

Yes there is - spending money we don't have is not sustainable.

Of course it isn't. Although we have been doing so for some considerable time now. But I agree that we need to move to a situation where we don't. Now I know you are a world renowned expert in just about everything. I'm not. So when it comes to subjects such as economics I tend to seek out the views of people who may know a bit more than me. The IFS probably fit the bill here & furthermore they don't tend to favour crazy profligate spend spend spend policies. & they say the SNP's plan in workable & "Labour could meet its target for a balanced Budget by the last year of the next parliament "

True. The SNP don't predict bankruptcy, but that's where spending what we don't have takes us.

Well it hasn't up to now & as you can see apparently we wouldn't be spending what we don't have by the end of the next Parliament. But maybe you are better qualified than the IFS?

Not true. I can see the flaws in their plans, that scream loudly to anyone who references the facts.

You know, those facts you NEVER face up to?

What does GERS say about Scotland's economy compared to whole-UK's economy, LJS?

(go one, do the facts just once )

Do you never get bored with this? you are very very patient with yourself. Please spare others who may chance by this thread the boring repetition of GERS GERS GERS. (If anyone who has not if you poke about here http://www.efestivals.co.uk/forums/topic/167463-the-dirty-independence-question/page-318& a page or 2 either side you will see that we have already covered this) which is why I generally ignore Neil's GERrymandering. He will now come on ranting that I have never answered his questions. I have . He didn't agree.

when you get your indie dream, only then do you get the fukers. Until then, there are only economic incompetent fact-free snippers. And that's why there'll never be fukers, unless the snippers start facing the facts.

You are the mother of all Fukers & I claim my apple pie

The blind prejudices are displayed by the people who won't even accept the words of their own glorious leader. What does GERS say about Scotland's economy compared to whole-UK's economy, LJS?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Edited March 25, 2015 by LJS

[eFestivals]

I don't think anyone is suggesting the SNP will be deciding the UK's budget but they may be in a position to influence Labour's budget.

and the important parts of that is that it's unsustainable, without any consideration of the bigger risks, and leaves the poor ultimately poorer.

We all agree the Tories are ideologically wedded to cuts for cuts' sake. Equally we both agree that we should spend a bit more than the Tories would. The difference is around £180bn in the life of a parliament. Sounds massive but when you look at the scale of government spending it's not. But if its spent wisely it can make a difference for some of the neediest people in the country and as I've said before if some of that money finds its way into the pockets of the poorest they will spend it which will boost the economy,increase tax revenues & reduce benefits expenditure, meaning the £180bn extra actually ends up costing less than that.

it adds 10% to the national debt, which the poor will pay off - with added interest to make the bankers even richer. It's dropping us all deeper into the shit, where the poor suffer the most.

I know you're wedded to the idea of jumping off the economic cliff and leaving your kids and the poor to pay your own bills, but Labour will not win the election if the population thinks that's what they'll do. Politics outside of the possible is only hot air.

Although we have been doing so for some considerable time now.

and where has it taken us? To a better place or a worse place?

So when it comes to subjects such as economics I tend to seek out the views of people who may know a bit more than me. The IFS probably fit the bill here & furthermore they don't tend to favour crazy profligate spend spend spend policies. & they say the SNP's plan in workable & "Labour could meet its target for a balanced Budget by the last year of the next parliament "

just as you did in the indyref, you're picking the experts that say what you want to hear, tho only hearing the bits within what they say that you want to hear too.

Yes, it's possible to do what the SNP suggest, but it comes with big risks, big extra costs, and not a jot of certainty of it working out in the way you hope - in which case it will have been a very expensive waste of time.

Meanwhile, it still doesn't address the problems of the debt and deficit - kicking it down the road instead, to have our kids pay our bills - and leaves us living beryond our means and needing to make cuts - cuts which would never happen in your world, because you'd do thyis plan again and again and again, because your wedded tyo the idea of the benefits it might bring and nothing of the reality.

Well it hasn't up to now & as you can see apparently we wouldn't be spending what we don't have by the end of the next Parliament. But maybe you are better qualified than the IFS?

in a report written before deflation hit. It doesn't work now, precisely because of deflation.

Which is precisely the sort of issue which makes it dangerous. There is no guaranteed good outcome, while an extra load of 10% on the UK's debt leaves no leeway at all in the event of something else that's unexpected.

Do you never get bored with this? you are very very patient with yourself. Please spare others who may chance by this thread the boring repetition of GERS GERS GERS. (If anyone who has not if you poke about here http://www.efestivals.co.uk/forums/topic/167463-the-dirty-independence-question/page-318& a page or 2 either side you will see that we have already covered this) which is why I generally ignore Neil's GERrymandering. He will now come on ranting that I have never answered his questions. I have . He didn't agree.

I do get bored, but it's the most important issue of all. GERS proves that Scotland would need to make massive cuts in spending, but you'll never face up to that truth.

Instead you'll jump off a cliff with your fingers crossed and not give a shit about YOU - not the tories - will impoverish those you laughably claim you support indy on behalf of.

For all of the while snippers are doing this economic illiteracy, snippers will never win indy for scotland. Not everyone wants to stab their mother, their grannie, or children, or even themselves.

Edited March 26, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

and the important parts of that is that it's unsustainable, without any consideration of the bigger risks, and leaves the poor ultimately poorer.

it adds 10% to the national debt, which the poor will pay off - with added interest to make the bankers even richer. It's dropping us all deeper into the shit, where the poor suffer the most.

I know you're wedded to the idea of jumping off the economic cliff and leaving your kids and the poor to pay your own bills, but Labour will not win the election if the population thinks that's what they'll do. Politics outside of the possible is only hot air.

and where has it taken us? To a better place or a worse place?

just as you did in the indyref, you're picking the experts that say what you want to hear, tho only hearing the bits within what they say that you want to hear too.

Yes, it's possible to do what the SNP suggest, but it comes with big risks, big extra costs, and not a jot of certainty of it working out in the way you hope - in which case it will have been a very expensive waste of time.

Meanwhile, it still doesn't address the problems of the debt and deficit - kicking it down the road instead, to have our kids pay our bills - and leaves us living beryond our means and needing to make cuts - cuts which would never happen in your world, because you'd do thyis plan again and again and again, because your wedded tyo the idea of the benefits it might bring and nothing of the reality.

in a report written before deflation hit. It doesn't work now, precisely because of deflation.

Which is precisely the sort of issue which makes it dangerous. There is no guaranteed good outcome, while an extra load of 10% on the UK's debt leaves no leeway at all in the event of something else that's unexpected.

I do get bored, but it's the most important issue of all. GERS proves that Scotland would need to make massive cuts in spending, but you'll never face up to that truth.

Instead you'll jump off a cliff with your fingers crossed and not give a shit about YOU - not the tories - will impoverish those you laughably claim you support indy on behalf of.

For all of the while snippers are doing this economic illiteracy, snippers will never win indy for scotland. Not everyone wants to stab their mother, their grannie, or children, or even themselves.

Mathematically illiterate, poltically illiterate, economically illiterate, factually illiterate.

There is nothing in this entire post that has any basis in the real world.

[LJS]

I don't agree with every word of this but it helps to explain why Labour are toast in Scotland.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/24/labour-scotland-scots-snp-nationalism-18-years

[kaosmark2]

Re. Murdoch

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/mar/26/election-2015-david-cameron-ed-miliband-jeremy-paxman-live-updates

"Rupert Murdoch

✔ @rupertmurdoch

Follow

Thanks for 2 mentions, Ed Miliband. Only met once for all of 2 minutes when you embarrassed me with over the top flattery."

So Ed hasn't spent time with Murdoch. Still favour Alec over him?

[kaosmark2]

Jim Murphy's commentary on Cameron and Salmond sounding accurate. Alec loves the sound of his own voice, Cameron can't get MPs in Scotland so is trying to get someone else to for him.

[LJS]

Re. Murdoch

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/mar/26/election-2015-david-cameron-ed-miliband-jeremy-paxman-live-updates

"Rupert Murdoch

✔ @rupertmurdochFollow

Thanks for 2 mentions, Ed Miliband. Only met once for all of 2 minutes when you embarrassed me with over the top flattery."

So Ed hasn't spent time with Murdoch. Still favour Alec over him?

Sorry, not trying to be clever, can you be clear what your point is here?

[kaosmark2]

Sorry, not trying to be clever, can you be clear what your point is here?

Not long ago, you asked about meetings between Ed and Murdoch, suggesting that Labour were just as culpable of courting him. Doesn't this help counter that?

[russycarps]

Great news for a hypothetical iscotland, oil prices have spiked! Brent crude up to $59 a barrel!

Oh wait, isn't that still around 100% less than required to balance the books?

The poor of scotland still fucked then. Carry on

[eFestivals]

There is nothing in this entire post that has any basis in the real world.

says the man who still won't face up to the facts of GERS.

[eFestivals]

So .... it's now proven that Salmond lost the indy campaign more votes than 'the vow' gained votes against it.

And i'm guessing that snippers are liking immigration more than a little less now.

[LJS]

So .... it's now proven that Salmond lost the indy campaign more votes than 'the vow' gained votes against it.

And i'm guessing that snippers are liking immigration more than a little less now.

Shock news , some people don't like Salmond & voted no. Well, who'd have thunk it?

& the claimed revelation that the vow made relatively little difference just serves to make the Westminster parties look particularly foolish as they stumbled about in blind panic in the last few days of the campaign.

As for the racism bit - it has long been known that more Scots born voters were pro Indy than "immigrants"

I am very happy to say that this knowledge has not prompted any change of heart on immigration that I have observed.

[eFestivals]

Shock news , some people don't like Salmond & voted no. Well, who'd have thunk it?

the likes of you who find him beyond criticism?

You need to be able to criticise him to be able to know why the indyvote was lost.

As for the racism bit - it has long been known that more Scots born voters were pro Indy than "immigrants"

but it hadn't been known that the immigrants cost the snippers their dream.

So it looks like the snippers have a dilemma. They can have immigrants or they can have indy. One will have to go, care to make a guess at which?

After all, nearly every one of those immigrants have not immigrated to "Scotland" but to the "UK".

If iScotland were inside the EU and the UK were out of it, iScotland would be the first EU state which would be building a border wall and border posts to keep the EU citizens in rather than the non-EU citizens out.

Edited March 29, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Today, I'm rather fucked off with Sturgeon.

Instead of putting Salmond back in his box and telling the loser to shut his trap, Sturgeon has expressed her delight at Salmond campaigning in England for the tories.

And to add to her idiocy, she's seemingly demanded PR of Labour, which guarantees it won't happen unless its explicitly stated in Labour's manifesto when it's published on 2nd April. No matter how sound an idea is, Labour cannot be seen to be on the SNP's string.

Whereas if she'd not let Salmond loose to gain the tories votes, and kept quiet on PR to let the vote distribution drive the idea home with the electorate, there might have been a chance of having it. She's surely killed it instead.

It's all very well knowing how to pull the strings of religious fanatics, but there's more than that at play here.

[LJS]

the likes of you who find him beyond criticism?

You need to be able to criticise him to be able to know why the indyvote was lost.

but it hadn't been known that the immigrants cost the snippers their dream.

So it looks like the snippers have a dilemma. They can have immigrants or they can have indy. One will have to go, care to make a guess at which?

After all, nearly every one of those immigrants have not immigrated to "Scotland" but to the "UK".

If iScotland were inside the EU and the UK were out of it, iScotland would be the first EU state which would be building a border wall and border posts to keep the EU citizens in rather than the non-EU citizens out.

I have criticised Salmond on numerous occasions

& all I can say is this Snipper will continue to support immigration - I would no more deny the vote to non-Scots than I would to the the rich Fukers or the old Fukers - 2 other groups who voted "no"

The word on the street is that Sturgeon is not keen to have another referendum until support for Indy is sitting at around 60% which seems a perfectly sensible policy to me