The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

Maybe we are more polite up here! But I'd have thought most people would regard being described as stupid, selfish & deceitful as insulting.

and yet what would you call people who can't face up to financial reality even when it;'s solidly laid-out by the very people they say they support?

There's a point where you start to think "there's nothing rational happening there", and so it must be something else.

The SNP have done a 180 degree u-turn on the economic position of Scotland in just 6 months. Not a word of criticism is heard from their supporters about that.

[Comfy Bean]

According to the latest polls, the voters in Scotland appear to be quite happy with the direction the SNP are taking. Living wage, higher minimum wage, no renewal of Trident............

I see NS is out today verifying that the SNP will support Labour " even if the Tories end up being the biggest party ". I wonder if they are expecting a shift in the polls over the weekend with the Tories pulling into a lead in England.

To be clear I`m speculating here but have I not read in the past that the sitting Govt have a habit of pushing on in the last weeks ?

[LJS]

and yet what would you call people who can't face up to financial reality even when it;'s solidly laid-out by the very people they say they support?

I would call it having a different opinion - there is no "financial reality" for an independent Scotland, because something that does not yet exist cannot have any sort of reality. There are projections, predictions & opinions.

There's a point where you start to think "there's nothing rational happening there", and so it must be something else.

I have explained my views & argued in favour of them repeatedly for months now. You are entitled to believe I am misguided. I think you are misguided in some of your views.

The SNP have done a 180 degree u-turn on the economic position of Scotland in just 6 months. Not a word of criticism is heard from their supporters about that.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. If you mean scrapping a proposed "up to 3%" increase in Corp Tax in an Independent Scotland in favour of taxing the rich in the UK, I'm not sure I'd call that a U turn as they are quite different situations But whatever you call it, I certainly am not going to criticise them for that. Quite the reverse in fact. All political parties change their policies from time to time. You are always telling us about the great changes that Ed has brought to the Labour party.

Oh & if you haven't come across this lady, I think you should read her work

http://effiedeans.blogspot.co.uk/

" It has turned out to be a long-term historical mistake that in a number of respects the parts of the UK have been treated as if they were independent countries. No other nation state in the world allows its parts to have separate money and separate international football teams."

Edited April 24, 2015 by LJS

[LJS]

According to the latest polls, the voters in Scotland appear to be quite happy with the direction the SNP are taking. Living wage, higher minimum wage, no renewal of Trident............

I see NS is out today verifying that the SNP will support Labour " even if the Tories end up being the biggest party ". I wonder if they are expecting a shift in the polls over the weekend with the Tories pulling into a lead in England.

To be clear I`m speculating here but have I not read in the past that the sitting Govt have a habit of pushing on in the last weeks ?

I believe they often do, Comfy. However the Tories need quite a significant boost to give them a realistic chance of forming any sort of government. It is hard to predict. I don't think any of us though that the Scottish polls would still be recording such a massive lead for the SNP. I certainly didn't.

It is hard to imagine anything other than a very close fight & possibly the most exciting election night for many years. I am glad that I had the foresight to book the 8th May off.

In other news I have had a letter from Gordon Brown urging me to save the NHS. I have also had a letter from Vicky, who apparently is a mum from Newcastle, Marie, who is a grandmother from Manchester & Perry who is an apprentice from Liverpool. They got together (maybe at Scotch Corner) to write to me. Apparently they need my help to kick out the Tories, more than that they are "counting on" me. Funnily enough I have not had any communication at all from my sitting Labour MP. mind you he's been pretty anonymous for the past 5 years so maybe he is just keeping that up.

the Greens & SNP also popped leaflets through my door, They weren't personally addressed to me & in a real envelope like Labour's two letters but they did feature the actual candidate and talked about local issues.

Maybe my labour man is too busy trying to work out how to delete his tweet linking to the Telegraph Frenchgate story weeks after most of his colleagues.

[LJS]

I couldnt possibly speak for Neil, but I cant see any insults in my words. Only factual statements.

Caring more for yourself than others IS selfish.

Trying to convince people to act in a certain way whilst hiding from them crucial facts IS deceitful.

Thinking that a country which depends on modest oil revenues will flourish given the proven volatility of oil prices IS delusional.

I'm coming back to this again because, for some crazy reason it matters to me.

You say "Caring more for yourself than others IS selfish." well it would be hard to argue with that. I challenge you to find one sentence that I have posted on here that suggests I support independence for selfish reasons. I have never once in my entire life cast any sort of vote because I thought voting that way would benefit me. So by calling me selfish you are doing more, you are calling me a liar & assuming that the only motivation for voting yes is selfishness.

You say "Trying to convince people to act in a certain way whilst hiding from them crucial facts IS deceitful." Now I guess this refers back to the few weeks before the referendum when I talked a bit about conversations i had had with wavering voters. I take issue with your description of these conversations. I am entirely comfortable that you r description of these discussions is wildly inaccurate. It is no great revelation that I stated my belief that a yes vote was my preference but I also made it clear that it was perfectly reasonable & logical to take the opposite view & without exception, I made it clear that voting No would not lessen my opinion of anyone. I also stresses that whatever they decided it was really important they should vote. It may not always seem it on here but i am about the most reasonable person you could meet. My ex used to complain regularly about my infuriating ability to see both sides of just about any argument. But even if I had leant on folk a bit too hard to vote Yes, it's not exactly as if they weren't hearing the other side. The media was wall to wall NO NO NO.

You say "Thinking that a country which depends on modest oil revenues will flourish given the proven volatility of oil prices IS delusional." I live in a country now (UK) which has run a deficit for about 46 out of the past 50 years. which has a National debt of £1.5 trillion & still rising. with a bit of luck it won't reach £2 trillion. I don't think the UK has done a very good job running the economy & it would be hard to describe it as flourishing. I think there is a huge difference between the needs of the South of England & the North of Great Britain. In my lifetime a Tory UK government presided with glee over the destruction of the Scottish economy. It was probably inevitable with globalisation that mining, shipbuilding & steel making were on the way out. It was not inevitable that this progress was accelerated with scant regard to the ravages inflicted on the communities that had relied on them. Had we governed ourselves then, I have no doubt we would have followed a more humane path, one that better reflected local needs & priorities. Sadly for Scotland (& Wales & much of the North of England ), Sevenoaks didn't suffer too much from the demise of British heavy industry although many there had grown rich on the backs of welsh steelworkers, Yorkshire miners & Clydeside Shipbuilders. We made them rich, they made us poor. It's really hard to believe that Westminster has the will or the ability to change this. Labour may not win many votes in Sevenoaks but they need votes in Basildon from voters who aspire to live in Sevenoaks, so they cannot address the needs of post industrial Scotland. So, climbing down off my soapbox, I don't know if we'll flourish & I'm not sure I ever said we would but I believe that making decision for Scotland in Scotland just makes sense - if we have to run a deficit for a while - at least you guys have proved it can be done. So thanks for your opinion. Instead of calling you delusional, I decided to try & address your arguments.

I bet your feet smell

Edited April 24, 2015 by LJS

[eFestivals]

I would call it having a different opinion - there is no "financial reality" for an independent Scotland, because something that does not yet exist cannot have any sort of reality. There are projections, predictions & opinions.

That's just laughable.

Scotland has an economy whether it's independent or not. That economy is what an indie Scotland would be dependent on. Analysis of that economy shows beyond all doubt that iScotland could not spend at its current levels, and so would be significantly poorer.

If the SNP now bottling out of FFA doesn't tell you they're starting to face up to the massive lies they told you during the indie campaign, there's not sense in your head and the word you object to is well used.

I have explained my views & argued in favour of them repeatedly for months now. You are entitled to believe I am misguided. I think you are misguided in some of your views.

And yet if what you were advocating had sense and reason, you'd be able to face the fact - admit the fact - of the SNP's hugely changed position.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. If you mean scrapping a proposed "up to 3%" increase in Corp Tax in an Independent Scotland in favour of taxing the rich in the UK, I'm not sure I'd call that a U turn as they are quite different situations But whatever you call it, I certainly am not going to criticise them for that. Quite the reverse in fact. All political parties change their policies from time to time. You are always telling us about the great changes that Ed has brought to the Labour party.

No, i'm talking about their implicit admission that they ripped the piss out of your gullibility just 6 months ago, when they were claiming that iScotland would be immediately more prosperous than the current Scotland.

What is it of their admission today that Scotland would be financially fucked if self-financing that you're not getting?

Oh & if you haven't come across this lady, I think you should read her work

http://effiedeans.blogspot.co.uk/

" It has turned out to be a long-term historical mistake that in a number of respects the parts of the UK have been treated as if they were independent countries. No other nation state in the world allows its parts to have separate money and separate international football teams."

Lovely, you're now a advocate of unionism and against devolved powers.

Here's betting you can't face up to that u-turn either.

Edited April 25, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

In other news I have had a letter from Gordon Brown urging me to save the NHS.

is the Scottish NHS better with more funding or less funding?

Answers on a postcard to: the NHS cutting liars of the SNP, the city with the most private education in the UK, Scotlandshire.

the Greens & SNP also popped leaflets through my door

care to tell me if the SNP leaflet said "vote Green", or are the Green's the enemy of the duplicitous SNP?

[eFestivals]

I'm coming back to this again because, for some crazy reason it matters to me.

Caring more for yourself than others IS selfish." well it would be hard to argue with that. I challenge you to find one sentence that I have posted on here that suggests I support independence for selfish reasons.

so it's not your oil after all, and you don't want to keep it all for yourself and not share?

You're against what the SNP stand for?

[LJS]

so it's not your oil after all, and you don't want to keep it all for yourself and not share?

You're against what the SNP stand for?

I can see you're really struggling to get the point here.

If I had ever said, or if I believed that having the oil would make me better off, my belief in Indy could be seen as selfish. Have I ever said that?

You used to (occasionally) give me credit for having some principles. For some reason, you stopped. I despair when I hear people who are clearly deciding their vote based on self interest. I passionately believe we should use our vote to try &ale our country "better."

[eFestivals]

I can see you're really struggling to get the point here.

If I had ever said, or if I believed that having the oil would make me better off, my belief in Indy could be seen as selfish. Have I ever said that?

You used to (occasionally) give me credit for having some principles. For some reason, you stopped. I despair when I hear people who are clearly deciding their vote based on self interest. I passionately believe we should use our vote to try &ale our country "better."

If you don't believe it will make you better off, you're calling the SNP liars.

Go on, you can say it.

Until you face the truth, you have no truth.

Which is why I can't credit you with principles.

Edited April 25, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

is the Scottish NHS better with more funding or less funding?

Answers on a postcard to: the NHS cutting liars of the SNP, the city with the most private education in the UK, Scotlandshire.

care to tell me if the SNP leaflet said "vote Green", or are the Green's the enemy of the duplicitous SNP?

The NHS is generally better with more funding. I'm not entirely clear why you need to know this.

The SNP have not cut the NHS, they may not have grown it as fast as the NHS in England where the Tories are in charge, although they have grown it faster than the NHS in Wales where Labour are in charge. It also occurs to me (this is an original thought - I didn't read it on wings or any other snipper site) that the money Scotland spends on free personal care for the elderly, free prescriptions & free eye tests may actually mean we need to spend less on the NHS. I can explain that idea further if you wish but I'd imagine you understand the point.

Could you explain your comment about private education, please? I'm genuinely curious.

The SNP leaflet didn't say vote green. Again I am at a loss as to the point of your question. Everyone is everyone else's 'enemy' at an election.

[LJS]

If you don't believe it will make you better off, you're calling the SNP liars.

Go on, you can say it.

Until you face the truth, you have no truth.

Which is why I can't credit you with principles.

I made it clear months ago that I did not believe the claims that I would be better off under Indy. If that makes the SNP liars then they are liars.

In my view, they are not any bigger liars than any other political party, but that is part of the judgement we all have to make when we go out & vote.

Our mutual friends the IFS pretty much called all of them liars this week.

Edited April 25, 2015 by LJS

[Comfy Bean]

so it's not your oil after all, and you don't want to keep it all for yourself and not share?

I wasn`t going to bother with the posts your good self and Russy have made about the £7.6b " hole" as LJS dealt with it perfectly well a few days back but, not for the first time, you prefer to ignore what he actually wrote and you actually read and instead go with some myth that we now realise you pick up from these 8 other websites where the Labour haters live (according to you ).

I had understood ( but you know me ) that it has, so far, taken 7 years to negotiate some of the transfer of tax type powers and there will be a further 3 year lead in period when we eventually agree on the transfer. I gather you and Russy think that we will shake hands on say the 31stMarch and all will be tickety boo on April 1st ( no laughing at the back )

Your above post implies that as well as " us " being down the 7.6 for daring to think that we are capable of leaving the Empire, you reckon " we " should still send all our revenues down to westminster to allow a few calculations to be done before our in no way corrupt current system decides on a figure to send back up the road.

Dare I suggest that you may want to think this through a bit more

[LJS]

Hey Neil, this doesn't quite fit into your narrative.

"Scotland's oldest university has issued a warning that moves to recruit more pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds is discriminating against the middle classes.

St Andrews University, in Fife, also claimed the policy means students with better school qualifications are being pushed out.

The warning comes three years after the Scottish Government instructed all universities to increase the number of students from the poorest 40 per cent of communities.'

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/education/middle-class-students-disadvantaged-warns-scotlands-oldest-university.123899748

[eFestivals]

Could you explain your comment about private education, please? I'm genuinely curious.

Edinburgh has the highest per-capita rate of privately educated children in the UK.

You know, the capital of that left-leaning country where no one is tory but are strangely acting out the tory dream.

The SNP leaflet didn't say vote green. Again I am at a loss as to the point of your question. Everyone is everyone else's 'enemy' at an election.

In England the SNP are telling us we should be voting Green.

The deliciousness of that should maybe hit home (I know, I know, I'm hoping for sense far too too much), because if England followed the SNP's line to any extent what govt do we get for the UK?

-----

That aside, I'm taking the piss because you claimed back in September that the SNP weren't liars and you're claiming now they're not liars - and yet they're singing a VERY different tune. Both versions can't be right.

For all the while you're not refuting one of those conflicting lines by the SNP it's impossible for you to be taken seriously with what you're saying. And so I'll keep on laughing.

I know you've got a brain in there somewhere, but taking the pledge has clearly revoked your thinking processes.

And isn't it funny that the SNP need a pledge to stop criticism when they're actually talking the more sense than the bullshit they were spouting back last September? It's a topsy (kevin ) turvy world.

[eFestivals]

I made it clear months ago that I did not believe the claims that I would be better off under Indy. If that makes the SNP liars then they are liars.

In my view, they are not any bigger liars than any other political party, but that is part of the judgement we all have to make when we go out & vote.

Our mutual friends the IFS pretty much called all of them liars this week.

Hmmm

The other liars aren't lying with the deliberate purpose of leading us into a worse world.

There's a very big difference between being misguided over the effects your policies will have, and deliberately deceiving the electorate by saying a certain thing whilst knowing the opposite is true, for the purposes of leading them to disaster but not caring about that.

Only the SNP have been putting forwards policies of very deliberate lies.

Edited April 25, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I wasn`t going to bother with the posts your good self and Russy have made about the £7.6b " hole" as LJS dealt with it perfectly well a few days back

Did he? I don't remember seeing a statement that Scotland would be completely fucked and made destitute over if SNP policies were implemented.

I had understood ( but you know me ) that it has, so far, taken 7 years to negotiate some of the transfer of tax type powers and there will be a further 3 year lead in period when we eventually agree on the transfer. I gather you and Russy think that we will shake hands on say the 31stMarch and all will be tickety boo on April 1st ( no laughing at the back )

I see you've been and collected your latest weekly myth.

Everything could be done for indie in 18 months, but transferring just a small bit of power takes 7 years in all reasonableness.

Your above post implies that as well as " us " being down the 7.6 for daring to think that we are capable of leaving the Empire, you reckon " we " should still send all our revenues down to westminster to allow a few calculations to be done before our in no way corrupt current system decides on a figure to send back up the road.

Dare I suggest that you may want to think this through a bit more

dare I say that you've woken up this morning but left your sense of humour asleep in bed?

[eFestivals]

Hey Neil, this doesn't quite fit into your narrative.

"Scotland's oldest university has issued a warning that moves to recruit more pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds is discriminating against the middle classes.

St Andrews University, in Fife, also claimed the policy means students with better school qualifications are being pushed out.

The warning comes three years after the Scottish Government instructed all universities to increase the number of students from the poorest 40 per cent of communities.'

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/education/middle-class-students-disadvantaged-warns-scotlands-oldest-university.123899748

The facts fit "my" narrative, but commands by the SNP don't fit the facts.

The numbers of poorer uni students in Scotland is lagging behind the UK average.

( can't read the pay-walled article).

[russycarps]

What are these mystery revenues being sent to Westminster? Scotland is insolvent.

The net position is a deficit.

You receive more than you give.

If you give someone £5 and receive £10 back then your £5 is effectively meaningless.

I'm not sure how else to put it. What part of this is not clear?

[Comfy Bean]

Mansion Tax Update.

Saw Murph on the box last night. It`s more good news for us Jocks and in no way will this piss off Labour voters in England so we can all rejoice at the Saviour of the union.

We have established a few days ago ( backed up by a link from stv ) that The Murph DID promise 1000 EXTRA nurses for Scotland form the generous Londoners. He had a quick re-think ( as he is entitled to do ) and it`s now just the 1000 ( which is still good ) .......oh and plus 500 GP`s. As of yesterday Scotland are also being promised another £200 million EXTRA from this same pot of gold for mental health and £200million EXTRA for cancer care. He wasn`t at all happy when he was quizzed a bit on this but he said it so lets believe it`s all true

I`ve just had a wee google around this Mansion Tax plan just to make sure Jim has nailed it on this. There appears to be a bit of unrest in London and some talk of house prices in this ball park being affected by as much as 10%. Fortunately the guys won`t mind as it`s going to such good causes.

In Scotland we have a Council Tax banding system that goes A - G plus we have a few mansions or castles as we call them. I`m not sure how this works in England but maybe someone could chip in.

Does the mansion tax plan involve a re banding of properties to establish the current value ?

The Scottish Govt looked at this approx 5 years ago but it was binned. ALL properties ( unless they have been re-sold ) are currently in a band that was set in the 90`s. IF....anyone thinks about updating the current bands then they are going ( in the process ) to have to up the band of almost every house in the country are they not ?

The SNP recognised this was a hornets nest and are instead re-inventing the whole system to be something ( in their words ) fairer. Now we will of course have to wait and see what they come up with but it`s worth pointing out that Murphy`s plans are to leave the council tax as is and FREEZE it. While introducing a mansion tax.

In my crazy mind the SNP plans to re-write us a fairer system ( surely a higher charge for those with a big hoose but we will see ) is far more sensible than freezing the council tax and introducing a mansion tax ?

Neil I know you are a supporter of Murphy but on this point do you agree with him or do you prefer the way NS is approaching this ?

[LJS]

Edinburgh has the highest per-capita rate of privately educated children in the UK.

You know, the capital of that left-leaning country where no one is tory but are strangely acting out the tory dream.

This doesn't entirely surprise me as Edinburgh is certainly a different place from much of the rest of Scotland, but I'd be interested in your source. I wonder if the figures are skewed somewhat by that we have very few boarding schools in Scotland. In other words, are the figures where they come from or where they are educated. Edinburgh has several Private Schools but many kids travel from outwith edinburgh to attend them. Interestingly this mecca of private education has no Tory MP's

In England the SNP are telling us we should be voting Green.

Not that I've heard. The blessed Nicola said she would probably vote green if she lived i England. I've also heard her say it is not up to her to tell people in England how to vote. As you have stated this as a fact, you will of course be able to provide a link to back it up.

The deliciousness of that should maybe hit home (I know, I know, I'm hoping for sense far too too much), because if England followed the SNP's line to any extent what govt do we get for the UK?

-----

That aside, I'm taking the piss because you claimed back in September that the SNP weren't liars and you're claiming now they're not liars - and yet they're singing a VERY different tune. Both versions can't be right.

I refer the honourable gentleman to my earlier answer

For all the while you're not refuting one of those conflicting lines by the SNP it's impossible for you to be taken seriously with what you're saying. And so I'll keep on laughing.

I know you've got a brain in there somewhere, but taking the pledge has clearly revoked your thinking processes.

And isn't it funny that the SNP need a pledge to stop criticism when they're actually talking the more sense than the bullshit they were spouting back last September? It's a topsy (kevin ) turvy world.

[LJS]

The facts fit "my" narrative, but commands by the SNP don't fit the facts.

The numbers of poorer uni students in Scotland is lagging behind the UK average.

( can't read the pay-walled article).

And the Scottish government is doing something about it.

Here is the full article:

St Andrews University, in Fife, also claimed the policy means students with better school qualifications are being pushed out.

The warning comes three years after the Scottish Government instructed all universities to increase the number of students from the poorest 40 per cent of communities.

A document setting out the Fife university's targets highlights an increase in the proportion of poorer students over the three years from 8.6 per cent to 13.5 per cent - a rise from 41 to 96 students.

However, the document states such students can have significantly lower academic tariff scores than other pupils, in part because of a lack of access to Advanced Highers.

It also highlights the fact the Scottish system of funding higher education from the public purse rather than tuition fees effectively caps the number of Scottish students who can go to St Andrews, where Prince William studied.

"The prevailing policy both to limit funded numbers for Scottish students and to prioritise admission of Scottish students with potentially lower tariffs is inevitably to the disadvantage of those Scottish applicants with higher tariffs who wish to study at St Andrews," the document states.

"Due to the unexpectedly high number of Scottish entrants in 2014/15, it is anticipated that the total number of Scottish-domiciled entrants will be significantly lower in 2015/16."

Last night, St Andrews came under fire from student body NUS Scotland who argued the time for "political posturing" was over.

Gordon Maloney, president of NUS Scotland, said: "Most universities have now accepted prior attainment is an outdated way to judge future potential except, it seems, St Andrews.

"Far from lowering standards or dumbing down, fair access can help improve standards by getting people with the most potential into our university places.

"We need to get on with improving the opportunities and outcomes available to those from our most disadvantaged communities."

Mary Senior, Scottish official for the UCU union, which represents lecturers and support staff, accepted the university had made progress on access.

But she added: "It is right we have a policy to reach students from poorer and hard to reach backgrounds and the comparisons St Andrews makes between those with different tariff scores is not comparing like with like.

"It can be a significant achievement for students from lower socio-economic backgrounds to achieve the level of qualifications enabling them to access university and it is exactly these sort of students that we should be encouraging. I can't see any evidence here that other students are being disadvantaged."

A spokesman for St Andrews University said the institution - which has the highest proportion of students from private schools in Scotland at some 40 per cent - fully supported the Government's widening access drive, but that there was an inevitable consequence.

He said: "As Government policy dictates that more of these places should be reserved for students from one demographic, it is a simple fact that in a finite system there will be fewer places available to applicants not in that category."

Professor Louise Richardson, the principal of St Andrews, questioned the policy last year stating: "I understand the need for access, but we don't need the government to tell us. I don't think bureaucrats should be setting targets."

Currently, the middle classes dominate higher education and access initiatives have only gone a small way to redress the balance.

Critics of the current system argue it seriously disadvantages bright pupils from poorer backgrounds because they have little or no family experience of higher education, will not have been given private tutoring and may not be able to access Advanced Highers. In contrast, many of those from middle class areas or who go to private school have spent years preparing for university.

The university's concern comes after the Scottish Government made it a priority for universities to improve rates of participation by pupils from deprived backgrounds after a decade and more of stagnation.

All institutions have been tasked with improving access under new outcome agreements with the Scottish Funding Council, with those that fail facing a clawback in funds.

In 2013, the Government announced £3.5 million to pay for more than 700 extra places to kick-start the initiative, but universities are concerned these numbers will not be funded in future.

[LJS]

Hmmm

The other liars aren't lying with the deliberate purpose of leading us into a worse world.

There's a very big difference between being misguided over the effects your policies will have, and deliberately deceiving the electorate by saying a certain thing whilst knowing the opposite is true, for the purposes of leading them to disaster but not caring about that.

Only the SNP have been putting forwards policies of very deliberate lies.

really? You have greater faith in politicians than I have.

[Comfy Bean]

What are these mystery revenues being sent to Westminster? Scotland is insolvent.

The net position is a deficit.

You receive more than you give.

If you give someone £5 and receive £10 back then your £5 is effectively meaningless.

I'm not sure how else to put it. What part of this is not clear?

Morning Russy. I`m pretty sure we are sending revenues down. I vaguely remember something about the tax being higher per head for about 30+ years in a row ( compared to other " regions " ). Honestly can`t remember but will look back if your serious.

I`m quite sure ( only quite - it`s early ) that you and Neil had previously admitted that Westminster had " pissed our revenues up against the wall for decades ". These would be the same revenues I was referring to.

LJS pointed out the number of years we have been in deficit so I know your right about that. I saw on the box yesterday ( I`m assuming it`s ok to repeat it here ) that " we " are heading for minus £1.5 trillionzzzz. It`s a shite state of affairs for sure.

[Comfy Bean]

Did he? I don't remember seeing a statement that Scotland would be completely fucked and made destitute over if SNP policies were implemented.

No-one is denying our finances are fucked mate. No one.

I see you've been and collected your latest weekly myth.

I saw ( with my own eyes on the telly ) our cabinet secretary cover this on the Beeb yesterday. Apologies for offering it up for discussion. Clearly I wasted my time and 4 days early as well

Everything could be done for indie in 18 months, but transferring just a small bit of power takes 7 years in all reasonableness.

I would suggest that it may take longer than that for Scotland to pay back it`s share of our debt ( for starters ) and again point out that some of your understanding on how independence will actually " work " ( eventually ) needs a bit of work.

dare I say that you've woken up this morning but left your sense of humour asleep in bed?

This I agree with. My footy team have a crunch relegation battle this afternoon and it`s raining and I am slightly hungover. I hope your day is going better than mine but 3 points will see me right