The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

Your point is clearly addressed in the crest of my post which you conveniently omitted to quote.

I see you pretended that I said something different to what I said.

When all you have are lies, you have nothing at all.

[eFestivals]

Why would the SNP want to delay it?

I see you're not following Sturgeon's and Robertson's tweets.

Why not ask your esteemed representatives why they are intending to delay it?

Some English Labour & Tory mp's might

I see you're following nothing at all of politics, both inside and outside of Scotland.

but, whilst the SNP may not be keen on "instant" ffa, they clearly want additional powers as soon as possible. Whatever the implementation date, it clearly won't be next year, which was your initial claim.

get back to me when you've caught up.

Not only do they not want FFA (tho they'll use it to delay Smith), they don't want Smith either.

Just as they don't want the oil revenues, as the Smith Commission got to prove where it wasn't even mentioned by the SNP.

One day you might tune in to just how duplicitous they are. The only things they want are you to keep your brain turned off and to make the UK ungovernable.

Whatever the implementation date, it clearly won't be next year, which was your initial claim.

Yep, tho it's coming much faster than the seven years the SNP told you it would take. Funny that, eh?

FFA by 2019? Do you think either of Scotland or the SNP are ready for you voted in support of for the term of this parliament?

I'll remind you that the tories need to magic £8bn out of the air in 2019. I'm taking a bit of a leap, but there's definitely an unwanted £8bn floating around somewhere, I wonder where it might be?

Edited June 9, 2015 by eFestivals

[viberunner]

And the facts prove it.

- expenses fiddler

- liar to the Scottish people

- waster of tax-payers money.

You're crazier than Haggis Ice Cream.

[eFestivals]

You're crazier than Haggis Ice Cream.

says the man denying the proven.

[viberunner]

says the man denying the proven.

To you "proof" consists of an allegation followed by a smiley face.

[LJS]

I see you pretended that I said something different to what I said.

When all you have are lies, you have nothing at all.

NO, I didn't - you used the stats in on particular way to suit your ends. That's not lying but it is twisting the truth. i demonstrated some other ways of presenting the stats which tell a different story - you conveniently, omitted to address that point.

I see you're not following Sturgeon's and Robertson's tweets.

Why not ask your esteemed representatives why they are intending to delay it?

"Nicola Sturgeon is to demand that David Cameron’s government delivers substantial new powers for Scotland over taxation, the minimum wage and national insurance after the Scottish National party’s dramatic electoral victory in Scotland.

She plans to press the prime minister to increase the Scottish parliament’s powers even more than already planned after Cameron confirmed on Friday his government would honour pledges during last year’s independence referendum to “create the strongest devolved government anywhere in the world”.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/08/snp-to-demand-new-powers-for-scottish-parliament-after-election-landslide

The SNP has stepped up its campaign to convince Scots that David Cameron’s devolution offer needs beefing up by arguing it fails to give Holyrood the “real powers” enjoyed by the German states

Speaking ahead of a Commons debate on Monday on the Scotland Bill, which proposes transferring a swathe of taxes and welfare, Angus Robertson rejected expert opinion that the legislation will make Holyrood one of the world’s most powerful devolved parliaments....

However, the SNP plans to table amendments to the Bill adding business taxes, such as corporation tax, national insurance, the minimum wage and further control over welfare.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11659169/SNP-demand-Scotland-gets-real-powers-of-German-states.html

The only thing I can find that justifies your claim is a Guardian article

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/11/snp-seeking-greater-powers-slowly

Like many such articles the quotes used fail to support the premise of the article

“I want to see maximum decision-making in Scotland as soon we possibly can,” Robertson told BBC Radio Scotland, as the SNP’s new group of 56 MPs travelled to Westminster to take up their posts on Monday morning.

“Unfortunately, the most important thing to be aware of and to recognise and respect is that Scotland voted no in the referendum last year, which means we can’t realistically have all the powers we want to have as quickly as possible.

“It’s going to be a matter which is subject to discussion between the Scottish government and the UK government.”

(my emphasis)

Yet again you are making assertion with nothing to back them up - this is frankly becoming tiresome. If you are interested in my opinion on such claims please provide links. If you don't care what I think, that's fine because I will no longer be spending my spare time looking for stuff to support your wild assertions.

get back to me when you've caught up.

Not only do they not want FFA (tho they'll use it to delay Smith), they don't want Smith either.

Just as they don't want the oil revenues, as the Smith Commission got to prove where it wasn't even mentioned by the SNP.

One day you might tune in to just how duplicitous they are. The only things they want are you to keep your brain turned off and to make the UK ungovernable.

Yep, tho it's coming much faster than the seven years the SNP told you it would take. Funny that, eh?

FFA by 2019? Do you think either of Scotland or the SNP are ready for you voted in support of for the term of this parliament?

I'll remind you that the tories need to magic £8bn out of the air in 2019. I'm taking a bit of a leap, but there's definitely an unwanted £8bn floating around somewhere, I wonder where it might be?

Not one bit of this is based on fact - it's made up.

I'm sure you can prove me wrong with extensive quotes.

Edited June 9, 2015 by LJS

[LJS]

Poll: Labour to lose third of Holyrood seats as SNP surge continues

Scottish Labour will lose a third of their seats in next year’s Holyrood election, according to a poll.

The TNS survey published on Tuesday says the SNP will win all but three constituencies, with 60% saying they intend to vote for the party in their constituency.

Labour would only be left with list MSPs, winning 25 seats at Holyrood this way. This would mean the party lose 12 MSPs, a third of their current 37 representatives.

http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/news/1322588-poll-labour-lose-third-of-seats-at-holyrood-as-snp-surge-continues/

[Comfy Bean]

Roberton was interviewed yesterday on the ffa stuff. In short...

They want indy but Scotland voted no. He respects that so what comes in the meantime is obviously not his number one choice ( full indy). He prefers ffa asap but states that labour and tories will not vote this through. His concern is that the new powers he will get must also be supported by the ability of Scottish govt to borrow.

He also wants the ability of Westminster politicians to Vito any of their future plans removed from the scotland bill.

Been impressed with him so far. No one gave him much hope with Salmond back in the fold but so far so good in my opinion.

Him and ns both want control over the minimum wage.

[Comfy Bean]

I'm ever hopeful that a Scottish govt with borrowing powers to run alongside tax raising powers and the ability to increase the minimum wage etc won't land us in 1.5 trillion gazillion worth of debt.

[Comfy Bean]

60%!!!!!!!

Wow. That's way more than half ;-)

[LJS]

60%!!!!!!!

Wow. That's way more than half ;-)

You sure about that?

Edited June 9, 2015 by LJS

[gary1979666]

Roberton was interviewed yesterday on the ffa stuff. In short...

They want indy but Scotland voted no. He respects that so what comes in the meantime is obviously not his number one choice ( full indy). He prefers ffa asap but states that labour and tories will not vote this through. His concern is that the new powers he will get must also be supported by the ability of Scottish govt to borrow.

He also wants the ability of Westminster politicians to Vito any of their future plans removed from the scotland bill.

Been impressed with him so far. No one gave him much hope with Salmond back in the fold but so far so good in my opinion.

Him and ns both want control over the minimum wage.

I think the thing to remember is that under FFA or whatever inbetween state is agreed, any borrowing is actually done by the UK govt. I know it's a crass example, but imagine you go to the bank and agree a loan - they would want to know what you're spending on and how you intend to repay it. If you say to them, none of your bloody business, then you're not going to get very far.

Extreme example, Scotland gets this and goes off on a track of spend, spend, spend, or even just higher than average spend, then the oil price drops and you have a big problem. Actually, you don't have a big problem, as it's the UK's money and will be bailed out. There's a big safety net for you. rUK can't do a Germany and kick you out of Poundland. That's why it's not independence - and you can't have all the freedoms that indepence would bring you, as Scotland doesn't want that.

[eFestivals]

To you "proof" consists of an allegation followed by a smiley face.

- fraudster.

Proven by the requirement he pay back the expenses he'd fraudulently claimed.

- liar to the Scottish people

Care to show me the legal advice he'd claimed to have had about the EU?

- waster of tax-payers money.

I can show you the bills he clocked up at your expense trying to hide his lie about that non-existent EU legal advice.

Care to show me the proof that I'm wrong?

[eFestivals]

NO, I didn't - you used the stats in on particular way to suit your ends. That's not lying but it is twisting the truth. i demonstrated some other ways of presenting the stats which tell a different story - you conveniently, omitted to address that point.

a fraudster who defrauds a penny is no less of a fraudster than the fraudster who defrauds a million.

It's the fraud that counts, not the value of the frauding.

But hey, you just keep on lauding your favourite fraudsters on the basis that they're also incompetent.

Edited June 10, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Not one bit of this is based on fact - it's made up.

like the idea that Scotland can self-fund, you mean?

If it's true, why is Sturgeon bottling it? She bottled it even before she knew she's only be blowing hot air in this parliament.

[eFestivals]

Roberton was interviewed yesterday on the ffa stuff. In short...

They want indy but Scotland voted no. He respects that so what comes in the meantime is obviously not his number one choice ( full indy). He prefers ffa asap but states that labour and tories will not vote this through.

You seem to have omited the fact that it was part of their manifesto, in fact the most central part of all of it. Why is that?

Given the result and the SNP's claim of 50% support, that gets to mean that Scotland voted "YES" for FFA. Why are the SNP refusing to do what the electorate has voted in support of?

How many political parties do you know of who actively campaign against their own policies as "not relevant", and call them "suicide"?

Do they do that because they've advocated a good policy, or a bad policy?

FFS.

[eFestivals]

I'm ever hopeful that a Scottish govt with borrowing powers to run alongside tax raising powers and the ability to increase the minimum wage etc won't land us in 1.5 trillion gazillion worth of debt.

:lol:

A bigger proportion of that debt is Scotland's than Scotland's population is a proportion of the UK.

And you slag off the debt that you've advocated should be increased even further than it has been by those who you say are wicked for creating much of the debt.

If your ideas were followed the current debt would be even larger, which you call a good thing while calling it a bad thing.

Meanwhile, Scotland doesn't have a hope in hell of self-funding without running up massive debts, or hugely cutting public services, or hugely increasing taxes (or you can have all three bits of shite in smaller measures - but shite is all there is for you).

What's it going to take for you to reference reality? Even the SNP are calling their own plans "suicide".

FFS.

[eFestivals]

I think there's new UK fiscal arrangements being announced today - the end of Barnett, by the sound of things.

[eFestivals]

I'm absolutely loving Alex, he should be on the stage.

Firstly....

60%!!!!!!!
Wow. That's way more than half ;-)

... I'm presuming that you followed state orders and tuned into Newsnight last night?

Care to tell me where he got that 60% from?

Might it be via 'after' polls, where kids in Scotland are now shit scared to be truthful, &/or they're now buying into the mass delusion?

But the best bit is how it's right that Scotland has a ref when it has public support, but a crime against democracy for any other popular majority to be acted on and pandered to.

It would be impossible to write these things as fiction. It would be rejected as unbelievable.

[LJS]

I'm absolutely loving Alex, he should be on the stage.

Firstly....

... I'm presuming that you followed state orders and tuned into Newsnight last night?

Care to tell me where he got that 60% from?

Might it be via 'after' polls, where kids in Scotland are now shit scared to be truthful, &/or they're now buying into the mass delusion?

But the best bit is how it's right that Scotland has a ref when it has public support, but a crime against democracy for any other popular majority to be acted on and pandered to.

It would be impossible to write these things as fiction. It would be rejected as unbelievable.

What on earth are you wittering on about now? Edited June 10, 2015 by LJS

[eFestivals]

What on earth are you wittering on about now?

what was the 60% about? Was it about what Salmond said on Newsnight, about the percentage of kids who voted yes?

Where's the 60% from?

[eFestivals]

But the best bit is how it's right that Scotland has a ref when it has public support, but a crime against democracy for any other popular majority to be acted on and pandered to.

and this is about Salmond opposing the EU referendum bill, when it's at least as justified in light of public opinion as any Scottish indie vote.

[LJS]

what was the 60% about? Was it about what Salmond said on Newsnight, about the percentage of kids who voted yes?

Where's the 60% from?

From the TNS opinion poll. Links previously supplied.

[eFestivals]

From the TNS opinion poll. Links previously supplied.

eh? I've never seen anything that said 60% of 16 & 17 year olds voted yes.

Link?

[viberunner]

- fraudster.

Proven by the requirement he pay back the expenses he'd fraudulently claimed.

Care to show me the proof that I'm wrong?

Taking the first one, he didn't commit fraud, and the onus is on you to prove fraud.

Some MPs committed fraud - criminal deception - by falsifying receipts or giving false information. Alex Salmond did not. He put an open request to the expenses body and they granted it.

After the "duck pond" and "moat cleaning" brigade, along with many MPs claiming scores of thousands a year, along with numerous actual fraudsters, a new body was established to restore order to that madness and they ruled because of duck ponds and moat cleaning that Alex wasn't entitled to a free dinner. Fair enough... but not fraud.

Even if you repeat the accusation and end it with a smiley face it's still not what the word "fraud" means.