The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

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

he paid back money that was legitimately his...?

FFS.

[viberunner]

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/

Greens look to do well too, from 2 to 10. That'll be a good thing.

And that prediction has them at more than twice the size of the Lib Dems who are still clinging on like slime on a sewer wall with 4 MSPs, the odious treacherous c**ts. Still the Lib Dem / Tory / UKIP axis has only crept up from 20 to 21. For me that's 21 too many but I'm magnanimous to believe in political plurality even for evil fascist scumfuck bastards like LD/T/UK (their abbreviation makes them sound cooler than they are, like list of niche sexualities).

Still, a good-looking prediction. Let's hope it happens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfGDvDGE7zk

[viberunner]

he paid back money that was legitimately his...?

If he gave open, accurate, and honest receipts then it's not fraud.

Fraud requires deception. Fraud was happening in other parties.

He was asked to repay his lunch money because the public were outraged at the likes of duck coups and moat cleaning and by tens of thousands of snouts-in-the-trough expenses that many MPs were claiming.

That I could tell the public were not outraged over lunch money, but the retrospective rules decided that counted as much as duck coups.

You can decide for yourself if lunch money is the same as getting the public to clean your moat let alone if asking for lunch money is the same as fraud.

[eFestivals]

If he gave open, accurate, and honest receipts then it's not fraud.

he just claimed for things he wasn't entitled to claim for by accident, is that what you're saying?

FFS.

Just how far will a mindless snipper go for Snow White Alex? now we know.

His claim was not accurate - which was why he had to pay the money back.

He didn't give "honest" receipts because they were not receipts for something he was entitled to claim for - which is why he had to pay the money back.

They were fraudulently submitted - which was why he had to pay the money back.

He did it openly, yes. Brazenly, even ... because he felt entitled to ride the gravy train, and not because he was honest.

Edited June 10, 2015 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

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/

60%!!!!!!!

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

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.

So in summary, and for the benefit of Neil.......

LJS helpfully provided an update on a poll just out on Neil`s discussion forum.

I hadn`t seen it and commented as such and also included a hilarious and topical comment on Neil`s forum by playing on 60% being greater than half due to recent conversations around maths and fractions etc on this forum.

Meanwhile Neil was watching Salmond on Newsnight hanging, as ever, on his every word. Hoping against hope that Salmond would say something that Neil could get outraged about. Salmond seems to have mentioned an unrelated poll to the one LJS and myself were discussing ( not sure as I didn`t see Newsnight ) but rather than read the words in my post and perhaps comment on the poll or the posts around it ( I only said wow as some on here had thought SNP support had peaked at 44% ) Neil couldn`t wait to steam in and accused me of watching Newsnight ( an incorrect and rather odd accusation ) and followed this up by suggesting I had watched it as I was following - wait for it - " STATE ORDERS "

As you said Neil, some of the stuff written could be rejected as unbelievable.

[LJS]

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.

What a bizarre argument. - you really think all fraudsters are equal? let's say I defraud my employer's of £10 for a taxi fare - cos I've got a pal with a taxi who can give me a receipt when I really walked. By your logic that is the same as some spiv city trader who defrauds his employers out of millions. Astonishing! I cannot believe you really think this makes sense. Because you really aren't that stupid.

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.

no source for your claims astonishingly, i notice.

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.

You seem to have overlooked the fact that, in general, opposition parties don't get to implement their manifestos. The Tories have made it clear that there will be no FFA.

Now I'll demonstrate this with a link to support my point. It's quite a good idea ... you should try it.

Speaking after meeting Ms Sturgeon, Mr Cameron told the BBC: "Let's make sure Smith is implemented in full. I'm going to keep the commitment I made to the people of Scotland. Let's get that done first because it does create a really strong Scottish Parliament."

He added: "Of course, if people want to make future proposals I'll look at them."

The prime minister again said he did not support full fiscal autonomy for Scotland - the responsibility for all areas of tax and spending except defence and foreign affairs - stating that it would mean £7bn of cuts or extra tax-raising.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32746049

:lol:

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

Really?How do you work that out? According to you Scotland does not exist as a country - it's just a region & the debt is the responsibility of the UK. make your mind up Neil.

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

Link?

I've never said 60% of 16/17 year olds voted yes - neither has anyone else on here unless i've missed it. The 60% I referred to was the % intending to vote SNP at next year's Holyrood election(don't knows excluded according to the TNS poll yesterday. It also had 49% (don't know's not excluded in favour of staying in the EU. I merely reported the 60% as an information service. I do not attach any great significance to it.

[Comfy Bean]

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.

Gary this is a fair point and it was what I was eluding to in the post around what Robertson is now looking for bearing in mind that what he/we wanted was Indy. He stated that he now wants FFA but the Tories and Labour will not vote in support of this. I do not know for certain if he is right, what is your view on the Tories and Labour voting together to prevent FFA ?

Robertson is saying what you are saying ( I think - apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick ). I think he senses a Tory/Labour trap ie Scotland voted NO so the SNP cannot achieve their number one goal around Finance. Osbourne ( with Labour support ) then gives them the powers agreed by Smith and cuts the Barnett BUT without allowing them borrowing powers of their own ( as you described ).

With Indy, Barnett gone but borrowing available as a Country independent of Westminster but... as we voted to remain better together, Barnett reduced but Scotland still cut off from being able to borrow.

The fact that we are daring to talk about austerity and increasing the minimum wage while we take a different path out of the mess we are all in seems to be ensuring that the Tories, backed by Labour, intend to " punish " the SNP and the good folks of Scotland while they are at it. This is just my view of course.....perhaps Dave etc are keen to see Scotland succeed

The SNP want tax raising powers, they want control over the minimum wage and control over some welfare benefits. The last bit is over complicated due to how far we are down the road of Universal Credit ( UK wide ). I think they may well get all of this BUT they also want the ability for Holyrood to borrow. This is the bit that Robertson wants and in my opinion needs. Without being able to raise capital to fill the gap left by the Barnett reduction we will get in exchange for a few powers, some will say it could end in financial " suicide ". Would the Tories, backed by Labour, allow this to happen ?

We knew with Independence that it would have been a long and difficult road ( Neil claims that we all thought we would be loaded - dripping in oil ) but in reality borrowing in ( atleast ) the short to medium term would have been required and we knew that.

I think the SNP are right to " demand " powers PLUS the ability to borrow. These are the levers we need to run our own economy. I think with 56 seats Scotland has given them the right to " demand " what they can.Borrowing from who and against what and whether they would get it is for another day

[kaosmark2]

What a bizarre argument. - you really think all fraudsters are equal? let's say I defraud my employer's of £10 for a taxi fare - cos I've got a pal with a taxi who can give me a receipt when I really walked. By your logic that is the same as some spiv city trader who defrauds his employers out of millions. Astonishing! I cannot believe you really think this makes sense. Because you really aren't that stupid.

Scale isn't the only difference there. The number of victims, the type of victims, and the position which was abused. All of these things are also important for distinguishing which case of fraud is more harmful.

In terms of MP expenses, scale is one of only two potential differences, the other one being between claiming for something that wasn't legitimate, and putting a false claim in (eg. a faked receipt).

[eFestivals]

So in summary, and for the benefit of Neil.......

LJS helpfully provided an update on a poll just out on Neil`s discussion forum.

I hadn`t seen it and commented as such and also included a hilarious and topical comment on Neil`s forum by playing on 60% being greater than half due to recent conversations around maths and fractions etc on this forum.

Meanwhile Neil was watching Salmond on Newsnight hanging, as ever, on his every word. Hoping against hope that Salmond would say something that Neil could get outraged about. Salmond seems to have mentioned an unrelated poll to the one LJS and myself were discussing ( not sure as I didn`t see Newsnight ) but rather than read the words in my post and perhaps comment on the poll or the posts around it ( I only said wow as some on here had thought SNP support had peaked at 44% ) Neil couldn`t wait to steam in and accused me of watching Newsnight ( an incorrect and rather odd accusation ) and followed this up by suggesting I had watched it as I was following - wait for it - " STATE ORDERS "

As you said Neil, some of the stuff written could be rejected as unbelievable.

Or perhaps I just have no interest in what you posted about how daft 60% of the Scottish population is, who want to give themselves austerity? So never looked at it?

Meanwhile, Salmond seems to have told another porkie. Fancy that.

[eFestivals]

What a bizarre argument. - you really think all fraudsters are equal?

No, I think all fraudsters are fraudsters.

FFS.

[eFestivals]

no source for your claims astonishingly, i notice.

did you miss Sturgeon saying the £8Bn black hole in her policies was "not relevant" because she's bottling her policies for the moment?

Meanwhile, it's still her policy, but a policy that is flawed so badly even her MPs call it "suicide".

But you keep on advocating it (because you advocate indy), like you're the smart guy. So please tell me what Sturgeon can't, where the £8Bn is.

You seem to have overlooked the fact that, in general, opposition parties don't get to implement their manifestos. The Tories have made it clear that there will be no FFA.

Yep, true - but what's your excuse for supporting such a stupid policy? A better brain than most?

And why is you and 60% of Scotland a good thing when they support such stupid policies?

Really?How do you work that out? According to you Scotland does not exist as a country - it's just a region & the debt is the responsibility of the UK. make your mind up Neil.

East Anglia exists too. So does Cornwall.

The confusion is yours alone.

I've never said 60% of 16/17 year olds voted yes - neither has anyone else on here unless i've missed it. The 60% I referred to was the % intending to vote SNP at next year's Holyrood election(don't knows excluded according to the TNS poll yesterday. It also had 49% (don't know's not excluded in favour of staying in the EU. I merely reported the 60% as an information service. I do not attach any great significance to it.

Thank you.

Snow White has said 60% of 16/17 year olds voted yes.

Is he lying yet again?

Answers on a postcard to Serial Liar, The Suicide Squad, SNP Headquarters, Scotlandshire.

(PS: you can't get pissed off with the Scotlandshire bit, as it's already been copyrighted as acceptable by the 45%)

[eFestivals]

Gary this is a fair point and it was what I was eluding to in the post around what Robertson is now looking for bearing in mind that what he/we wanted was Indy.

I'll just point out that these are both the same thing in regard to the self-funding Scotland that the SNP advocate.

They call it "suicide" if done within the union or out of it.

He stated that he now wants FFA but the Tories and Labour will not vote in support of this. I do not know for certain if he is right, what is your view on the Tories and Labour voting together to prevent FFA ?

Robertson is saying what you are saying ( I think - apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick ). I think he senses a Tory/Labour trap ie Scotland voted NO so the SNP cannot achieve their number one goal around Finance. Osbourne ( with Labour support ) then gives them the powers agreed by Smith and cuts the Barnett BUT without allowing them borrowing powers of their own ( as you described ).

I've no idea what Osborne is planning, but I think it's likely that borrowing will be allowed in any change.

from my own point of view it's a no-brainer to allow Scottish borrowing, as long as it's possible to ensure just Scotland is on the hook for the debts Scotland clocks up. Then you can marvel at how much more quickly Scotland is clocking up (proportionbal) debt than rUK (tho of course the English will be blamed for it ).

After all, what you borrow you have to pay back. You did get that, didn't you...? *YOU* have to pay back.

So spend away, and ensure even greater austerity than the SNP's current take of merely "suicide".

seems to be ensuring that the Tories, backed by Labour, intend to " punish " the SNP and the good folks of Scotland

Yes, they might "punish" Scotland by giving Scotland the policy it voted for. How very nasty of them.

the ability for Holyrood to borrow. This is the bit that Robertson wants and in my opinion needs. Without being able to raise capital to fill the gap left by the Barnett reduction

have you ever stopped to think what happens when you've reached your borrowing limit (no one nwill lend you more) and payment on the debts already taken becomes due?

Where's the money coming from to repay the debts? The magic money tree?

Or is via the amazing economic plan that Sturgeon has, that will create growth at a level never seen in a mature economy, that's super secret because no one in the SNP is saying how they'll do it.

(PS: Salmond did point at a few instances from the past of newly independent countries having record growth ... but in every case those newly independent countries had become indy via a major crisis is that crashed their economies, and the "record growth" didn't even get them back to where they were before)

some will say it could end in financial " suicide ".

with that "some" including SNP MPs.

If they think their own policies are shit, why do you think those policies are so great? Is it because of your better understanding of economics?

Would the Tories, backed by Labour, allow this to happen ?

The tories don't need to be backed by Labour for it to happen.

We knew with Independence that it would have been a long and difficult road ( Neil claims that we all thought we would be loaded - dripping in oil )

The white paper said nothing of a long and difficult road. It only promised glorious extra riches.

My, it's surprising how bad memories are in Scotland. You used to refute the idea that they'd be anything negative.

But in reality borrowing in ( atleast ) the short to medium term would have been required and we knew that.

I think the SNP are right to " demand " powers PLUS the ability to borrow. These are the levers we need to run our own economy. I think with 56 seats Scotland has given them the right to " demand " what they can.Borrowing from who and against what and whether they would get it is for another day

Scotland already has money borrowed on its behalf for investment purposes. The amount borrowed is the maximum that can be reasonably afforded (and it breaks EU rules to borrow more, and you do support the EU rules, don't you?), so quite why you think they'll be extra money to borrow I'm not quite sure.

Given the SG is already the spender of that borrowed investment money, why will indy give those investments a greater return?

PS: there's also about £8Bn p.a. borrowed for day-to-day spending too ... which will still have to be borrowed (but also paid back!) or taxes raised or spending cut.

Edited June 11, 2015 by eFestivals

[gary1979666]

Gary this is a fair point and it was what I was eluding to in the post around what Robertson is now looking for bearing in mind that what he/we wanted was Indy. He stated that he now wants FFA but the Tories and Labour will not vote in support of this. I do not know for certain if he is right, what is your view on the Tories and Labour voting together to prevent FFA ?

Robertson is saying what you are saying ( I think - apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick ). I think he senses a Tory/Labour trap ie Scotland voted NO so the SNP cannot achieve their number one goal around Finance. Osbourne ( with Labour support ) then gives them the powers agreed by Smith and cuts the Barnett BUT without allowing them borrowing powers of their own ( as you described ).

With Indy, Barnett gone but borrowing available as a Country independent of Westminster but... as we voted to remain better together, Barnett reduced but Scotland still cut off from being able to borrow.

The fact that we are daring to talk about austerity and increasing the minimum wage while we take a different path out of the mess we are all in seems to be ensuring that the Tories, backed by Labour, intend to " punish " the SNP and the good folks of Scotland while they are at it. This is just my view of course.....perhaps Dave etc are keen to see Scotland succeed

The SNP want tax raising powers, they want control over the minimum wage and control over some welfare benefits. The last bit is over complicated due to how far we are down the road of Universal Credit ( UK wide ). I think they may well get all of this BUT they also want the ability for Holyrood to borrow. This is the bit that Robertson wants and in my opinion needs. Without being able to raise capital to fill the gap left by the Barnett reduction we will get in exchange for a few powers, some will say it could end in financial " suicide ". Would the Tories, backed by Labour, allow this to happen ?

We knew with Independence that it would have been a long and difficult road ( Neil claims that we all thought we would be loaded - dripping in oil ) but in reality borrowing in ( atleast ) the short to medium term would have been required and we knew that.

I think the SNP are right to " demand " powers PLUS the ability to borrow. These are the levers we need to run our own economy. I think with 56 seats Scotland has given them the right to " demand " what they can.Borrowing from who and against what and whether they would get it is for another day

A few different points here - yes 56/59 seats is a big achievement and any party has the right to demand what they like.....however, they don't have the right to get it. Does Clacton have the right to leave the EU because UKIP won 100% of its seats? Nope. I know that's a bit facetious, but you're not indy, so still part of the UK and 56/650 is not even 10%, so not a large sway.

Don't get me wrong, can completely see your side of it, but ultimately, you're saying that you want the deficit increasing in one part of the UK, with any risk effectively still on the UK. Say it all does go wrong and you have proportionally huge debts, what happens next? Presumably SNP will lose a few ole seats next time round, but the UK govt will end up picking up the tab and rUK being slightly disgruntled at having seen our northern neighbours run off with the credit card, enjoy the spoils and come back with its tail between its legs.

I know that's a bit negative and if it does happen, I genuinely wish it the best, but just can't honestly seeing it delivering what you envisage That's not just being mean, it looks like you're just kicking your deficit into the long grass and not really dealing with it. Without the Barnet top up - which is effectively rUK (well London and the SE) giving you extra - you'll need some borrowing to plug it, but it's not a long term solution, you need to either cut or tax - but doesn't look like you're keen to do either.

When you get Indy, fill your boots, but while it's on our credit card (whole of the UK's), then I would want to see a proper plan.

[gary1979666]

Gary this is a fair point and it was what I was eluding to in the post around what Robertson is now looking for bearing in mind that what he/we wanted was Indy. He stated that he now wants FFA but the Tories and Labour will not vote in support of this. I do not know for certain if he is right, what is your view on the Tories and Labour voting together to prevent FFA ?

Robertson is saying what you are saying ( I think - apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick ). I think he senses a Tory/Labour trap ie Scotland voted NO so the SNP cannot achieve their number one goal around Finance. Osbourne ( with Labour support ) then gives them the powers agreed by Smith and cuts the Barnett BUT without allowing them borrowing powers of their own ( as you described ).

With Indy, Barnett gone but borrowing available as a Country independent of Westminster but... as we voted to remain better together, Barnett reduced but Scotland still cut off from being able to borrow.

The fact that we are daring to talk about austerity and increasing the minimum wage while we take a different path out of the mess we are all in seems to be ensuring that the Tories, backed by Labour, intend to " punish " the SNP and the good folks of Scotland while they are at it. This is just my view of course.....perhaps Dave etc are keen to see Scotland succeed

The SNP want tax raising powers, they want control over the minimum wage and control over some welfare benefits. The last bit is over complicated due to how far we are down the road of Universal Credit ( UK wide ). I think they may well get all of this BUT they also want the ability for Holyrood to borrow. This is the bit that Robertson wants and in my opinion needs. Without being able to raise capital to fill the gap left by the Barnett reduction we will get in exchange for a few powers, some will say it could end in financial " suicide ". Would the Tories, backed by Labour, allow this to happen ?

We knew with Independence that it would have been a long and difficult road ( Neil claims that we all thought we would be loaded - dripping in oil ) but in reality borrowing in ( atleast ) the short to medium term would have been required and we knew that.

I think the SNP are right to " demand " powers PLUS the ability to borrow. These are the levers we need to run our own economy. I think with 56 seats Scotland has given them the right to " demand " what they can.Borrowing from who and against what and whether they would get it is for another day

Oh and a small niggle - please could you leave a line between para's - can be really tricky to read without them

[LJS]

Scale isn't the only difference there. The number of victims, the type of victims, and the position which was abused. All of these things are also important for distinguishing which case of fraud is more harmful.

In terms of MP expenses, scale is one of only two potential differences, the other one being between claiming for something that wasn't legitimate, and putting a false claim in (eg. a faked receipt).

Correct, so using only one of these as Neil did (which by sheer coincidence was the one that showed the SNP in the worst light) is somewhere between dodgy & deceitful.

[LJS]

No, I think all fraudsters are fraudsters.

FFS.

Yup so do I

& I think all burglars are burglars but it doesn't mean some aren't worse than others. FFS²

[LJS]

Good Golly Miss Molly , SNP push for FFA

John Swinney defends SNP's full fiscal autonomy amendment to Scotland Bill

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33092159

Oh & 60% of 16/17 year old voted yes is confirmed as a lie...

A survey, commissioned by Conservative peer Lord Ashcroft, said 71% of 16 to 17-year-olds voted for Scotland to be independent and 29% voted against.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/29279384/scottish-referendum-how-first-vote-went-for-1617-year-olds

In fact these figures are flawed as they are based on only 14 people!!!

I can find no other polls that quote a figure for 16/17 year olds but there may be - you again just assume Alex is lying - you don't have "facts" to prove otherwise. I suggest you get on google to justify your slander on the Mighty Eck.

Edited June 11, 2015 by LJS

[Comfy Bean]

I know that's a bit negative and if it does happen, I genuinely wish it the best, but just can't honestly seeing it delivering what you envisage That's not just being mean, it looks like you're just kicking your deficit into the long grass and not really dealing with it. Without the Barnet top up - which is effectively rUK (well London and the SE) giving you extra - you'll need some borrowing to plug it, but it's not a long term solution, you need to either cut or tax - but doesn't look like you're keen to do either.

Fair enough sir. We seem to agree that we need the ability to borrow and as I said the other day, against what and who from and at what rate is clearly very important to all concerned. I take your point on the long solution involving cuts and tax....cuts we already have of course and have had now for a while BUT.... There is also the possibility that the SNP taking a different approach to the Tories on how we run our economy and country might be successful. Neil mentioned before that it has worked elsewhere but for sure there is no guarantee. Some of these countries Neil referred to would have been in a right mess at the outset, perhaps maybe even handcuffed to their share of £1.5 trillz worth of debt which is never an easy place to start.

The BBC quoted the IFS only yesterday so there is no need to believe me.....

The IFS says that if Scotland controlled its own tax and spending it would lose cash transfers from the rest of the UK. Autonomy could allow Scotland to pursue better policies which would generate growth. But the institute notes that "the consequences of the short run arithmetic are not easily avoided."

In other news I watched Dugdale yesterday as she was given an outstanding opportunity to cement her chances of being next Labour Leader up here in Holyrood ( NS still promoting the role of our First Minister in the US ). She used the time and coverage to fall back on the BT position of banging on about the oil price

Nothing new on what a Labour party led by her could bring to the people of Scotland. Nothing. Just a report she had commissioned that she waved about a bit telling us all we are doomed. I expect Sir Ian will be rolled out over the weekend. Next week I predict Dugdale will use her moment in the limelight to remind pensioners that they could lose their state pension if they vote SNP.

As she stood up and spoke you could almost hear a collective sigh as the SNP lead nudged up another point or 2.

What will it take for Labour to wake up and move on. 56 seats and now at 60% for goodness sake. Doing nothing but attacking NS and the SNP is not the future.

Edited June 12, 2015 by comfortablynumb1910

[Comfy Bean]

Oh and a small niggle - please could you leave a line between para's - can be really tricky to read without them

Fair point well made - noted

I did read it back however and it was not that " tricky " for me to read...............perhaps Neil was right about our respective education systems

[eFestivals]

Autonomy could allow Scotland to pursue better policies which would generate growth.

without the growth that is generated being defined, it's a meaningless line. Even tory austerity has created growth.

What Scotland would need to create is growth levels never seen in a mature economy (except within economies bouncing back from a catastrophic crash, which is not where Scotland is), because without that exceptional - never happened - growth, Scotland would be significantly poorer compared to its position now where its prosperity is propped up by rUK cash.

The UK is around maxed-out on its borrowings, because of the levels of associated debt repayments. An iScotland would start life with identical proportional debt - as made 100% clear in that Treasury statement that snippers only ever quote half of.

There is a bit of leeway to borrow a bit more, but that leeway will be eaten up in the next few years until the deficit has gone.

With Scotland having a MUCH bigger deficit - not because its economy has been neglected but because of its natural higher costs of delivering services of the same level - it has much less leeway (the ability to borrow into the future) than UK has now and rUK would have post-Scottish-indie.

Scotland will need those borrowings for day-to-day spending. There is fuck all there to be borrowed for investment, to grow its economy at any exceptional levels even if the SNP had a plan for how they intend to do that, which they don't.

It's all very well dreaming of a wonderful future, but without any plan to make it happen - and no one has one, because there isn't one - it's just empty hot air.

[eFestivals]

In other news I watched Dugdale yesterday as she was given an outstanding opportunity to cement her chances of being next Labour Leader up here in Holyrood ( NS still promoting the role of our First Minister in the US ). She used the time and coverage to fall back on the BT position of banging on about the oil price

and you think that's a sad thing why, exactly?

Do you think the oil price has no relevance to what the SNP plan for you?

Do you think the SNP plans for Scotland guarantee nirvana? Why? On what basis, other than foolish big hopes with no facts to match?

Edited June 12, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Nothing new on what a Labour party led by her could bring to the people of Scotland. Nothing.

They'll bring you solvency and not bankruptcy.

They'll maintain your public services at a decent level, rather than see them cut to shreds (to the equivalent of nearly your entire SNHS gone!).

They'll maintain your public services at a decent level, without need for stupidly high taxes which will crash Scotland's economy by causing many (the richers ones) to head south.

But none of this counts for anything to you ... not until you're going thru the suffering that the SNP will cause Scotland, when you'll suddenly wake up to the fact that not even exceptional Scotland can buck the markets.

[eFestivals]

There is no mileage in Labour being as financially incompetent as the SNP. If Labour do that, they die at the same time the SNP get found out.

[Comfy Bean]

and you think that's a sad thing why, exactly?

Do you think the oil price has no relevance to what the SNP plan for you?

I think she had the opportunity to lay out her plans for Labour and make a few statements about what would be important to her and Scotland under her leadership ( if she gets that opportunity ). She chose instead to " attack " the SNP and raise the issue ( yet again ) about oil. I am quite sure we all agree that there is more to Scotland than oil.

Hint : the people of Scotland are very much aware of the oil price. Probably more so now than at any point I can remember as we heard alot about it during the Indy campaignyet......support for the SNP continues to rise and is at record levels.

In my view Labour need to realise that it is time to talk about what THEY would do. If Dugdale can`t come up with anything then I hope that someone else gets the chance. She could have started yesterday. My point was she had nothing away from the oil price.

You talk in your last post about Labour dying. You do realise they now have 1 ( one ) seat up here and the SNP chose Tynecastle for their recent big policy launch around the living wage. Their " machine " never misses a trick and the 1 still saw a big drop in Labours majority.

[Comfy Bean]

There is no mileage in Labour being as financially incompetent as the SNP. If Labour do that, they die at the same time the SNP get found out.

Labours financial competence is an interesting point but maybe better discussed in the GE thread ? They only have 1 seat up here now as you know and are not looking good for our elections next year ( according to the polls ).

You may or may not be right of course about the SNP financial competence. Lets get the powers and the borrowing transferred up the road and let NS show us what she`s got. Until then it`s all about opinions

As I posted earlier, many people including the IFS think it " could " work, just as many people are convinced it won`t and would rather stick with Osbourne and the Tories. You know my thoughts.