The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

Believe it or not I'm capable of independent thought & Canada was all my own idea. The points you made are interesting but do not avoid the fact that you got it wrong when you said "There's no developed country in the world so dependent on one other state for its export market"

Canada is a big and diverse economy, tho, and Canada/USA are moving towards greater integration rather than trying to grow apart.

Also, within Europe there's no similar export dependence, which if nothing else leaves an iScotland exceedingly vulnerable to decisions made in ....? Westminster.

And that would, of course, be a Westminster which had no interest in doing good things for Scotland - just what you've been dreaming of.

 

 

https://www.credit-suisse.com/uk/en/news-and-expertise/news/economy/global-trends.article.html/article/pwp/news-and-expertise/2014/07/en/the-success-of-small-countries.html

Your evidence is in iScotland's favour is two long-established Euro states both with fantastic neo-liberal credentials, and a bunch of oil-dependencies who are quickly dropping in the deepest shit?

Might you want to reconsider that?

And those are averages, based on the hard work of citizens in those countries. Nothing is guaranteed for an iScotland future, and certainly not via the magic of merely voting 'yes'.

And you did finish that piece to the bottom, didn't you? Where it says "many of the factors that have contributed to the success of the Alpine or Nordic countries are not transferrable, especially to newer small states".

 

As., previously mentioned, check the question asked in that poll.

Oh, so if the question is changed the people of Scotland would suddenly all want to pay greater taxes?

It's bollocks and you know it.

Every poll gets to prove - no matter what the question - that people want wonderful things and believe it's for others to pay for.

That doesn't work for an iScotland that has just disconnected itself from the 'others' it thinks should pay for its largesse.

 

Ah, Neil, what an onerous responsibility it must be, being the Keeper of the True Facts.

In Neil's world all his views are fact & all opponents views as nonsense.

Let's have some LJS facts then.

Where's the extra £15Bn p.a income for iScotland coming from?

 

Not in equal measure.

True, not everywhere has resources in equal measure, but everywhere has enough resources to make itself renewable energy self-dependent is any place so wishes to do that.

 

Of course it is - we're still in the UK in case you hadn't noticed. That's the way it works - you contribute towards our renewables - we contribute towards your new Nuclear Power Station & Train sets for London.

Yep, that's how it's meant to work as an average. Do you now accept it's done that and which means Scotland hasn't been stitched up by nasty England? If so, don't mention it to your nipper friends.

Meanwhile, in the here and now, the money traffic is just one way and at a huge amount, and iScotland will miss that hugely, and it can't be made up with hopes.

 

Even is Scotland is just self sufficient in energy & doesn't export a drop , this is likely to be a benefit to it.

If Scotland is self-dependent on renewable energy that would be a great thing, no doubt about it.

But would you be able to live with the fact that only England made it possible?

Meanwhile, that would stop it being the money spinner you said there could be little doubt about. Seems like you accept there's reasonable doubts.

Edited August 11, 2015 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

Hey Neil. So this grant you were speaking about earlier that " happened via an introduction by a very senior snp activist "....was this same snp activist involved in all the other grants t in the park got from the Scottish govt over the years?

Serious question as I've no idea. I am thinking that if....previous grants were made down the years then introductions and the mechanisms for such grants must already have been in place.

I suspect that Scottish govt and Scotlands biggest festival will have had very close links for many many reasons for decades. Perhaps even before any snp govt?

I suspect that you will be criticising the snp soon enough for not doing enough to save t :-)

I also suspect that the snp and t in the park are not your favourite things. That doesn't mean there is a story here but obviously I don't know for sure. I know you will do your best to make it one :-)

[Comfy Bean]

Come to think of it, does Wickerman not receive financial support from the local council ( Dumfries) and also the Scottish govt?

[eFestivals]

Hey Neil. So this grant you were speaking about earlier that " happened via an introduction by a very senior snp activist "....was this same snp activist involved in all the other grants t in the park got from the Scottish govt over the years?

Serious question as I've no idea. I am thinking that if....previous grants were made down the years then introductions and the mechanisms for such grants must already have been in place.

I only know what's been published.

 

From what's been published it appears to be the case that this year's grant was done via a different method to any previous ones, as the "very senior SNP activist"* appears to have only been employed by T this year and not any previous years.

 

(* an ex-special advisor to Alex Salmond, and the partner of Angus Robertson MP [the SNP's Westminster leader], and an SNP MSP candidate - she really *IS* a "very senior SNP activist"; not everyone has immediate access to SNP SG ministers)

 

So previous grants might have been legitimately made (tho they might not have been either, who knows?), and this year's grant might not have.

 

 

I suspect that Scottish govt and Scotlands biggest festival will have had very close links for many many reasons for decades. Perhaps even before any snp govt?

That's quite possible, but it's merely your speculation at the mo fro what I know.

 

Whatever the relationship might have been previously, that doesn't alter anything about the facts of the most recent grant.

 

I suspect that you will be criticising the snp soon enough for not doing enough to save t :-)

I also suspect that the snp and t in the park are not your favourite things. That doesn't mean there is a story here but obviously I don't know for sure. I know you will do your best to make it one :-)

 

My feelings towards T has fuck all to do with my comments about this possible cronyism.

 

YOUR feelings towards the SNP are driving YOUR responses to these allegations more than it is mine. FFS

 

We both know we'd both be on this if the story was about Tory croniyism, but as it's about (alleged) SNP cronyism your response is to give them a free pass rather than c0nsider whether something untoward might have happened.

 

I've merely repeated the the allegations of possible cronyism that have been published in the Scottish press, where there's very definitely a strong suggestion that proper procedures and channels haven't been used, even if the awarding of the grant itself ends up as being reasonable.

 

If this was a tory doing you'd say it should be looked at and explained. I'm saying this should be looked at and explained.

 

Hot air about T in the Park having created economic activity is not a satisfactory explanation ... unless there's free taxpayer's money in Scotland for anyone that's created economic activity?

 

Edited August 12, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Come to think of it, does Wickerman not receive financial support from the local council ( Dumfries) and also the Scottish govt?

 

I've acknowledged in most of my posts about this that many festivals benefit from govt money in one way or another.

 

You're trying to use this fact as a squirrel to hide the SNP behind ... because if this was about tories you wouldn't be saying the same things.

 

What other festivals might have got in grants is fuck all to do with whether this particular grant to T in the Park was legitimate.

 

FFS, put away your bias and consider things on  fair and equal basis. Consider it in the same way as you would a tory doing ... or are the SNP so magical that we know corrruption is impossible?

 

(except we know with certainty it's not, as instances have already been uncovered)

Edited August 12, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Let's have some LJS facts then.

Where's the extra £15Bn p.a income for iScotland coming from?

[LJS]

 

 

taken to quoting yourself now?

 

How much extra Scotland needs per year is a purely hypothetical question as there is no Indy ref on the horizon once there is & we have a proposed date for Indy, I'll be happy to discuss the exact amount iScotland looks like it will be better or worse off. Until then, you are well aware of why I support Indy & why I believe Scotland would be better off in the long term on its own so you'll just have to make do with that.  I know you disagree but hey, I can live with that.

[eFestivals]

taken to quoting yourself now?

 

How much extra Scotland needs per year is a purely hypothetical question as there is no Indy ref on the horizon once there is & we have a proposed date for Indy, I'll be happy to discuss the exact amount iScotland looks like it will be better or worse off. Until then, you are well aware of why I support Indy & why I believe Scotland would be better off in the long term on its own so you'll just have to make do with that.  I know you disagree but hey, I can live with that.

 

So you say "Scotland will be better off" but you admit you've not got the faintest idea how it would be ... and that the SNP have no idea either.

 

Meanwhile, I keep on giving you facts about why it won't be, and you can't address them.

 

All you have on your side are some very firmly crossed fingers and a big bucket of misplaced hope.

 

And a truckload of bullshit.

Edited August 12, 2015 by eFestivals

[russycarps]

So you say "Scotland will be better off" but you admit you've not got the faintest idea how it would be ... and that the SNP have no idea either.

 

Meanwhile, I keep on giving you facts about why it won't be, and you can't address them.

 

All you have on your side are some very firmly crossed fingers and a big bucket of misplaced hope.

 

And a truckload of bullshit.

 

 

 

he also has a nice little nest egg insulating him and his family from the pain that the majority of scots will feel in the event of independence.

 

It's easy to follow your dreams when you protected from when they turn into nightmares.

[eFestivals]

It's easy to follow your dreams when you protected from when they turn into nightmares.

 

To be fair to the SNP, they're far more wised up than their biggest fans.

 

There's a reason why the SNP's Scotland Bill amendments for FFA were worded in a way that ensured they'd be rejected.

 

Just as there's a reason why they're not allowing discussions about another indyref at their conference.

 

The SNP know the game is up, for the moment at least.

[LJS]

he also has a nice little nest egg insulating him and his family from the pain that the majority of scots will feel in the event of independence.

It's easy to follow your dreams when you protected from when they turn into nightmares.

I really don't know where you get this idea that I have a "nest egg" I don't own property & I have no savings to speak of. I don't even own a car!

Add to that, according to you guys my job was at risk if we voted "yes"

I do have a brother who lives in England, I suppose I could always flee to him when Scotland falls apart.

Edited August 12, 2015 by LJS

[eFestivals]

I do have a brother who lives in England, I suppose I could always flee to him when Scotland falls apart.

 

Yep, that's what you'll have to do if nasty old England doesn't bail out a bankrupt iScotland - which we all know is what iScotland would prefer, which is why the SNP want rUK to be iScotland's financial guarantor.

 

If it's Scotland's sovereign will, how could we refuse? If Greece can vote itself other people's money, iScotland can too. Oh, hang on...

[russycarps]

I really don't know where you get this idea that I have a "nest egg" I don't own property & I have no savings to speak of. I don't even own a car!

Add to that, according to you guys my job was at risk if we voted "yes"

I do have a brother who lives in England, I suppose I could always flee to him when Scotland falls apart.

 

 

 

You admitted it pages/months ago! I made of note of it in my notepad.

[LJS]

You admitted it pages/months ago! I made of note of it in my notepad.

Bollocks.

[Comfy Bean]

Come to think of it, does Wickerman not receive financial support from the local council ( Dumfries) and also the Scottish govt?

 

 

 

We both know we'd both be on this if the story was about Tory croniyism, but as it's about (alleged) SNP cronyism your response is to give them a free pass rather than c0nsider whether something untoward might have happened.

 

If this was a tory doing you'd say it should be looked at and explained. I'm saying this should be looked at and explained.

 

 

 

Neil, I`m not sure you actually read my original post on T in the Park because I didn`t give any part of the story a " free pass ". I just wanted to highlight that this had possibly happened before ( more than once ). I thought it was relevant.

 

Anywayz, in your excitement at being able to have a pop at the SNP and T in the one post you have totally missed my point on Wickerman.

 

In response to it you are saying that if it was the Tories involved then you would be all over it when in fact I was highlighting the example of Wickerman receiving funding. I was trying to highlight that it was not just the SNP who have given grants to music type events but it`s all about the SNP for you. No-one else can put a foot wrong 

 

For the record, I`m happy for some of my taxes to go on music and the arts. I remember posting a long while ago in this thread that I also had no issue with my tax going on the London Olympics as I believe that sport for our kids fits in with the overall Scottish Govt Health agenda. This does not make me a West Ham supporter though 

 

I should probably point out ( although it`s obvious ) that there are no doubt better ways for the tax coin to be spent than on T in the Park. I didn`t go this year for the first time in a while and I think it has reached a natural end. Perhaps the possibility of it being cancelled ( for good ) influenced this last minute ( and perhaps final ) payment.

 

Do you reckon that there have been various payouts over the years then ? 

Edited August 12, 2015 by comfortablynumb1910

[eFestivals]

Was the wickerman grant got via privileged contact outside of normal process?

It's not the fact of a grant that is necessarily suspicious, but how that grant was obtained.

Ffs, either you've understood nothing of what the allegations are about or you've surpassed your previous highs of free-pass-isms.

[eFestivals]

P's ... Fast money for t from the anti-austeritists, much less action towards the supposed motivations of helping the poor.

[Comfy Bean]

I have tried to highlight why I think the Wickerman and T money plus all the other money that will have been paid out to events like these may have been going on for a long time and not be unique to SNP cronyism as you put it.

I have also suggested why I think this T in the Park story has got you excited when in fact many payments " may " have been made over the years to T but.........you really want to make a big deal over this and I suspect anyone who can read will know why 

I have also stated that there are better ways for our taxes to be spent but that in the grand scheme of things I`m in favour of Government supporting music sport arts etc.

I sense you realise that there was in fact nothing wrong or unusual about this latest grant but your wagons are circled.

Imagine NS or smug boy had a hand in the Olympic Stadium West Ham deal. It would be like all your Christmas`s at once 

As it happens you are left chasing your tail with this possible T non-story over a relatively small amount ( compared to what happened with the big stadium )

 

Do you think this money kept T " alive " and perhaps for one last time days before the punters were due to arrive ? Would be interested in your view on this 

Aside from the rights or wrongs of money going to music festivals.

[Comfy Bean]

P's ... Fast money for t from the anti-austeritists, much less action towards the supposed motivations of helping the poor.

 

I agree that " the poor " are more deserving of tax payers money than T in the Park. Surely we all agree with that. You are trying ( very hard ) to make more of this. As I said the other day, if the Scottish Govt had not stepped in then you would have been straight on here bemoaning the fact that they had " killed " Scotlands premier music event....an event that you had attended and loved more than any other 

 

A bit like the fox hunting vote. Whichever way the SNP went you would have been there waiting with your mock outrage 

[LJS]

Was the wickerman grant got via privileged contact outside of normal process?

It's not the fact of a grant that is necessarily suspicious, but how that grant was obtained.

Ffs, either you've understood nothing of what the allegations are about or you've surpassed your previous highs of free-pass-isms.

 

When you come up with one of your usual SNP scare stories - I tend to judge the newsworthiness of it by the BBC's coverage. I'm pretty sure if there is any substance to any of these stories the BBC will run with it. They did  report the inital "concerns" about the grant on the 29th July. These concerns were about the fact that £150k had been lobbed to T, & at that stage there was no suggestion  of cronyism. They have not, as far as I can see, revisited the story: clearly they do not think the story worth reporting which suggests to me that there is no substance to it. 

 

Oh, and when they did report it, it didn't even make the Scotland Politics page on their website, it was filed under "Tayside & Central Scotland" not even judged to be of "National" interest.

 

if it makes you feel any better, if anyone can produce evidence of wrong doing, I shall be happy to condemn the SNP, I just don't get as excited as you do about gossip & tittle-tattle.

Edited August 12, 2015 by LJS

[eFestivals]

I have tried to highlight why I think the Wickerman and T money plus all the other money that will have been paid out to events like these may have been going on for a long time and not be unique to SNP cronyism as you put it.

I have also suggested why I think this T in the Park story has got you excited when in fact many payments " may " have been made over the years to T but.........you really want to make a big deal over this and I suspect anyone who can read will know why

I have also stated that there are better ways for our taxes to be spent but that in the grand scheme of things I`m in favour of Government supporting music sport arts etc.

I sense you realise that there was in fact nothing wrong or unusual about this latest grant but your wagons are circled.

Imagine NS or smug boy had a hand in the Olympic Stadium West Ham deal. It would be like all your Christmas`s at once

As it happens you are left chasing your tail with this possible T non-story over a relatively small amount ( compared to what happened with the big stadium )

Do you think this money kept T " alive " and perhaps for one last time days before the punters were due to arrive ? Would be interested in your view on this

Aside from the rights or wrongs of money going to music festivals.

I want the granting and spending of public money to be properly justified and explained, as it should be.

There should be no free passes given just because of nationalism-love, or tory-love, or left-love. There is no good govt to be had without accountability.

There is no explanation being given for this grant via not-normal channels.

There are clear grounds for suspicion of cronyism.

But hey, they're Scottish, the decision was made in Scotland by Scots so everything must be all right. All Scots are beyond corruption.

Ffs, moron. Lol

[eFestivals]

When you come up with one of your usual SNP scare stories - I tend to judge the newsworthiness of it by the BBC's coverage. I'm pretty sure if there is any substance to any of these stories the BBC will run with it. They did report the inital "concerns" about the grant on the 29th July. These concerns were about the fact that £150k had been lobbed to T, & at that stage there was no suggestion of cronyism. They have not, as far as I can see, revisited the story: clearly they do not think the story worth reporting which suggests to me that there is no substance to it.

Oh, and when they did report it, it didn't even make the Scotland Politics page on their website, it was filed under "Tayside & Central Scotland" not even judged to be of "National" interest.

if it makes you feel any better, if anyone can produce evidence of wrong doing, I shall be happy to condemn the SNP, I just don't get as excited as you do about gossip & tittle-tattle.

The BBC are now the snp-approved sole purveyors of truth?

Stand back and listen to yourself, ffs. Your fellow snippers would have you strung up as a traitor to the cause. Lol

It has been revealed the grant WAS made thru crony-type channels. An admitted fact by the SNP.

If crony-type channels are used by Tories that must be always OK with you.

[eFestivals]

Ps. The SNP are the ones with the evidence.

They haven't yet given any evidence of either wrongdoings or rightdoings.

I'm saying they should do, given the admitted not-normal circumstances around the grant.

You say they shouldn't until after theyved already been convicted on the evidence you say they don't have to provide.

Which one of our views does not work as joined up thinking?

Edited August 13, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

And you get very excited about tittle-tattle if its labour or the Tories on the hook.

It's just the SNP who you give a free pass, guaranteed every time.

[eFestivals]

So, along with the suspicions of cronyism, there's also non-disclosure about interests.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13593387.Former_Salmond_adviser_faces_fresh_claims_over_T_in_the_Park_role/

 

Not the world's biggest crime I agree, but it's also contrary to established practice.

 

And all at the expense of less money to pay for the 'nice' things that anti-austerity-ists think shouldn't be cut.... but suddenly corporate welfare is a great thing for Scotland to be doing.