The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

Tell you what Neil, let's just wait & see. I am on record as saying the SNP needs to go into the next referendum with a credible plan for Scotland's future. I am confident that I can rely on you to point out if they fail to do so.

Meanwhile, the inexorable drift to independence continues...

As your own words show, its drifting lost at sea until there is that plan.

As your so certain there will be that plan, why isn't there a plan already?

And why will the next plan be better than last September's crock of shite?

Just as with last time you'll claim all fair comment are lies or scaremongering.

[eFestivals]

I have rarely read such nonsense...even from you.

LJS, were my criticisms of last September's plan well placed or wrongly placed?

Do bear in mind that if you say my criticisms were wrongly placed that would you be saying the plan was good enough for Indy Scotland to be a great success ... And surely even you aren't that daft?

[LJS]

LJS, were my criticisms of last September's plan well placed or wrongly placed?

Do bear in mind that if you say my criticisms were wrongly placed that would you be saying the plan was good enough for Indy Scotland to be a great success ... And surely even you aren't that daft?

A bit of an over simplification there, Neil. Not like you.

You would be surprised how many were voting for the principle of Independence rather than every word in the white paper.

I may have mentioned this a thousand times is ad I during the campaign but it was too complex a concept for you then, just as it clearly is now.

A dog is for life, not just for Xmas.

[Comfy Bean]

Are we forgetting that labour could one day govern an Independent Scotland.

Perhaps they will produce their plan in the event. We can then take a look at it and vote for it, or not, accordingly.

Step one....should Scotland be an independent country.The majority who have participated in these latest polls think yes.

It's when not if.

[Comfy Bean]

So good points above, though I'm amazed the Snippers are bringing up the trainsets and defence again.  It's been covered many times here that these were excluded from the GERS numbers.

................

 

Gary I`m almost agreeing with you hear...until that last wee bit about the GERS numbers.

I am boring myself now and apologies for bringing this up ( again ) 

 

I think this time round it was my fault. BUT....if you read what I actually said, I was attempting to highlight that Neil continuously brings up the £15bill he believes Scotland will lose in each and every year after the YES vote. I`ve asked him specifically about this exact figure being annual and he maintains in his usual style that this will be the case. He is amazed that anyone would disagree when he knows the exact amount to the penny and in a way you`ve got to admire him for that. maybe not in a good way...but you know what I mean.

 

Now....yesterday I tried to introduce the concept that there could be " some " savings from going Independent. As a discussion point I raised Nukes, Lords, Wars, trains. again, feel free to check back to what I actually said.

 

Neil managed to divert the convo away from any potential savings ( as you and I know there will be " some " ) by bringing up what is and isn`t in the GERS.

This was NOT the point I was making. I was quite clearly talking about potential saving to the iScotland tax payer. I also gave my view that it will all take many years to negotiate and that of course there will also be many losses to our income stream which will for sure be much different ( eventually ).

 

So...while I apologies for boring us all by bringing up " potential " savings, I think you have been the victim of a cute slight of hand which led you to respond on the GERS numbers. There was no need to be " amazed " at the GERS being discussed. It wasn`t 

In this particular case I was not referring to what was or wasn`t in the GERS but thats what you ended up commenting on.

 

As I`ve said, feel free to read it back. Pretty clever in a way as the any " potential " savings discussion has been buried in another GERS " argument ".

[Comfy Bean]

GERS excludes expenditure that is not relevant to Scotland. Where there are national infrastructure projects, it uses calculations of benefit to Scotland and attributes that percentage of the expenditure to Scotland. Local projects in other regions are completely excluded. 

 

The last GERS assumed that the benefit of HS2 would be at 2% of the total expenditure of HS2 that year, which was worth approximately 6.8m. For other rail expenditure, it counts only rail projects that take place in Scotland, so projects like Crossrail don't apear at all in GERS. 

 

I realise Stash that you`ve got GERS mentioned 3 times here but as has been said, we`ve had plenty GERS chat in this thread as you know.

 

Is it your view that as well as the resulting costs from leaving rUK ( Don`t believe the hype...I haven`t read one post from the YES side on here where anyone says that there will not be costs ) but in your view will there also be " some " savings ?

 

As an example of potential saving to an indy scotland tax payer I`m offering up current contributions to London infrastructure projects like rail and sewerage, Lords, defence, westminster and the odd war. Of course revenues / tax will also remain here ( eventually ) and not be sent down the road for some Barnett tweaks etc

 

So can there be savings ??

 

Or are we saying that Neil is bang on. £15billion down the stank each and every year for ever and ever. No chance for anything different, fairer etc. It`s the Tories or were doomed.

 

Fortunately, at this moment, the polls show Scotland wants something different......even with the oil price down the stank  as Russy likes to mention   

Edited September 9, 2015 by comfortablynumb1910

[russycarps]

Forgive my poor memory, but weren't there polls indicating the raving nationalists would win last year, just before the crushing and comprehensive defeat was announced?

[eFestivals]

A bit of an over simplification there, Neil. Not like you.

You would be surprised how many were voting for the principle of Independence rather than every word in the white paper.

I may have mentioned this a thousand times is ad I during the campaign but it was too complex a concept for you then, just as it clearly is now.

A dog is for life, not just for Xmas.

I asked a question about economic competence; you've swerved it.

I wonder why? Lol

[eFestivals]

Are we forgetting that labour could one day govern an Independent Scotland.

Perhaps they will produce their plan in the event. We can then take a look at it and vote for it, or not, accordingly.

Step one....should Scotland be an independent country.The majority who have participated in these latest polls think yes.

It's when not if.

Step two: should an Indy Scotland be poor and have to make massive cuts?

How do people answer that one comfy?

Yes, there's you and LJS who reckon money will be magicked from the air to save you, but luckily most people realise all politicians are liars. It's just you who are a bit slow.

It's not if they'll be massive spending cuts. It's not even when (that's Indy day). It's guaranteed.

[Stash]

I realise Stash that you`ve got GERS mentioned 3 times here but as has been said, we`ve had plenty GERS chat in this thread as you know.

 

Is it your view that as well as the resulting costs from leaving rUK ( Don`t believe the hype...I haven`t read one post from the YES side on here where anyone says that there will not be costs ) but in your view will there also be " some " savings ?

 

As an example of potential saving to an indy scotland tax payer I`m offering up current contributions to London infrastructure projects like rail and sewerage, Lords, defence, westminster and the odd war. Of course revenues / tax will also remain here ( eventually ) and not be sent down the road for some Barnett tweaks etc

 

So can there be savings ??

 

Or are we saying that Neil is bang on. £15billion down the stank each and every year for ever and ever. No chance for anything different, fairer etc. It`s the Tories or were doomed.

 

Fortunately, at this moment, the polls show Scotland wants something different......even with the oil price down the stank  as Russy likes to mention   

 

 

Well for all the discussion on GERS, you clearly still don't have a clue what it means, or worse you wilfully misconstrue it.

 

Scotland currently runs a deficit higher than the rest of the UK. It's finances are topped up by the rest of the UK. Should Scotland decide to secede from the union, that top up magically vanishes and Scotland will have to deal with the immediate consequences of that deficit, be it 10, 15 or 20bn. That will certainly involve cuts to service and increased taxation, at a much larger scale than is seen today under the "hated" tories. 

 

No amount of pithy sentiment about London train sets and sewers (which aren't line items in current Scottish accounts anyway!) changes the stark realities of that deficit. 

 

However in your cry of "savings" you still forget all of the other issues that were covered in detail last September that will actually be new costs not "savings", namely the flight of the banks, the loss of UK civil service jobs, the plummeting oil price, leaving the EU and the need to create new institutions such as a central bank. 

 

The SNP didn't have a credible plan on any of those things last year and by all signs, people like yourself still fail to understand or acknowledge any of those issues. Someone posted a head in the sand image a few days ago - it is so apt!

[eFestivals]

I think this time round it was my fault. BUT....if you read what I actually said, I was attempting to highlight that Neil continuously brings up the £15bill he believes Scotland will lose in each and every year after the YES vote. I`ve asked him specifically about this exact figure being annual and he maintains in his usual style that this will be the case. He is amazed that anyone would disagree when he knows the exact amount to the penny and in a way you`ve got to admire him for that. maybe not in a good way...but you know what I mean.

Oh look, a snipper resorting to bullshit because they can't face the truth. That's never happened before.

 

Yes, it wil be annual for every year until there's a fix for it (no one has the first idea of what the fix is).

 

And i've said many time it might not be £15Bn. It might be as little as £10Bn. The exact amount doesn't matter, the fact it can't be afforded does.

 

 

 

Now....yesterday I tried to introduce the concept that there could be " some " savings from going Independent. As a discussion point I raised Nukes, Lords, Wars, trains. again, feel free to check back to what I actually said.

and there's also many many extra costs.

There's all of the independent infrastructure (or a rental fee to rUK or another to use theirs).

There's the loss of a big number of UK civil service jobs (that won't be made up by a new SCS)

There's the loss of military contracts.

There's the loss of billions per year spent in Scotland on....? Nukes.

 

Etc, etc, etc.

It's impossible to tot these up with any accuracy, just as it's impossible to tot-up the poential savings acurately. A sensible man might keep his fingers crossed and hope these things don't cost Scotland more (tho it's unlikely). A daft man would claim salvation in them.

 

Neil managed to divert the convo away from any potential savings ( as you and I know there will be " some " ) by bringing up what is and isn`t in the GERS.

This was NOT the point I was making. I was quite clearly talking about potential saving to the iScotland tax payer. I also gave my view that it will all take many years to negotiate and that of course there will also be many losses to our income stream which will for sure be much different ( eventually ).

 

So...while I apologies for boring us all by bringing up " potential " savings, I think you have been the victim of a cute slight of hand which led you to respond on the GERS numbers. There was no need to be " amazed " at the GERS being discussed. It wasn`t 

In this particular case I was not referring to what was or wasn`t in the GERS but thats what you ended up commenting on.

 

As I`ve said, feel free to read it back. Pretty clever in a way as the any " potential " savings discussion has been buried in another GERS " argument ".

Oh FFS.

Scotland's deficit as detailed in GERS is massive ... but that deficit doesn't include the cost of 'train sets'.

If you want to call 'train sets' a saving, then you first have to include the costs by making the deficit bigger, and then deduct the savings. And that means? The deficit hasn't moved a jot. It gives zero improvement in iScotland's financial position. It actually gets to mean to those deficit numbers that there is NO saving whatsoever from 'train sets'.

And then there's all the other factors - also not in GERS - which add to an iScotland's costs, such as a greater % on welfare* than the UK average.

(* I believe this is factually correct as it's something I've often read, but if not my apologies. If it's not correct it's still illustrative of hidden extra costs because of GERS limitations).

 

How about the cost of all those 'orrible English who will visit for free Uni? Oh, I forgot, the EU will abandon its free movement principle on Scotland's say-so so that Scotland can operate a racist policy.

And all of that is before we get to the part where rUK internalises it's economy, so Scotland looses a chunk of its export market, its jobs, its vibrancy.

 

But never mind, eh, here comes the snipper's cry: "we'll find new markets" Hurray! Scotland is saved. It's just a shame that Scottish businessmen are so incompetent they're shitting money down the drain by not selling to those markets right now. As soon as there's a winning indie vote those businessmen lose all trace of tory-ness and the SNP will be issuing extra brains because the people have mandated it.

Edited September 10, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

As an example of potential saving to an indy scotland tax payer I`m offering up current contributions to London infrastructure projects

it is no saving unless you're also admitting that Scotland is more fucked than GERS says.

FFS.

 

So can there be savings ??

There will be savings. There will also be extra costs - big costs!

It's one hell of a gamble of you to believe these work in your favour enough to make Scotland solvent. You don't even understand what GERS actually means.

and you're the man who used to say "the oil price doesn't matter as it's not march 2016 yet".

 

Or are we saying that Neil is bang on. £15billion down the stank each and every year for ever and ever. No chance for anything different, fairer etc. It`s the Tories or were doomed.

you can work for an evil boss or you can work for a fair boss, but if they each pay the same it matters not a fuck to your financial wealth.

Savings, comfy. Savings is what you need, not empty-headed bollocks.

It is £15Bn each and every year, until one or more of these happens:-

1. the Scottish economy grows by 20%+ over and above the UK economy. No mature economy has ever made a leap like this.

2. taxes rise hugely.

3. spending is cut hugely.

You rule out 2 & 3 - the actually-possible things, and instead go for the never-happened impossible.

Because that's how super-special - exceptionalism - Scots and Scotland are.

If there's not a racist "Scots and Scotland are better than anyone else" going on, it gets to mean the attempted growth is already happening and already failing.

Fortunately, at this moment, the polls show Scotland wants something different......even with the oil price down the stank  as Russy likes to mention

Not true.

They're not voting themselves poorer by votring yes in an opinion poll.

They will be voting themselves poorer by voting yes in a real indyref.

Edited September 10, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Well for all the discussion on GERS, you clearly still don't have a clue what it means, or worse you wilfully misconstrue it.

It's laughable, isn't it?

There's snippers insisting they know Scotland's economy will work a never-happened-before miracle, and they can't even grasp basic budgets.

[russycarps]

Well for all the discussion on GERS, you clearly still don't have a clue what it means, or worse you wilfully misconstrue it.

 

Scotland currently runs a deficit higher than the rest of the UK. It's finances are topped up by the rest of the UK. Should Scotland decide to secede from the union, that top up magically vanishes and Scotland will have to deal with the immediate consequences of that deficit, be it 10, 15 or 20bn. That will certainly involve cuts to service and increased taxation, at a much larger scale than is seen today under the "hated" tories. 

 

No amount of pithy sentiment about London train sets and sewers (which aren't line items in current Scottish accounts anyway!) changes the stark realities of that deficit. 

 

However in your cry of "savings" you still forget all of the other issues that were covered in detail last September that will actually be new costs not "savings", namely the flight of the banks, the loss of UK civil service jobs, the plummeting oil price, leaving the EU and the need to create new institutions such as a central bank. 

 

The SNP didn't have a credible plan on any of those things last year and by all signs, people like yourself still fail to understand or acknowledge any of those issues. Someone posted a head in the sand image a few days ago - it is so apt!

 

 

 

pfffff this sounds like bluff and bluster to me!

 

 

 

Oh look, a snipper resorting to bullshit because they can't face the truth. That's never happened before.

 

Yes, it wil be annual for every year until there's a fix for it (no one has the first idea of what the fix is).

 

And i've said many time it might not be £15Bn. It might be as little as £10Bn. The exact amount doesn't matter, the fact it can't be afforded does.

 

 

 

and there's also many many extra costs.

There's all of the independent infrastructure (or a rental fee to rUK or another to use theirs).

There's the loss of a big number of UK civil service jobs (that won't be made up by a new SCS)

There's the loss of military contracts.

There's the loss of billions per year spent in Scotland on....? Nukes.

 

Etc, etc, etc.

It's impossible to tot these up with any accuracy, just as it's impossible to tot-up the poential savings acurately. A sensible man might keep his fingers crossed and hope these things don't cost Scotland more (tho it's unlikely). A daft man would claim salvation in them.

 

Oh FFS.

Scotland's deficit as detailed in GERS is massive ... but that deficit doesn't include the cost of 'train sets'.

If you want to call 'train sets' a saving, then you first have to include the costs by making the deficit bigger, and then deduct the savings. And that means? The deficit hasn't moved a jot. It gives zero improvement in iScotland's financial position. It actually gets to mean to those deficit numbers that there is NO saving whatsoever from 'train sets'.

And then there's all the other factors - also not in GERS - which add to an iScotland's costs, such as a greater % on welfare* than the UK average.

(* I believe this is factually correct as it's something I've often read, but if not my apologies. If it's not correct it's still illustrative of hidden extra costs because of GERS limitations).

 

How about the cost of all those 'orrible English who will visit for free Uni? Oh, I forgot, the EU will abandon its free movement principle on Scotland's say-so so that Scotland can operate a racist policy.

And all of that is before we get to the part where rUK internalises it's economy, so Scotland looses a chunk of its export market, its jobs, its vibrancy.

 

But never mind, eh, here comes the snipper's cry: "we'll find new markets" Hurray! Scotland is saved. It's just a shame that Scottish businessmen are so incompetent they're shitting money down the drain by not selling to those markets right now. As soon as there's a winning indie vote those businessmen lose all trace of tory-ness and the SNP will be issuing extra brains because the people have mandated it.

 

 

so does this!

 

[russycarps]

But speaking of oil prices, I know comfy is obsessed by what the oil price will be in 2016. Well I heard some very interesting oil price predictions from a reputable source yesterday:

 

$56bbl end of 2015, $57bbl end of 2016, $63bbl end of 2017 and $70bbl by end of 2018.

 

Utterly terrifying for scotland.

 

If other oil news, let's have another read of this article, and marvel at the outrageous lies peddled by the snp. And if the raving nationalists claim they arent lies, then they are surely proof of the snps utter incompetence.

 

******warning torygraph link*********

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11481354/SNP-referendum-oil-figures-13-times-higher-than-reality.html

[eFestivals]

there was some other oil stuff I read yesterday, about how UK oil jobs and investment are falling by around 15% a year with no signs of slowing, while the oil is being pumped ever faster where possible as the owners try to stay solvent - as the only way to service their investment borrowings is via oil extraction even if at a low price.

 

And the only answer the SNP have is to ask George to reduce the income from Scottish oil further still via tax cuts.

 

What was it that SNP MP said about how a self-funding Scotland would be suicide?

 

Why is he wrong and every mad obsessed snipper right?

[gary1979666]

Gary I`m almost agreeing with you hear...until that last wee bit about the GERS numbers.

I am boring myself now and apologies for bringing this up ( again ) 

 

I think this time round it was my fault. BUT....if you read what I actually said, I was attempting to highlight that Neil continuously brings up the £15bill he believes Scotland will lose in each and every year after the YES vote. I`ve asked him specifically about this exact figure being annual and he maintains in his usual style that this will be the case. He is amazed that anyone would disagree when he knows the exact amount to the penny and in a way you`ve got to admire him for that. maybe not in a good way...but you know what I mean.

 

Now....yesterday I tried to introduce the concept that there could be " some " savings from going Independent. As a discussion point I raised Nukes, Lords, Wars, trains. again, feel free to check back to what I actually said.

 

Neil managed to divert the convo away from any potential savings ( as you and I know there will be " some " ) by bringing up what is and isn`t in the GERS.

This was NOT the point I was making. I was quite clearly talking about potential saving to the iScotland tax payer. I also gave my view that it will all take many years to negotiate and that of course there will also be many losses to our income stream which will for sure be much different ( eventually ).

 

So...while I apologies for boring us all by bringing up " potential " savings, I think you have been the victim of a cute slight of hand which led you to respond on the GERS numbers. There was no need to be " amazed " at the GERS being discussed. It wasn`t 

In this particular case I was not referring to what was or wasn`t in the GERS but thats what you ended up commenting on.

 

As I`ve said, feel free to read it back. Pretty clever in a way as the any " potential " savings discussion has been buried in another GERS " argument ".

 

Hi Comfy, I'm going to try to reply to this without being patronising, I really am, but it's going to be difficult, as I think you may have misunderstood a few basics.  If you read something as patronising here, please stop and think that I'm trying to help and doing my best not to mentions G**S.

 

So think of the UK as the Crystal Dome (they really should bring that back - with O'Brian, not Tudor Pole) - with lots of gold and silver tokens - the gold are tax revenues and the silver are costs. OK read that back, it is patronising, sorry, but I'll push on.  Some of the silver ones are defence, lords, trainsets, NHS, schools, etc, etc.  At the moment there are a fair few more silver than gold ones.  As the UK, if we get rid of some of the silver ones - defence, lords, trainsets - then the UK's score improves and savings are made.

 

Now there's a Scottish member of the team he want's to go it on his own (damn team captain keeps playing too many mystery games, can't blame him!)  And they have to split the tokens.  There are many ways to do this - he could take a % share, an arbitrary amount or divy it up for the bits he uses, to name but a few.  

 

There's still a big negative score, as the London team member has a lot more gold than silver.  If the Scot still has some tokens for defence, trainsets, etc, then yes he can make those savings.  But if when they are split out he doesn't have them and the other team mates (ex-team mates) have them, then the cost isn't his to save (e.g. I don't pay my neighbour's electricity cost, but that doesn;t mean that it's a saving for me).    Given he still has a lot more silver than gold, that means he needs to save other things instead or find more gold tokens.  I'm not saying there aren't other savings to be made from that share, but I would doubt there is anything chunky enough to make a difference without touching some of the prettier silver tokens.

 

The key is how you split the tokens.  One unmentionable way would mean Scotland doesn't have the trainset tokens.  That seems a fair way, as you have rightly said, you get minimum benefit from it.

[Comfy Bean]

Cheers Gary. Good stuff and nothing I disagree with :-)

We all know that some of the money that heads South will stay north with indy. That was the only point I was trying to make. My hunch is that you agree. I of course accept that a lot of gold tokens will stop heading north from the south after a period of negotiation. I've never said otherwise.

I also accept that a percentage of our massive debt will also head north but not sure what colour of tokens they will be :-)

I've said many times that we should take our share of the trillion debt with us. Obviously this will all form part of the negotiations I've mentioned. Will

I don't agree with the £15 billion that Neil continually predicts for this unknown year in an unknown world that lies probably at least a decade into the future but it seems plenty agree he's spot on with that so I will just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

I have a fair understanding of gers but we have done that do death and I wasn't intending our discussion to go down that road again.

[eFestivals]

We all know that some of the money that heads South will stay north with indy.

and we all know that none of the massive money that flows north from Westminster - guaranteed!! - will go north with indy.

And we all know that some of the money that heads north will stay south with indy.

Less money will flow into Scotland with indie. What is produced in Scotland stays the same with indy (unless there's some sort of super-special Scottish exceptionalism, which causes just-Scots to run a better economy than normal humans do ... do you think this racist angle is the right one, comfy?).

 

I don't agree with the £15 billion that Neil continually predicts for this unknown year in an unknown world that lies probably at least a decade into the future but it seems plenty agree he's spot on with that so I will just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

Whatever the *EXTRA* deficit number is (about £8Bn and rising according to GERS), it's more than any financial plan can deal with.

 

And i'm wetting myself that it's now a decade in the future. You keep telling me that you can win a ref now, so why the delay?

 

"For Scotland to accept fiscal autonomy without inbuilt UK-wide fiscal balancing would be tantamount to economic suicide. -  George Kerevan, SNP MP, May 9th 2015

What do you know that this SNP MP doesn't know, comfy?

 

I have a fair understanding of gers

 

you very clearly don't, else you'd not mention 'train sets' and the like as reducing the Scottish deficit.

Edited September 10, 2015 by eFestivals

[gary1979666]

Cheers Gary. Good stuff and nothing I disagree with :-)

 

 

Good - we could have had a serious falling out if you'd suggested that Tudor Pole was the better presenter!  

 

We all know that some of the money that heads South will stay north with indy. That was the only point I was trying to make. My hunch is that you agree. I of course accept that a lot of gold tokens will stop heading north from the south after a period of negotiation. I've never said otherwise.

I also accept that a percentage of our massive debt will also head north but not sure what colour of tokens they will be :-)

I've said many times that we should take our share of the trillion debt with us. Obviously this will all form part of the negotiations I've mentioned. Will

I don't agree with the £15 billion that Neil continually predicts for this unknown year in an unknown world that lies probably at least a decade into the future but it seems plenty agree he's spot on with that so I will just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

I have a fair understanding of gers but we have done that do death and I wasn't intending our discussion to go down that road again.

 

I agree that a lot of the revenue generated in Scotland will stay there, but some will go south as a result of Indy too - as rUK will be seen as a safer bet (as it's what the businesses know vs the unknown.)  There will be a lot of cost staying north too.  More than the amount of revenue.  How much more - I don't know.  Is £15bn unreasonable - probably not.  I would think it'll be double figures - was quoted at £8bn last year and that was before the oil price crash, which would make it worse.  And these are figures that don't take into account the trainsets, etc.

 

I think the frustrations are that the GERS are the best (educated) guess that we have to go on at the moment and they are quite pro-Scotland, yet you have been very quick to dismiss it.  Or to cloud issues by bringing in the trainsets.  It boils down to right now Scotland spends a lot more than it earns (as most parts of the UK do).  Some things would be phased across in a move to Indy, but I imagine any Barnett subsidy would stop from day 1 and the deficit (whatever it end up as) would move over - so some difficult decisions would be needed.

[eFestivals]

It boils down to right now Scotland spends a lot more than it earns (as most parts of the UK do). 

 

This is factually true, yet you're giving him a straw to grasp at - which comfy often grasps at.

 

While all of the UK runs a deficit, the deficit in Scotland is significantly bigger - not because Scotland's economy performs worse than the UK average (put those victimisation ideas to bed!), but - because Scotland's public spending is significantly greater than the UK average.

 

The fact that both run a deficit is meaningless.

 

In relation to Scottish indy it is specifically the huge deficit in Scotland that is important - and way beyond what what is manageable or fixable without massive tax increases or massive spending cuts or a mix of both.

 

And then add in all of the costs of becoming indy, the fact of no history when borrowing, and the need of a new currency and its reserves, and it's a crock of shite. To think there wouldn't have to be massive pain - far worse than the tories give - is fantasy.

[LJS]

Will you?

You refused to consider any of it last time. Warnings about a volatile oil price was bluster, banks heading south was lies.

 

Poppycock, old bean, we discussed it at length for months.  You confuse "failure to discuss" with "failure to agree with you"  - they are different things. 

You continue with an unshakable blind faith in the SNP having a new perfect plan when not a soul has a clue, and based wholely in the idea that Scots can do what no others can.

 

I have no blind faith  - I have said they need to come up with a credible plan before they call for a second Indyref. My feeling is that Sturgeon knows this too but that is way short of "unshakeable blind faith" (is that not a female blues singer anyway?)

You addressing it will be you mindlessly repeating 'yes we can' right up until you realise you can't

 

Me addressing it will be me addressing it... when there is an independence proposal on the table. 

[LJS]

So Neil's been getting all excited about a couple of stories which show how despicable the SNP are: Cronygate where they conspired to gift money to Tin the Park & Nicola's undisclosed "meeting" with Rupert Murdoch.

 

Nos if these stories have anything in them at all, you would Kez, Ruth & wee Wullie woudl have been all over then at First minister's questions today . 

 

They weren't.

 

Not a word.

 

now there is one thing you can be 100% certain of with politicians: if they see an opportunity to attack their opponents, they will pursue it ruthlessly.

 

That fact that these 3 didn't, just underlines that Neil is, yet again, trying to smear the SNP with rumour & innuendo.

 

To their credit they actually asked about important issues - like housing & stuff. Not playground tittle tattle. But then maybe they've been cowed by the hate mobs that make us Scots scared to to oppose the mighty SNP!

[Stash]

 

 

 

I'm sure your idea of discussion, no matter the length, differ somewhat. 

 

A quick look through the 139 posts on this thread where you use the word oil, starting in April 2014 up until today, there seems to be a general trend. 

 

• Firstly whenever anyone mentioned oil, you banged on about Mcrone.
• Then, you moved onto Maggie
• Then you taked about governments lying about oil reserves a bit, and apparantly as Westminster might have lied, then it's OK if Alec told a few porkies too
• Then you covered oil funds at some length, including Norway & Shetland
• Then you moved back onto Maggie again
• Side-stepped neatly back into blaming Westminster (whilst claiming not to be reading from the WoS playbook)
• Then when the price started to drop you starting laughing about how you couldn't win with oil, couldn't win without it
• Then you started to ignore the topic altogether, as it was no longer relevant given there is no looming referendum.

 

The funny think is, I couldn't actually see you discussing with any detail the actual topic of oil, prices, ownership, reserves. The deepest you got was to say that as you don't expect to get rich off independence, the oil price doesn't matter. 

 

It seems that your debating style consists of fingers in ears. shouting blah blah blah whilst copying and pasting sound-bites from the web. 

Edited September 10, 2015 by Stash

[eFestivals]

I have no blind faith - I have said they need to come up with a credible plan before they call for a second Indyref.

They didn't need a credible plan to get your whole-hearted support last September.

So not blind faith, and just awful judgement?

Edited September 10, 2015 by eFestivals