The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

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

So not blind faith, and just awful judgement?

"they" didn't get my whole-hearted support.

Independence for Scotland got my support.

There is a difference which you have wilfully ignored from the start.

A dog is for life, not just for Xmas.

[eFestivals]

"they" didn't get my whole-hearted support.

Independence for Scotland got my support.

There is a difference which you have wilfully ignored from the start.

A dog is for life, not just for Xmas.

Independence got your whole-hearted support despite there being no credible plan and so no way to deliver any of the benefits you dreamed of.

So yeah, awful judgement.

How much of a fuck up would the offer have to be for you to reject it?

I suspect there is nothing would have you reject it.

Which means it not a reasoned decision. Faith!

Edited September 10, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Independence got your whole-hearted support despite there being no credible plan and so no way to deliver any of the benefits you dreamed of.

So yeah, awful judgement.

How much of a fuck up would the offer have to be for you to reject it?

I suspect there is nothing would have you reject it.

Which means it not a reasoned decision. Faith!

I'm not quite sure how simple I need to make this before you understand.

My "yes" vote was not a yes to the white paper. In fact, we were not asked about the white paper on the ballot paper. We were asked if Scotland should be an independent country.

The white paper was one party's predominantly short term view of what that future would look like. It was not the reason I voted yes.I explained at great length why I was voting yes. I don't regret my vote.

I didn't vote yes for short term gain. Unlike you, I don't make my decisions on the basis of some sort of short term profit & loss calculation.

What is it they say about knowing the cost of everything & the value of nothing?

A dog is for life, not just for Xmas

Edited September 10, 2015 by LJS

[LJS]

 

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. 

 

 

Wow, have you been taking lessons from Neil? Or are you Neil's alter ego - Dr Neil & Mr Stash?

 

So to support the argument that I never discussed oil, you found 139 posts where I ...discussed oil. or to be more specific specifically mentioned oil. it's probably safe to say there were a fair few others where the actual word "oil" wasn't used. 

 

Now I appreciate that you may not have agreed with what I said (and I have no issue with that - I mean we are grown up enough on here to accept that others hold different views... aren't we?) but to cite 139 posts of  mine discussing oil to support Neil's assertion that ...

 

You refused to consider any of it last time

 

 

.. is a wee bit bizarre, don't you think?

[Stash]

Wow, have you been taking lessons from Neil? Or are you Neil's alter ego - Dr Neil & Mr Stash?

 

So to support the argument that I never discussed oil, you found 139 posts where I ...discussed oil. or to be more specific specifically mentioned oil. it's probably safe to say there were a fair few others where the actual word "oil" wasn't used. 

 

Now I appreciate that you may not have agreed with what I said (and I have no issue with that - I mean we are grown up enough on here to accept that others hold different views... aren't we?) but to cite 139 posts of  mine discussing oil to support Neil's assertion that ...

 

 

.. is a wee bit bizarre, don't you think?

 

Swerving again. Did you get lessons on it or does it come naturally. 

[LJS]

Swerving again. Did you get lessons on it or does it come naturally.

What? swerving by discussing 139 times?

What exactly have I swerved, that you would Like me to address?

[Comfy Bean]

What? swerving by discussing 139 times?

What exactly have I swerved, that you would Like me to address?

 

Stash is entitled to his view but I very much doubt anyone on either side will agree with it. I remember not that long ago posting on here that I could imagine you and Neil discussing the rights and wrongs of an Independent Scotland over a pint. You both show great knowledge and passion on the subject and I`ve enjoyed the discussion on here 99% of the time. Of course passions have ran high but it`s a discussion forum on the internet 

 

Everything has been covered, sometimes more than once  with nothing " swerved " that I`ve seen. Plenty of disagreements but no-one has swerved or ducked anything - easy to do - log off.

 

With Neils love of any story that shows the SNP or Indy in a bad light then this is not the place to come if you don`t want a debate. Long may it continue.

 

Oh and I went with 99% of the time as I was a bit pissed off when that fella came on and was shouted down within a day and said he wished he`d never bothered. In fairness I remember Russy apologised for that but anyway....just think of the fun we will have when Scotland becomes an Independent Country 

[Comfy Bean]

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

 

 

If only we didn`t have the burden of this oil 

[LJS]

Stash is entitled to his view but I very much doubt anyone on either side will agree with it. I remember not that long ago posting on here that I could imagine you and Neil discussing the rights and wrongs of an Independent Scotland over a pint. You both show great knowledge and passion on the subject and I`ve enjoyed the discussion on here 99% of the time. Of course passions have ran high but it`s a discussion forum on the internet

Everything has been covered, sometimes more than once with nothing " swerved " that I`ve seen. Plenty of disagreements but no-one has swerved or ducked anything - easy to do - log off.

With Neils love of any story that shows the SNP or Indy in a bad light then this is not the place to come if you don`t want a debate. Long may it continue.

Oh and I went with 99% of the time as I was a bit pissed off when that fella came on and was shouted down within a day and said he wished he`d never bothered. In fairness I remember Russy apologised for that but anyway....just think of the fun we will have when Scotland becomes an Independent Country

Comfy, I hereby nominate you for the Nobel peace prize.

[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. 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

So....we agree then...give or take 

 

Are you suggesting then that in an independent Scotland an SNP or Labour Govt ( in the short to medium term I think it`s fair to discount a Tory Govt ) which will be more left leaning than what we have at the moment, will bring us policies and a level of inefficiency that could see us in debt to the tune of a trillion quid ?

 

Gosh  can you imagine what that would be like 

[Comfy Bean]

 

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?

 

 

 

I don`t keep " telling " you anything. I highlighted the results of a couple of polls on Indy on this thread.....on Indy.

 

As you know, What I`ve said is that we have just had a referendum. Why would we have another one tomorrow. More than once I have posted that my best guess is that the Tories will win the next GE and by that time ( 5 years ) it may be right to start thinking about a date ( I know it`s a tad more complicated than that ). With lead in time and then negotiations to follow that will last years I am comfortable with my post mentioning 10 years.

 

I`m also comfortable with my " when not if " prediction and I cite the momentum building slowly over the last decade.

 

Others disagree of course. I have also expressed the view that a fair amount of Labour supporters voted " No " in the hope / belief that Milliband would be the next PM. I reckon these folks Indy vote is more in the balance now and only a 5% swing is required remember. 

 

I think that we all agree that a minimum 60/40 YES win would be the best thing .......I mean rather than a smaller margin.

[russycarps]

Can we all also agree that in the event of independence scotland would have to enter into a period of massive austerity, then reform the public sector from top to bottom?

[eFestivals]

I'm not quite sure how simple I need to make this before you understand.

My "yes" vote was not a yes to the white paper. In fact, we were not asked about the white paper on the ballot paper. We were asked if Scotland should be an independent country.

The white paper was one party's predominantly short term view of what that future would look like. It was not the reason I voted yes.I explained at great length why I was voting yes. I don't regret my vote.

I didn't vote yes for short term gain. Unlike you, I don't make my decisions on the basis of some sort of short term profit & loss calculation.

What is it they say about knowing the cost of everything & the value of nothing?

A dog is for life, not just for Xmas

Thank you for making clear that you'll vote for indy no matter the circumstances or plan. It's at least a step forwards for clarity.

All we need to do now is weed out why you think the very best efforts of Scottish politicians can only create a crap plan*  while you continue to believe that long term everything will be wonderful.

 

(* and if their best efforts right now are crap, why will their best efforts for the long term not be crap?)

 

Is there evidence for that long-future-wonderfulness, or is there only blind faith giving you that view?

 

> What is it they say about knowing the cost of everything & the value of nothing?

 

as opposed to knowing nothing about the costs of anything and therefore being unable to measure values?

 

Why do you think the poor you patronise by talking about their suffering from your lofty position will cheer you making their plight worse?

[eFestivals]

If only we didn`t have the burden of this oil 

it's called the burden of bullshit.

You carry it well, comfy.

I can't wait till March, when I can drag out all of the times you said "it's not March 2016 yet".

[eFestivals]

Everything has been covered, sometimes more than once  with nothing " swerved " that I`ve seen.

So in March 2016 you *WILL* discuss just what a lucky escape you've had?

That I want to see.

Edited September 11, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

So....we agree then...give or take 

on the 'new savings' and 'extra costs'? Yep I'm happy to view those as about balancing out (even tho it's more likely to be extra costs for iScotland, from the independent analysis done of it).

Which leaves the £10Bn (GERS 2014) and growing annual deficit of Scotland to deal with, where you can no longer say it will be covered by 'new savings'.

 

So, what the plan?

 

Are you suggesting then that in an independent Scotland an SNP or Labour Govt ( in the short to medium term I think it`s fair to discount a Tory Govt ) which will be more left leaning than what we have at the moment, will bring us policies and a level of inefficiency that could see us in debt to the tune of a trillion quid ?

 

Gosh  can you imagine what that would be like 

Scotland's debts are already *exactly* equal to the whole-UK's debts on a proportional basis. So you're already at that trillion quid mark, if you like.

And your answer to "the UK has run up unacceptably high debts" for Scotland?

You advocate Scotland running far FAR higher debts.

It's fruitcakeland. (Or Dundee, if you like )

The problem is there's fuck all leeway.

 

If Scotland went indy today, do you know how much it could borrow before its debts are considered unsustainable?

(which means "Scotland is bankrupt" just in case you're not getting it)

There is a total of £40Bn extra that Scotland could borrow.

 

From that £40Bn, the costs of going indy would have to be subtracted, plus the needed reserves for a new currency. but lets ignore those, just because you won't understand them and you'll try claiming all sorts of different things for them.

 

Let's ignore all of the idiot ideas of "borrowing to expand the economy" - because there's just no leeway there to borrow to do so.

 

Let's just stick to the deficit itself. And let's ignore that the deficit is growing and not shrinking.

 

If Scotland went indy in March 2016, by March 2020 Scotland is bankrupt, fucked, totally and utterly.

 

FOUR YEARS of your ideas of indy would destroy Scotland. That's all.

 

FOUR YEARS.

 

(and yes, I have done the maths on that £40bn, the detail is available if you're daft enough to question it. The £40Bn is a generous figure, not a conservative one).

Edited September 11, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I don`t keep " telling " you anything. I highlighted the results of a couple of polls on Indy on this thread.....on Indy.

so are those people saying they'll vote indy tomorrow, or in ten years time when you say everything will be rosy enough to financially support your dreams?

(the answer is in the poll question, just in case it passed you by ).

So yes, you are trying to 'tell' me you can win a ref now.

I'm simply pointing out that a real ref would have real counter-arguments to the dreams that drive the poll answers, instead of those dreams being unchallenged.

 

As you know, What I`ve said is that we have just had a referendum. Why would we have another one tomorrow.

if it can be won, why wouldn''t you?  

Getting indy is everything that those 53% want, but you're saying - you, the indy supporter - that they can't have it? PMSL.

 

With lead in time and then negotiations to follow that will last years I am comfortable with my post mentioning 10 years.

why will the negotiations last years? Salmond said it could all be done and dusted in 18 months.

Are you calling Alex a liar?

Are you saying you followed an idiot's dream last Sept?

PMSL.

 

I`m also comfortable with my " when not if " prediction and I cite the momentum building slowly over the last decade.

The same was said in Quebec. How did that work out?

 

At some point reality hits home. You can take that reality-hit after you've slashed your own throat or before.

I suspect the Scottish population are smarter than you give them credit for.

 

Others disagree of course. I have also expressed the view that a fair amount of Labour supporters voted " No " in the hope / belief that Milliband would be the next PM. I reckon these folks Indy vote is more in the balance now and only a 5% swing is required remember.

if people in Scotland are voting for parties and not indy when voting for indy, there's a MUCH bigger problem in Scotland than anyone has been thinking, and those reports of Scotland being highly educated are hugely wrong.

 

I think that we all agree that a minimum 60/40 YES win would be the best thing .......I mean rather than a smaller margin.

You didn't agree back in September. Few on your side did. It was all about that single extra vote.

I'm pleased to see you've wised up about just how destructive what you used to support was.

Edited September 11, 2015 by eFestivals

[Stash]

 

Everything has been covered, sometimes more than once  with nothing " swerved " that I`ve seen. 

 

 

Keep telling yourself that. In reality this is how your debating style really seems:

 

 

[LJS]

Can we all also agree that in the event of independence scotland would have to enter into a period of massive austerity, then reform the public sector from top to bottom?

 

No.

[LJS]

Thank you for making clear that you'll vote for indy no matter the circumstances or plan. It's at least a step forwards for clarity.

 

Except I haven't made that clear or said anything like that.

All we need to do now is weed out why you think the very best efforts of Scottish politicians can only create a crap plan*  while you continue to believe that long term everything will be wonderful.

 

(* and if their best efforts right now are crap, why will their best efforts for the long term not be crap?)

 

I didn't say it was a "crap" plan. Westminster politicians have been making & implementing crap plans for most of my life.

 

Is there evidence for that long-future-wonderfulness, or is there only blind faith giving you that view?

 

I don't believe I have ever claimed future wonderfulness is on its way. I have explained at length why I believe the future for Scotland is likely to be better under Independence but as this doesn't agree with your view, you don't count these contributions.

 

> What is it they say about knowing the cost of everything & the value of nothing?

 

as opposed to knowing nothing about the costs of anything and therefore being unable to measure values?

 

Why do you think the poor you patronise by talking about their suffering from your lofty position will cheer you making their plight worse?

 

What lofty position is that. Are you falling for Russy's claim that I am a man of private means?

[russycarps]

No.

 

 

How do you pay for the current level of spending year-on-year then, on top of the additional one-off costs involved with creating a new country?

[LJS]

 

 

 

How do you pay for the current level of spending year-on-year then, on top of the additional one-off costs involved with creating a new country?

no idea because I don't know what the current level of spenf=ding will be if & when we next have an indy ref. 

Edited September 11, 2015 by LJS

[eFestivals]

No.

So what's the plan to sort out Scotland's deficit in less than four years, LJS?

Because if it's not sorted in less than 4 years, Scotland is Greece.

You know, that country which you said had been treated harshly by pissing other people's money up the wall without a care until it bankrupted itself.

Do you think other countries will be happy to pay Scotland's bills, endlessly, until some exceptional Scot comes up with a financial plan unequalled in the modern world?

FFS.

I do hope you find my pisstake patriotic enough for you.

[eFestivals]

Except I haven't made that clear or said anything like that.

You've said endless stuff like that.

But come on then, be clear.

 

If iScotland is not going to be bankrupt in just 4 years, what's the plan?

 

I didn't say it was a "crap" plan. Westminster politicians have been making & implementing crap plans for most of my life.

except Westminster has never got close to bankrupting the country.

Your plan is to bankrupt your country, unless you have a new different plan you want to tell me about...?

 

I don't believe I have ever claimed future wonderfulness is on its way. I have explained at length why I believe the future for Scotland is likely to be better under Independence but as this doesn't agree with your view, you don't count these contributions.

 

Better how?

If your version of "better" is the far-poorer you keep on advocating (unless you have a plan you want to tell me about?) then please ensure you make that explicitly clear to all who you want to support you.

 

What lofty position is that. Are you falling for Russy's claim that I am a man of private means?

You obviously feel able to take the big financial hit of indy on your lifestyle, else you wouldn't be advocating making yourself poorer.

 

That's not the case for those you say are already finding life impossible under the tories. They have no financial slack in their lives with which to pay for your dream.

 

So you either need to tell me the plan which ensures they don't suffer, or you need to face up to *YOU* being a bigger c**t towards them than any tory will ever be.

 

 

[eFestivals]

no idea because I don't know what the current level of spenf=ding will be if & when we next have an indy ref. 

 

But it won't be lower spending, will it? Unless you're advocating more-than-tory-austerity?

 

You already claim spending is lower than is acceptable by demanding more spending.