The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

You continually say Scots are greedy and it`s all about me me me .

Nope, I've never said anything like that.

I've said that the basis for indy is one of greed and self-interest above fair interest.

But don't let that stop you making it up. If you stop making it up you're left with nothing at all.

[Comfy Bean]

10 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I said more than what you quote, which gives it a completely different meaning to the meaning you sday it has.

Perhaps such a poor understanding of the English language is why you have such difficulty understanding simple ideas?

#1 - Never make a spelling mistake when highlighting poor understanding of English.

I think we have established what you denied saying and the facts of where Labour stand in Scotland.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

You know I reckon that it`s not about greed for the vast majority of people who think Scotland could / should be independent and make it`s own path. Your last sentence caught my eye

" why do you claim iScotland will be a financial success at current spending rates when there`s no basis to think so "

You are either dafter than I think you are or you will say anything in your attempts to pour scorn on the possibility that Scotland could manage fine without the union.

Indy Scotland can`t be a "financial  success" with " Current spending "

What in 10/15 years time ???

You need to think that through a bit !

It's people like you who keep on proving it IS about greed, by your refusal to accept what the best available evidence says.

If it's not about greed, why do you insist that Scotland will remain as wealthy as now when nothing says it will? It's because you can only convince others of how indy will be worthwhile via lies.

You continually turn the facts - as even said by the Scottish govt via GERS (and demonstrated by the SNP running scared of FFA) - into your pathetic "too wee too poor too stupid" thing that's never once been said by anyone on the unionist side.

How many times do I have to say it? Scotland will manage fine as indie, but it will be poorer.

A year ago it was all about "the oil price will be over $100 by March 2016". Now that you've realised that simply not going to happen, you've changed things to be "what about in 10/15 years time". It's laughable.

Yes, I'm sure an iScotland would grow it's economy (but also it's spending) over the next 10 or 15 years. But so will everyone else, leaving Scotland in much the same place. If there was a magic growth that outperformed others, everyone would already be  doing it ... or do you think only decisions taken in Scotland can be that clever?

I've thought it though. More than that and unlike you, I've actually thought rather than mixed hopes and fantasies into perfection.

[eFestivals]

17 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I think we have established what you denied saying and the facts of where Labour stand in Scotland.

PMSL

You very deliberately use just half a quote to twist what I said, and then claim to have established your myth.

Also see: the UK govt has said the debt is not Scotland's.

(other things too, so many I can't be bothered).

Meanwhile you continue to denigrate Labour more than you do the tories.

Edited November 17, 2015 by eFestivals

[gary1979666]

31 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

 

Indy Scotland can`t be a "financial  success" with " Current spending "

What in 10/15 years time ???

You need to think that through a bit !

Sorry for just jumping in here, I wanted to respond to this bit of the debate.  I guess your point is that there's no link between what is currently spent and the realities of 2025-30.  I think you need to think that through a bit.

If you look at the make-up of the current deficit - i.e. income and spending.  What is going to change for these over the next few years?  Granted this doesn't take into account any one-off events, like WW3 or a financial crisis or a discovery of gold deep in the Cairngorms, etc.

Income - let's be optimistic and say it won't change.  We don't know what'll happen with oil, so to be prudent we say it'll stay flat.  Other incomes, again could go either way - arguements for up and down.  I'll leave my biased view to one side on this one.

Expenses - well with an anti austerity gov't, I can't see it going down.  Also there's the gap where the English are topping you up, so more to spend to make that up.  Then there's the aging population to deal with - more health costs.  Same with a fatter population.  Pension costs, SNHS costs are going to head upwards. (That's true for both sides of the border).

Please don't come back with the usual response about Trident and trainsets - they don't get included in Scotland's current figures.

 

[Comfy Bean]

 

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

Woops. Can`t work quoting thingy !

Edited November 17, 2015 by comfortablynumb1910

[Comfy Bean]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

PMSL

You very deliberately use just half a quote to twist what I said, and then claim to have established your myth.

Also see: the UK govt has said the debt is not Scotland's.

(other things too, so many I can't be bothered).

Meanwhile you continue to denigrate Labour more than you do the tories.

Your not playing fair here but it is clear for all to see 

I cannot seem to quote your whole post with the time etc as it was in the general discussion thread. I suspect you realise this but to be clear, I cut and pasted it over and didn`t amend anything of what you said. To confirm, you originally denied it and then claimed I made it up and suggested I was hearing voices in my head ( twice ). It was rather a pointless discussion anyway but I thought it was worth pointing out that you were completely contradicting yourself between the 2 threads as the link YOU posted in this thread showed Labour support in Scotland up 2% and miles ahead of the Tories.

I`m comfortable that you will continue to pmsl etc and happy to leave your predictions on the Tories being Scotland`s 2nd party as exactly that - your prediction.

I have never said the UK govt has said the debt is not Scotland`s. Never, as in never ever. Feel free to quote me. I won`t hold my breath 

[Comfy Bean]

1 hour ago, gary1979666 said:

Sorry for just jumping in here, I wanted to respond to this bit of the debate.  I guess your point is that there's no link between what is currently spent and the realities of 2025-30.  I think you need to think that through a bit.

If you look at the make-up of the current deficit - i.e. income and spending.  What is going to change for these over the next few years?  Granted this doesn't take into account any one-off events, like WW3 or a financial crisis or a discovery of gold deep in the Cairngorms, etc.

Income - let's be optimistic and say it won't change.  We don't know what'll happen with oil, so to be prudent we say it'll stay flat.  Other incomes, again could go either way - arguements for up and down.  I'll leave my biased view to one side on this one.

Expenses - well with an anti austerity gov't, I can't see it going down.  Also there's the gap where the English are topping you up, so more to spend to make that up.  Then there's the aging population to deal with - more health costs.  Same with a fatter population.  Pension costs, SNHS costs are going to head upwards. (That's true for both sides of the border).

Please don't come back with the usual response about Trident and trainsets - they don't get included in Scotland's current figures.

 

Don`t be daft. Good to hear a different voice 

My point was only a small one around Neil`s latest campaign. I have taken great care to quote exactly what he said.....

" If it's not about greed, why do you claim iScotland will be a financial success at current spending rates when there's no basis to think so? "

Why should we possibly restrict an Indy Scotland in lets guess 10/15 years time to CURRENT spending rates. How can we possibly make any assessment around any figures if we are restricting spending to the same amount for 15 or however many years down the road. Seems a bit daft to me. The rest of your post / opinions I have no issue with.

Without Neils crystal ball, you and I both know that nothing around this can be said with 100% certainty....well apart from the spending rates won`t be exactly the same as Neil claims. The point surely is that "we" will be led by a different ( as in non-Tory ) Government pursuing different policies. I don`t like the current one`s therefore I am voting for something different - no personal offence intended .

I have no interest in personal greed and don`t know anyone who sees it like that and I doubt I have ever said that an iScotland will skip along a path of gold to great wealth for all. The only reason I have previously brought up Lords, trident, London sewerage regeneration and speedier trains for Russy to get into town is that you could be led to believe on here that the " savings " would ALL be one-way. I don`t think that will be the case.

Oh and who are you calling "fatter"   

 

[eFestivals]

25 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Your not playing fair here but it is clear for all to see 

I'm not playing fair? PMSL

My words:-
"You have been paying attention, yeah? Or have you been too busy gloating that tory-free Scotland looks likely to have the tories as its second party?

Your version of my words:-
"Scotland looks likely to have the Tories as it`s second party"

Do you have enough brain to see how you've twisted what I've said by 180 degrees? Or are you simply thick as pigshit?

 

[Comfy Bean]

15 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

 

woops again!

 

Edited November 17, 2015 by comfortablynumb1910

[Comfy Bean]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I'm not playing fair? PMSL

My words:-
"You have been paying attention, yeah? Or have you been too busy gloating that tory-free Scotland looks likely to have the tories as its second party?

Your version of my words:-
"Scotland looks likely to have the Tories as it`s second party"

Do you have enough brain to see how you've twisted what I've said by 180 degrees? Or are you simply thick as pigshit?

 

 

15 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

 

 

Answers on a post card please : Who said this at the beginning of the month ?

You have been paying attention, yeah? Or have you been too busy gloating that tory-free Scotland looks likely to have the tories as its second party?

From the poll you posted the other day we can see the reality of the situation at the moment.

SNP 58 up 2%

Labour 24 up 2%

Tories 12 no change

Libs 4 down 2% - They are having a bit of bother now with their 1 MP as we know but don`t talk about.

 

The Tories don`t " look likely " to be our 2nd party anytime soon but carry on with your views on how things are up here. Your guess work remains pretty far from what`s actually happening....same as it ever was 

Nice try but no dice. As I said, you are not playing fair.

To be clear, I didn`t even add the bold (above) it was posted like that originally yesterday by me. 

As I said, I cut and pasted what you said on the other thread as I don`t know how to pull a quote across threads. You have now confirmed that I quoted EXACTLY what you said. 

The rest of the insults seem a bit un necessary.

[eFestivals]

31 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Why should we possibly restrict an Indy Scotland in lets guess 10/15 years time to CURRENT spending rates. How can we possibly make any assessment around any figures if we are restricting spending to the same amount for 15 or however many years down the road. Seems a bit daft to me.

Whatever Scotland spends it has to be affordable.

What Scotland spends now is not affordable.

You say future spending shouldn't be restricted to current rates - meaning that things get even more unaffordable.

What have you missed apart from the most basic maths lessons?

 

Quote

I have no interest in personal greed and don`t know anyone who sees it like that

Apart from you and every other snipper who denies what the facts today make abundantly clear.

If it's not about personal greed, why do you have to deny an iScotland would be poorer when the best available facts make clear it would be?

Why do you have to make predictions that in 10 or 15 years time everything will somehow be rosy?

It might be fair enough to say it will be rosy via this plan and that plan and another plan, but no one has any plans for how to make it rosy.

The SNP certainly don't, which is why the White Paper was One Big Lie.

The SNP certainly don't which is why they don't want FFA.

The SNP certainly don't which is why they're scared of the Smith proposals coming into force in the Scotland Act.

No one does.

Yes, you can hope, but until there's reasons for those hopes they're just empty hopes. I might as well be saying the UK will a moonbase by then.

The greater-growth you say will have happened within Scotland in 10 or 15 years time has never happened in any mature economy in world history - apart from those who have just had their economies destroyed by war.

But the miracle is coming to Scotland without any plan and just because you need to prop-up the indie dream with lies.... but you've no interest in personal greed, yeah.

 

Quote

and I doubt I have ever said that an iScotland will skip along a path of gold to great wealth for all. The only reason I have previously brought up Lords, trident, London sewerage regeneration and speedier trains for Russy to get into town is that you could be led to believe on here that the " savings " would ALL be one-way. I don`t think that will be the case.

those things cannot be savings for Scotland in the future until they're classed as expenses for Scotland in the present.

If those things are classed as expenses for Scotland in the present, Scotland is in much deeper financial shite than GERS says.

So the "savings" from those things puts Scotland where exactly? It puts Scotland exactly as GERS says now, deeply deeply in the shit.

FFS.

 

Edited November 17, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

 

Nice try but no dice. As I said, you are not playing fair.

To be clear, I didn`t even add the bold (above) it was posted like that originally yesterday by me. 

As I said, I cut and pasted what you said on the other thread as I don`t know how to pull a quote across threads. You have now confirmed that I quoted EXACTLY what you said. 

The rest of the insults seem a bit un necessary.

Yeah, I'm the liar, and you never posted a conveniently edited version to turn what I actually said on its head.

 

 

 

Edited November 17, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

A year ago it was "the oil price will be back up at over $100 by March 2016".

Now it's "in 10 or 15 years time everything will be sorted".

But you've no interest in personal greed, OK.

Just an interest in making lies around personal greed, then.

I wonder why there's a new line from the myth factory?

It's of course nothing to do with the previous line being proven as the crock of shite plenty always knew it was.

[eFestivals]

wasn't The Myth Factory a novel by one of Scotland's greatest?

Oh no, that was The Wasp Factory, and the snippers are always getting stung.

[Comfy Bean]

48 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I'm not playing fair? PMSL

Do you have enough brain to see how you've twisted what I've said by 180 degrees? Or are you simply thick as pigshit?

 

 

21 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

wasn't The Myth Factory a novel by one of Scotland's greatest?

Oh no, that was The Wasp Factory, and the snippers are always getting stung.

 

Much as I`m enjoying the banter I ain`t quoting what you said again. I don`t think you were / are playing fair but it is what it is.

You will not acknowledge that YESTERDAY I quoted word for word what you have now confirmed you said after previous chat about voices in my head and mis-quoting. It`s there for all to see.

You have succeeded in deflecting away from the point which I suppose was a good effort as you were talking nonsense. 

How about we agree that even though I quoted you accurately, I managed to twist it by 360 degrees. Lets go with that as this will be my last word on what you claimed around the Tories and Labour in Scotland. 

Since you brought up the Wasp Factory, perhaps you should accept that sometimes people will vote in a new Government not only because they want change but because they actually agree with the policies of the new lot as well. You can have both surely ?

Oh and to be clear, I`m not saying that in 10/15 years " everything will be sorted ". I have never once said that. I am only referencing 10/15 years as my best GUESS on when Scotland could go Independent. Do I need to acknowledge yet again that Scotland voted to stick with call me Dave and co only last year. I can`t personally see another ref sooner than in the next 10 years but I could of course be wrong. By then we will most likely ( I`m guessing again ) have had 15 years of the Tories 

[eFestivals]

28 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

You will not acknowledge that YESTERDAY I quoted word for word what you have now confirmed you said

It was a word for word quote but only half a quote, changing the context entirely.

FFS.

 

28 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

perhaps you should accept that sometimes people will vote in a new Government not only because they want change but because they actually agree with the policies of the new lot as well. You can have both surely

Yes, you can.

But what you cannot have is the impossible. The impossible is to keep spending money you don't have.

Meaning that an iScotland would have to make savage cuts.

 

 

28 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Oh and to be clear, I`m not saying that in 10/15 years " everything will be sorted ". I have never once said that. I am only referencing 10/15 years as my best GUESS on when Scotland could go Independent.

A year ago you were convinced that Scotland could be independent then.

Why the sudden change? If it could (on a financial basis) go independent a year ago, surely it could go independent today, too?

But you've just said it couldn't, proving yourself very wrong on what you said a year ago.

Any reasons why you're so confident you're not wrong again? Baseless hopes are baseless hopes.

 

28 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Do I need to acknowledge yet again that Scotland voted to stick with call me Dave and co only last year. I can`t personally see another ref sooner than in the next 10 years but I could of course be wrong. By then we will most likely ( I`m guessing again ) have had 15 years of the Tories 

Is that you getting your excuses in early?

Scotland will also have had 10 years of some of the greatest devolved powers in the world by then, too. But they won't be used and the same old excuse of everything being Westminster's fault will continue to be rolled out.

 

 

[Comfy Bean]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

A year ago you were convinced that Scotland could be independent then.

Why the sudden change? If it could (on a financial basis) go independent a year ago, surely it could go independent today, too?

 

Hi Neil. Indeed you are right. I was convinced that Scotland should be an Independent Country a year ago. We were all asked that question and I went for YES. I haven`t had a sudden change. What happened was they totalled the votes and the majority voted NO to the question I mentioned.

Fair enough and on we go with Dave and the gang. It is unlikely ( in my opinion ) that a referendum will be held daily and I respect both that and the decision made only last year.

I have expressed a view that we " may " be asked the question again in around 10 years. Apologies for the vagueness of my post but to be honest, no-one up here has any idea when we will be asked again to vote on this.

Current polling suggests that I am now in the majority and as we discussed earlier a massive 75% of 16-34 year olds look set to vote SNP next year. They might not of course all favour Indy when they get the chance to vote on that but you can see where this is going.

So no " sudden change " here. Hope this clears that up 

[Comfy Bean]

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Yeah, I'm the liar, and you never posted a conveniently edited version to turn what I actually said on its head.

 

 

 

I never said you were a liar. I posted what you said. Read it back mate.

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Hi Neil. Indeed you are right. I was convinced that Scotland should be an Independent Country a year ago. We were all asked that question and I went for YES. I haven`t had a sudden change. What happened was they totalled the votes and the majority voted NO to the question I mentioned.

Fair enough and on we go with Dave and the gang. It is unlikely ( in my opinion ) that a referendum will be held daily and I respect both that and the decision made only last year.

I have expressed a view that we " may " be asked the question again in around 10 years. Apologies for the vagueness of my post but to be honest, no-one up here has any idea when we will be asked again to vote on this.

Current polling suggests that I am now in the majority and as we discussed earlier a massive 75% of 16-34 year olds look set to vote SNP next year. They might not of course all favour Indy when they get the chance to vote on that but you can see where this is going.

So no " sudden change " here. Hope this clears that up 

Not any change from Scotland being economically viable at current spend rates as it was before the indyref?

Not any change to the oil back at $100 in march 2016?

To it'll all be magically sorted in ten years?

The only thing not changing are your baseless hopes.

 

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I never said you were a liar. I posted what you said. Read it back mate.

I read it back. You twisted my words.

Ffs

[Comfy Bean]

Twisted...as in quoted lol.

Honestly don't know what you mean by anything being magically sorted in 10 years? 

Are you saying that things need sorted. What are you saying is wrong with the current set up that needs sorted? 

I gave up posting the debt bomb months ago. 

I think we need change but as you know that is not a new thought.

[Comfy Bean]

My hope is that Scotland will one day be an independent country. Can you define what you mean by " baseless " please.

[LJS]

27 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I read it back. You twisted my words.

Ffs

No he didn't. Your words are, at the very least, ambiguous.

 

The astonishing hypocrisy if you complaining of your words being twisted when one of your main debating techniques is making up what other people say, is truly astounding. 

 

Most of your time today has been spent denouncing Comfy for stuff he has never said. Of course it's always easier to appear to win when you make up your opponent's positiion.

 

You ever wonder why hardly anyone posts in this thread these days?

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, LJS said:

No he didn't. Your words are, at the very least, ambiguous.

 

The astonishing hypocrisy if you complaining of your words being twisted when one of your main debating techniques is making up what other people say, is truly astounding. 

 

Most of your time today has been spent denouncing Comfy for stuff he has never said. Of course it's always easier to appear to win when you make up your opponent's positiion.

 

You ever wonder why hardly anyone posts in this thread these days?

My words don't say what he claimed for them.

Always a row over fluff, never a debate of the facts.