The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

13 hours ago, LJS said:

They were too busy pretending Alex Salmond wasn't answering questions

Yeah, cos Snow White is the world's only honest politician.

"once in a generation" - both personally said and in an official capacity: one big LIE

"The oil is a bonus": one big LIE

"Scotland will be wealthy": one big LIE

"we can use the pound" (an obfuscation of his claim of a currency union): one big LIE

"we will be in the EU from day one": one big LIE

Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

 

Edited November 21, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

28 minutes ago, LJS said:

In the words of Lord Forsyth, it was a bus timetable with all the times but no destinations.

In case you missed it, the question was "should Scotland be an independent country?".

That left all options open for the alternative, including the worst options you can think of.

The people of Scotland decided that the worst from Westminster was more-wanted than the best-claimed from Scotland.

What did you miss?

 

[Comfy Bean]

On 21/11/2015, 09:37:14, eFestivals said:

who's Gordon Brown in September 2014? Why, he's an MP with the same standing as any backbencher.

Are Scots really so stupid as to think backbenchers dictate govt policy? It seems like you've just said you are.

Meanwhile no one can find a soul who's vote was changed by anything Broon said.

Might you be stoking up false grievance because you don't have a real one?

 

So....we have established that you are on your 3rd ( atleast ) attempt at stoking up a grievance when both myself and LJS have repeatedly explained to you how the unionist vow, cooked up by Dave and delivered by Broon, worked. It is what it is and only you cant see that.

You quite rightly posted the front page of the record from days before the vote. It didn`t fool all of the people but Dave knew what he was doing even if you didn`t. Remember Daling was " begging " him just before his proud victory speech not to make it all about evel but Dave was finished with Labour by then and look at the results for Labour. You lapped it up and now we are stuck with the Tories for god knows how long.

Looks like he will be dragging us off to join in the bombing of Syria soon 

 

[Comfy Bean]

On 21/11/2015, 10:30:57, eFestivals said:

 

After all, without grievance there is no Scottish independence movement.

 

Not true. While half* of England votes UKIP / Tory there will always be votes in Scotland for an alternative. It used to be Labour not so long ago.

I realise it`s not exactly 50% but canny remember the exact figure. With England being by far the biggest part of our empire then what they want is what we get. Its the maths / nature of the boy.

https://youtu.be/JquzYr-5bE4

 

Edited November 22, 2015 by comfortablynumb1910

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

So....we have established that you are on your 3rd ( atleast ) attempt at stoking up a grievance when both myself and LJS have repeatedly explained to you how the unionist vow, cooked up by Dave and delivered by Broon, worked. It is what it is and only you cant see that.

You've missed a bit. It was then negotiated and accepted by the SNP.

Who are now trying to say it's a bad deal. Because they've forced themselves into a corner of their own making, and need grievance to avoid their own bad decisions being exposed.

 

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

You quite rightly posted the front page of the record from days before the vote. It didn`t fool all of the people

It didn't fool anyone. The only people griping about it are those who were condemning it anyway.

 

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

You lapped it up and now we are stuck with the Tories for god knows how long.

Sorry, what did I lap up?

> Looks like he will be dragging us off to join in the bombing of Syria soon 

Yep, he might. And Sturgeon looks like being on board too. She's certainly not dismissed it out of hand, has she?

I don't agree with bombing ISIS unless there's a workable plan to fill the vacuum, but I'm not pretending that everyone thinks the same - even in Scotland.

 

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Not true. While half* of England votes UKIP / Tory there will always be votes in Scotland for an alternative. It used to be Labour not so long ago.

I realise it`s not exactly 50% but canny remember the exact figure. With England being by far the biggest part of our empire then what they want is what we get. Its the maths / nature of the boy.

https://youtu.be/JquzYr-5bE4

 

Your "while" is just one occasion, where England couldn't bring itself to vote Labour because of it's flaws while Scotland rejected Labour even more.

And of course you're ignoring the effect of your own choice of vote on others. Why do you say that voting in Scotland is influenced by how England votes but voting in England cannot be influenced by how Scotland votes?

 

[eFestivals]

Hey LJS...

You know you love to say that small countries get better growth, and so Scotland will be able to grow itself out of its deficit and not have to make massive tax increases &//or massive spending cuts?

i've just become aware of what the white paper said about that. The SNP's own words say it would take 120 years to grow by enough to cover that gap, tho that doesn't address the financial shortfall in the meantime.

So that's that bit of vain hope blown away, too ... and the only thing left for snippers now is to face up to the deficit and what it really means for Scotland.

Even WoS is doing it now, so I wonder who is going to be last snipper howling at the moon and claiming an iScotland would be better?

[russycarps]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Hey LJS...

You know you love to say that small countries get better growth, and so Scotland will be able to grow itself out of its deficit and not have to make massive tax increases &//or massive spending cuts?

i've just become aware of what the white paper said about that. The SNP's own words say it would take 120 years to grow by enough to cover that gap, tho that doesn't address the financial shortfall in the meantime.

So that's that bit of vain hope blown away, too ... and the only thing left for snippers now is to face up to the deficit and what it really means for Scotland.

Even WoS is doing it now, so I wonder who is going to be last snipper howling at the moon and claiming an iScotland would be better?

why would ljs care? He's already admitted the financial implications are "irrelevant" to him. You cant argue finances with people who dont care about them.

Ideology over reality, the raving nationalist mantra.

 

 

[eFestivals]

26 minutes ago, russycarps said:

why would ljs care? He's already admitted the financial implications are "irrelevant" to him. You cant argue finances with people who dont care about them.

Ideology over reality, the raving nationalist mantra.

Well, given the change in what the snippers now admit to (see WoS), I guess one of the snippers is going to be the last snipper in the world still spouting the bullshit they've fallen for. LJS seems an intelligent guy about most things, so I'm not sure he'll want to be that last-standing fool. Sooner or later he's going to have to see what he's been refusing to see.

It's only after admitting the fact of Scotland's starting position for self-funding (whether via FFA or indy) that the likes of him will be able to detail a plan of why it doesn't matter because there's this plan he has that can sort it out. All the while he's saying there's not a problem he doesn't need to have a plan and its guaranteed a self-funding Scotland will be in the shit.

And of course that starting position still has financial implications for what any self-funding Scotland is able to do, whether they're "irrelevant" to him or not. They might be irrelevant to him, but I reckon some others will want to know how benefits will be paid, pensions will be paid, the SNHS kept running and the schools kept open.

Any govt needs the financial means which with to deliver its policies. If financial means meant fuck all then developing world countries would have public services to match the best of them.

The only policies the SNP has put forwards for that magical growth in the economy that LJS has high hopes of happening are to cut taxes - lowering the tax revenues even further in the first instance, making it even harder to deliver the greater public spending which was the White Paper promised.

And while those policies might - or might not - succeed in growing the economy, LJS won't find any economist outside of the SNP who believes that an *extra* 16% growth above the UK's growth is possible within 50 years.

So that's 50 years (120 years if we use the SNP's own claims) of poverty and reduced public services before he might - just might - see an independence bonus.

He's supporting that the rest of his own life and the life of his children is degraded, and calls that a better Scotland. One day he'll wake up to himself, tho I hope it's not after he's dropped his own kids in shite they can't escape from.

Tho they could always escape to England, I guess. Which is perhaps what he means when he says he wants to make Scotland a better place?

 

[Stash]

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

So....we have established that you are on your 3rd ( atleast ) attempt at stoking up a grievance when both myself and LJS have repeatedly explained to you how the unionist vow, cooked up by Dave and delivered by Broon, worked. It is what it is and only you cant see that.

You quite rightly posted the front page of the record from days before the vote. It didn`t fool all of the people but Dave knew what he was doing even if you didn`t. Remember Daling was " begging " him just before his proud victory speech not to make it all about evel but Dave was finished with Labour by then and look at the results for Labour. You lapped it up and now we are stuck with the Tories for god knows how long.

So why did  a study by University of Glasgow economists find that the vow had very little impact on the referendum outcome? In fact, their study actually found that the key issue driving changed voting intention was the economic & currency question. 

Interestingly and counter to commonly held snipper narative, they also found that  "Over the course of the campaign, it appeared that the more information people searched for online, the less likely they were to vote Yes."

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, Stash said:

they also found that  "Over the course of the campaign, it appeared that the more information people searched for online, the less likely they were to vote Yes."

I spent a few hours yesterday reading chokkablog and read back on everything he'd published (and comments) since June. Before yesterday i'd visited only twice - and one of those was because LJS linked to it (for a rare non-Scotland thing on there).

I saw that he's riled up and beaten every SNP MP/MSP that's tried to take him on. I saw that he's riled-up and beaten WoS, too - to the extent that WoS has now had to change it's line and admit that Scotland is deeply in the shit on the self-funding front.

And I saw that several cybernuts spouted the usual drivel, and made themselves look so foolish they didn't try again.

And I saw that several more-thinking-types yes supporters had their ideas put straight enough for them to accept what was being said.

Slowly - too slowly, because so many have the "it doesn't matter" attitude that LJS displays - it seems that just how much the SNP lied is sinking in, and people are realising they dodged a bullet nuclear attack on Scotland by Scotland's own doing.

(I was also amused to see that so much of what he's published were the same things I'd picked up on - tho he gives a detail and eloquence waaay beyond what i'd ever be prepared to do).

The narrative is changing. The only question is now is how quickly people like comfy and LJS are going to admit their error. Given the investment some have made in the SNP's lies it's unlikely to be very quickly, but it's there.

[eFestivals]

and just to confirm the point, here's a former adviser to Alex Salmond saying loudly and clearly "SNP Independence is dead – start again or shut up".

I particularly like this line...
"SNP Independence has become the cocaine of the politically active, fun to join in but dulling the senses, jabbering on at a hundred words per minute while disconnected from self awareness."

When even SNP supporters are saying SNP baaad, you know it's bad.

[eFestivals]

and I just luvvve this comment underneath...

The truth is selfish people denied their neighbours of a right to self determination.

The truth is that some nats are thick as pigshit.

The indyref *WAS* the people of Scotland having the right of self-determination - and they determined they'd rather pool resources with rUK.

But for some it's only self-determination is it's determined that people agree with 'me'. :lol:

[Comfy Bean]

4 hours ago, Stash said:

So why did  a study by University of Glasgow economists find that the vow had very little impact on the referendum outcome? In fact, their study actually found that the key issue driving changed voting intention was the economic & currency question. 

 

I think we are all pretty much in agreement mate. The swing that would have been required probably wouldn`t have happened if Dave and co hadn`t headed up and produced the Record front page.

I also think it`s fair to say Gordon Brown, who was rightly or wrongly covered by the media as the " voice " of the vow, went a bit further in his sermon than what the vow was ever designed to say. We agreed months ago that it was written in such a way that you can`t now argue much against what it said. What GB said is another story I think.

I don`t recall anyone on here ever saying the vow was not delivered.

Don`t believe the hype 

 

[Comfy Bean]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

The indyref *WAS* the people of Scotland having the right of self-determination - and they determined they'd rather pool resources with rUK.

 

Correct. Many people had many reasons for how they voted and I respect that. More balanced up the arguments and decided to stick.

It would appear that for various reasons some of the no`s have changed their minds. As a very small example, I know a few NO voters who voted No as they hoped / expected Labour to win the GE. From this small sample, many of these people would now vote YES.

The Tories up here have rebranded as the Scottish Conservative Unionist Party.

Labour are now saying that they welcome indy supporters and would not " block " any members publicly supporting independence. We also know that 75% of 16-34 year olds will support the SNP next year.

If / when the Scottish people are given the right of self-determination again ( I would expect this would be after the next GE give us another Tory Govt ) then all the signs are we would see a different result.

You only have to look back 10 / 15 years to see the direction of travel here.

[Comfy Bean]

7 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

Yep, he might. And Sturgeon looks like being on board too. She's certainly not dismissed it out of hand, has she?

I don't agree with bombing ISIS unless there's a workable plan to fill the vacuum, but I'm not pretending that everyone thinks the same - even in Scotland.

 

No she hasn`t dismissed it out of hand. If you were able to read what NS has said without your blinkers you would see that she is responding quite sensibly and with respect to Dave and whatever plan he puts together as PM.

History shows us though that the SNP don`t back illegal wars ( Iraq ). I know you don`t either Neil so this is not some point scoring exercise that you always insist on turning everything into.

What you are saying about Sturgeon is accurate at the moment and she may well back Dave`s plan. I don`t think she will though without the full eu resolution which ain`t happening. We will soon find out and I will stand corrected if the SNP vote in support of bombing Syria.

It`s rubbish that the press are setting things up for us to join in the bombing. Reading the papers today, you could forget that loads of bombs are already being dropped whether we join in or not. Again, I know your views on this and Iraq. There is nothing wrong with agreeing with the SNP. Especially if they are backing something that you support 

 

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Correct. Many people had many reasons for how they voted and I respect that. More balanced up the arguments and decided to stick.

It would appear that for various reasons some of the no`s have changed their minds. As a very small example, I know a few NO voters who voted No as they hoped / expected Labour to win the GE. From this small sample, many of these people would now vote YES.

The Tories up here have rebranded as the Scottish Conservative Unionist Party.

Labour are now saying that they welcome indy supporters and would not " block " any members publicly supporting independence. We also know that 75% of 16-34 year olds will support the SNP next year.

If / when the Scottish people are given the right of self-determination again ( I would expect this would be after the next GE give us another Tory Govt ) then all the signs are we would see a different result.

You only have to look back 10 / 15 years to see the direction of travel here.

What you mean is that if the indyref was run in the same conditions they now say they'd vote yes.

The problem you have is that any future indyref won't have the same conditions. The economic case is shot to pieces, and so it would have to be sold on the truth... and you can't handle the truth.

But some others can. They understand that an iScotland would need to make cuts far worse than anything the tories might do, and that it's not bullshit but a realistic statement of Scotland's starting position which would take (in the best, perfect, circumstances) 100+ years to correct.

You're saying that condemning your countrymen to worst standards of living for a century or more is A Good Thing while also saying that having them suffer a much smaller bit of that is A Bad Thing. It's laughable.

And you might come out with "but we'll have a fairer society" - and that might be your genuine aim - but it won't happen. When there's such big hits needed to be taken by Scottish finances (the size of the whole education budget, at least) too few are going to be saying "I'll buy a less flash phone so the poor don't suffer". As always happens the poorest will take the biggest hit.

And Scotland's youth will flee over the border.

Meanwhile the direction of travel is zero. The SNP are not planning for indy because they know it's an impossibility. They won't hold an indyref because they can't sustain the myth you bought last time and there is no other vaguely-credible answer to Scotland's problems.

And meanwhile your intellectual direction of travel is fixed, unmoving .... but it won't last. Sooner or later you'll have to accept Scotland's position and that no one has a plan that isn't massive spending cuts and massive tax rises and all the damage that will cause to Scottish society.

Or is it irrelevant for Scotland to commit 'economic suicide' (© SNP 2015) because you can make others suffer but save yourself?

[Comfy Bean]

I don`t agree with your statement that even in the best, perfect circumstances, it would take 100+years.

How can anyone possibly know this or expect to be taken seriously. 

There is alot of total guesswork in your post above and it comes across as being more than a little arrogant.........

This is my favourite line ( it was a hard choice )  

" You're saying that condemning your countrymen to worst standards of living for a century or more is A Good Thing "

It was " condemning "  that clinched it.

For a start your making a laughable conclusion that your early point on 100 years is accurate and secondly where did I ever say that....or anything like it.

How would you describe living standards in Scotland 100 years ago compared to now. Have a think about what your saying 

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

26 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I don`t agree with your statement that even in the best, perfect circumstances, it would take 100+years.

How can anyone possibly know this or expect to be taken seriously. 

The numbers I'm using are the numbers supplied by the SNP in the white paper, for how small countries out-perform larger countries.

That said 3.8% extra growth over 30 years. Scotland needs 16% of GDP growth to bridge the deficit gap it currently has with whole-UK, which puts how long it might take at over 100 years - but only *IF* the claim Salmond made is true (he might have picked convenient data, who knows?).

Yep, it's quite a ridiculous idea, and yet it still illustrates the size of that VERY REAL deficit gap.

A deficit gaps that the SNP or anyone else has no plan for how to fix, and yet you think everything will be OK in 10 or 15 years.

It's a very real problem that needs very real answers, or the new Scotland will be far more vicious than the tories because that problem can't just be wished away.

Vote indy become poor, for all the time that no one has the answers.

[eFestivals]

43 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

For a start your making a laughable conclusion that your early point on 100 years is accurate and secondly where did I ever say that....or anything like it.

How would you describe living standards in Scotland 100 years ago compared to now. Have a think about what your saying 

I'm not claiming my 100 years as accurate, it's Salmond* who is.
(* sort-of, it's explained in the post just above)

Let's say Salmond was wrong. In which direction was he wrong? The one that improves the Scottish position would have Salmond having taken a pessimistic position with his 3.8% over 30 years thing. Do you think Salmond took a pessimistic position instead of presenting Scotland at it's best?

If iScotland's financial position has lagged behind the rUK position for 100 years (which it will do for all of the time that deficit gap hasn't been bridged), how would you describe the difference in living standards between what you might have had and and what you'd actually got?

Significant, just as the amount of financial difference is significant? Or nothing to worry about?

 

Edited November 23, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

who has a plan to grow Scotland's economy by any extent, and dead quickly, comfy?

A plan that's good enough to cover-off that 8Bn deficit gap - 16% GDP growth - in just a few of years and not decades and decades and decades?

Perhaps you could direct me to what would be a stunning economic claim?

(and while you're at it, direct the SNP there too, cos at this moment they have no plan at all).

[Comfy Bean]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The numbers I'm using are the numbers supplied by the SNP in the white paper, for how small countries out-perform larger countries.

That said 3.8% extra growth over 30 years. Scotland needs 16% of GDP growth to bridge the deficit gap it currently has with whole-UK, which puts how long it might take at over 100 years - but only *IF* the claim Salmond made is true (he might have picked convenient data, who knows?).

Yep, it's quite a ridiculous idea, and yet it still illustrates the size of that VERY REAL deficit gap.

A deficit gaps that the SNP or anyone else has no plan for how to fix, and yet you think everything will be OK in 10 or 15 years.

It's a very real problem that needs very real answers, or the new Scotland will be far more vicious than the tories because that problem can't just be wished away.

Vote indy become poor, for all the time that no one has the answers.

There is a lot more sense in this post than your last one but still you had to finish on " vote indy become poor ". Tell that to the folk who already are " poor " and are about to see their income cut. We both know that people are living in that type of situation and I don`t just mean in Scotland.

Anywayz....as you now say, this 100 years talk is a tad on the ridiculous side but what I wanted to ask you was...why do you think an indy Scotland would be basing it`s " success " ( or otherwise ) on a comparison with the financial situation in Engerland ?

As I`ve said before. firm hand shakes all round then off we both go on our chosen paths. Hopefully we will not be doing anything just so we can compare ourselves with England. It`s a big world out there.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

There is a lot more sense in this post than your last one but still you had to finish on " vote indy become poor ". Tell that to the folk who already are " poor " and are about to see their income cut. We both know that people are living in that type of situation and I don`t just mean in Scotland.

Anywayz....as you now say, this 100 years talk is a tad on the ridiculous side but what I wanted to ask you was...why do you think an indy Scotland would be basing it`s " success " ( or otherwise ) on a comparison with the financial situation in Engerland ?

As I`ve said before. firm hand shakes all round then off we both go on our chosen paths. Hopefully we will not be doing anything just so we can compare ourselves with England. It`s a big world out there.

Just because I'm against indy doesn't make me a tory, comfy. FFS :rolleyes:

The people who are already poor would be MUCH poorer if Scotland self-funded, comfy. What aren't you getting about that? Public services would have to be cut, hugely.

If you all choose to take those financial consequences and get indy anyway, good luck to you (I genuinely mean that). it shouldn't be all about the money.

But neither should it be won by a lie about money, by pretending everything could be the same. It couldn't. Things would have to be cut, and that means some of the 'nice' things - and far worse than from the tories.

A comparison with England, tho, is going to be a hard thing to shake off. People everywhere like to compare their own position with their neighbours. And as a consequence of both geography and history we're connected. And a same-language-same-culture neighbour is going to be an easy draw for Scotland's economically active if things in the new indy world quickly go tits up, so they'll be plenty, perhaps, walking amongst you telling you of any differences.

[eFestivals]

PS: without a comparison, there can be no measure of the success (or otherwise) of indy.

Because we've been connected you can look south and say "that's what I would have had" (warts an' all) and compare that with what you have (including, perhaps, some intangibles) - and that's the measure that will always take place when you consider whether indy has been a success or not.

If that doesn't make sense to you then you must be one of those who thinks indy is better in all circumstances and you'd live in a cave as long as you can shout 'freedom'. Fair enough if so, but why are you bothering in reasoned debate if that's the case?

 

[Comfy Bean]

Where did I say your a tory cause your against indy? 

Is this a deflection tactic from your 100 year twaddle earlier? 

Genuinely confused here.