Jump to content
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

The Dirty Independence Question


Kyelo

Recommended Posts

On 12/12/2015 at 4:41 PM, LJS said:

Meanwhile, some good news about the Scottish NHS that the SNP have apparently been running into the ground...

 

Graph

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-35053845

Taking care of business by the looks of things :)

Here`s an update on education from the summer in case anyone missed it :

The Scottish government has set up a Commission on Widening Access, chaired by Dame Ruth Silver, which has begun its work to advise ministers on how best to tackle inequality in the education system.

Universities Scotland welcomed the the 50% growth in demand from those in Scotland's most deprived areas since 2006, which it said was testament to some of the work that universities were doing with young people and schools to raise aspiration in these groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/10/2015 at 7:44 AM, eFestivals said:

 

As you point out, Carmichael isn't denying the facts of what happened. The court case was about the 'why' it happened....

It centred around this: Did he he make make the leak to smear Sturgeon with what he knew to be false information, or was he revealing what he believed to be truth?

The cabinet inquiry said he didn't know it was false info (if it was false info) and the court has now also accepted that he didn't know it was false info (if it was false info).

And that's because *everyone* (Sturgeon included) is not disputing that the UK civil servant accurately recorded the contents of the phone call he received from the French. How that French geezer came to give the version he did to that UK civil servant is something else entirely.

 

I know that this will bring some cheer to your Monday morning Neil. A very biased update on the progress of not one but two of your Unionist heroes. " Men of honour ". Enjoy :)

 

 http://derekbateman.co.uk/

 

 

Edited by comfortablynumb1910
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, LJS said:

What a ridiculous question!

 

Or, as it is more commonly known, a loaded question. :)

It's a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

 

How much poorer would you like to be?

 

Both Comfy & I will be happy to discuss the economic prospects for an Independent Scotland WHEN we have a prospect of Indyref2 (I have taken the liberty of speaking on you behalf Comfy, I hope that is OK)  Until then feel free to bang on relentlessly about your completely meaningless & irrelevant £8bn, £10bn or £15bn or whatever today's number is.

 

 

It's a very simple question, and you think Scotland needs you tpo protect it from people's opinions. What's so weak about the indie idea that questions can't be asked of it, LJS.  :rolleyes:

Indy might cause great wealth (Salmond's version), or it might not (the real version). I'm merely asking at what point indie becomes not-worthwhile to its advocates (because if that consideration isn't in the mix then Comfy *would* happily live in a cave for 'freedom').

The question scares you.

But a shortfall in govt revenues with which to provide services doesn't. :lol:

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

The finances of an indy Scotland in , say, 15 years can be nothing more than guess work. It`s an ever changing world etc.

Absolutely correct.

I'm merely asking you at what point within all guesses (plus things no one has guessed at - so the full range from every Scot being a billionaire to every Scot living in a cave) you consider the economics

I'm not asking you to guess what Scotland's finances might be.

I'm asking you to state when the possible economics of indie make the principle of indie unacceptable to you.

You've said that consideration is already part of your thinking. I'm simply asking you to tell me what you're thinking.

 

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I think there are opportunities as well as dangers but I think our weans can reach their potential better under a Labour or SNP Government with us taking decisions for ourselves rather than follow the Tory policies made in London like we are and will be for the foreseeable .

It`s never been about being anti-english or thinking we are in some way superior and it`s defo never been about greed. I accept that not everyone will accept or even understand that but I know that you do. 

I don`t even blame the Tories for not having Scottish votes as a priority. They gave that up a long long time ago. They like keeping the " Kingdom " in place for sure and Dave likes nothing better than posturing on the world stage. Rule brittania better together etc. 

We know we could manage fine as an Independent Country.

blah blah blah blah blah squirrell blah avoidance blah scared blah laughable lines (again) blah blah blah.

At what point might the economics of indie (within every possibility you can imagine, whether it might happen or not) make indie not worthwhile, comfy?

It's a simple question, and not a trick question.

If you have nothing to fear from indie, why does this question scare you?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I honestly can`t believe you are bringing up the possibility of people in an Indy Scotland being forced to return to living in caves. 

I may be wrong here ( please correct me if I am ) but do you have an underlying point ?

Are we back in Edwina Currie territory here ? Are you dying to say that we could not survive without England`s generosity or as Edwina puts it ....are you fed up funding our extravagant lifestyle :lol:

Is your next card the subsidy junkies one  ;)

I'm not remotely suggesting anyone is going to live in a cave. :rolleyes:

I'm asking you at what point the possible consequences of indie make indie unacceptable to you.

Cos if that doesn't come into your thinking, you are that troglodyte.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Taking care of business by the looks of things :)

Oh look, any success is solely the work of the SNP. :lol:

Why weren't the SNP taking care of business when the SNHS performance was falling badly and was much worse than England's?

Who was health minister when the SNHS was turning to crap? :P

 

Quote

Here`s an update on education from the summer in case anyone missed it :

The Scottish government has set up a Commission on Widening Access, chaired by Dame Ruth Silver, which has begun its work to advise ministers on how best to tackle inequality in the education system.

Universities Scotland welcomed the the 50% growth in demand from those in Scotland's most deprived areas since 2006, which it said was testament to some of the work that universities were doing with young people and schools to raise aspiration in these groups.

and the Scottish govt needs to set up that commission because....? :lol:

Is this you suddenly admitting that even with free Uni in Scotland fewer of Scotland's poor go to Uni than do in England? Odd, cos you used to deny it.

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Comfy recently said he wouldn't live in a cave to have an indy Scotland, so I asked him what would be too-much of a price to pay for that independence.

He didn't answer when I asked that question last time, so I thought I'd ask again. I'm genuinely interested to hear what he thinks are the limits he'd accept of losses for Scotland from indy.

Any chance of an answer, comfy? How much of a hit to yours and everyone else's lifestyle is too-high a price to pay?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Spot on as usual mate :)

The finances of an indy Scotland in , say, 15 years can be nothing more than guess work. It`s an ever changing world etc.

I think there are opportunities as well as dangers but I think our weans can reach their potential better under a Labour or SNP Government with us taking decisions for ourselves rather than follow the Tory policies made in London like we are and will be for the foreseeable .

It`s never been about being anti-english or thinking we are in some way superior and it`s defo never been about greed. I accept that not everyone will accept or even understand that but I know that you do. 

I don`t even blame the Tories for not having Scottish votes as a priority. They gave that up a long long time ago. They like keeping the " Kingdom " in place for sure and Dave likes nothing better than posturing on the world stage. Rule brittania better together etc. 

We know we could manage fine as an Independent Country.

The two sentences in bold highlight the fallacy of your argument for secession. You feel sure that it'd be OK in the long run, but you have no ideas how to make it work, nor are you willing to debate anything important. If you want to put an artificial time-scale on when you'll talk about financial questions, why bother still evangelising the rest of the secession agenda until then? Or is the avoidance of talking about finances more to do with not having any answers to that particular question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Stash said:

The two sentences in bold highlight the fallacy of your argument for secession. You feel sure that it'd be OK in the long run, but you have no ideas how to make it work, nor are you willing to debate anything important. If you want to put an artificial time-scale on when you'll talk about financial questions, why bother still evangelising the rest of the secession agenda until then? Or is the avoidance of talking about finances more to do with not having any answers to that particular question?

Ok, I take your point but speculating is really all any of us can do as Scotland voted to stick with Dave. Of course we are talking about an " artificial time-scale ". We will be for a good while yet I reckon ?

On the first sentence I would probably stick with my general point. I`m guessing at 15 years but you could just as easily say 10, 15, 20, 30............ How anyone can do anything more than " guess " at the finances in an independent Scotland at an undetermined time is beyond me.

I`ll amend my second sentence to - I believe that Scotland could manage to be an independent country taking it`s own decisions away from the current Westminster set up. 

I am willing to debate the possibilities so not sure why you want to claim that I`m not ?

Why don`t you set out a few specifics on why you believe that Scotland could NOT manage to be an independent Country and we can take it from there :)

Edited by comfortablynumb1910
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Stash said:

The two sentences in bold highlight the fallacy of your argument for secession.

I'd say that rather than a fallacy, they're really just a squirrel to avoid saying anything sensible, by pretending that the question is something different to what it was. Lies to avoid substance.

Everyone knows that Scotland could manage 'fine' as an independent country. No one disputes it ... apart from snippers who pretend that others do, like this, as a way to avoid saying what they know is detrimental about indie.

There's no dispute about whether it could manage 'fine', the dispute is about what that 'fine' means for people in Scotland. Will they be managing just as finely as they do today, or will they be managing more finely or less finely. In short, "does indie hurt or benefit?"

 

20 minutes ago, Stash said:

The finances of an indy Scotland in , say, 15 years can be nothing more than guess work. It`s an ever changing world etc.

Yep, we can only guess at 15 years time.

Tho we know for certain what the finances would be today, and tomorrow, and next year. Scotland is in the shit if it self-funded - and even the SNP agree with that certain fact.

And while we can only 'guess' at how Scotland's finances will be in 15 years, we cxan use Salmond's White Paper 'guess' as the basis for how it will be - and that says still very deeply in the shit. In fact, so deeply in the shit that Salmond's guess was that it would take 120 years to make up the difference.

So why comfy thinks that can be done in just 15 years when Scotland's biggest advocate thinks it'll take 120 years, who knows.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

How anyone can do anything more than " guess " at the finances in an independent Scotland at an undetermined time is beyond me.

Perhaps ask Alex?

He made a solid claim in the White Paper that Scotland would grow faster as an independent country than it would do as part of the UK.

That solid claim says that it will take 120 years to make up the difference and that Scotland is in the financial shit  compared to now for all of that 120 years (and than after that 120 years, Scotland will need to start paying back the extra its borrowed, which still leaves it in the shit).

Meanwhile Scotland is tethered to the UK, and won't (according to Salmond) see that extra growth.

And so Salmond guesses that in 10 or 15 years time Scotland will be in exactly the same position as now, in deep shit if it tried to self-fund.

No one can correctly 'guess' correctly apart from comfy, who foresees great riches. :P

 

Quote

I am willing to debate the possibilities so not sure why you want to claim that I`m not ?

OK, let's start with right now. :)

Do you accept that Scotland would be in deep shit (unable to fund it's current level of public services by a huge amount) if it tried to self-fund today?

 

Quote

Why don`t you set out a few specifics on why you believe that Scotland could NOT manage to be an independent Country and we can take it from there :)

Oh look, you're back to that strawman that only the snippers ever say. :rolleyes:

Scotland could manage to be an independent country. The question is not about that, but about how it would look as that independent country.

Forget 10 or 15 years, and let's start with right-now. How would it be if self-funding today?

 

 

 

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How will Scotland's finances be in 10 or 15 years time?

Scottish on-shore deficits since 1980 (numbers © SNP, from GERS):-

best: 2000 -2.2% of GDP
worst: 2009 - 17.2% of GDP
average: -9.7% of GDP
latest year (2013/14): -12.2%

average whole-UK deficit for the same period: -3.3%

There's been just one year (2009/10, at the height of the global financial crisis) where whole-UK deficit has got close to the Scottish average.

What will change the situation in Scotland? No one knows. Not comfy, not LJS, and not the SNP.

Alex says that it will take an independent Scotland - with full powers (you know, those magical 'levers' he's talked about) - one hundred and twenty years to span the difference.

Comfy thinks it can be done in 10 or 15 years without those full fiscal powers.

What was it comfy said? "How anyone can do anything more than " guess " at the finances in an independent Scotland at an undetermined time is beyond me. "

:lol:

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 Everyone knows that Scotland could manage 'fine' as an independent country. No one disputes it ... apart from ...

 

Neil

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

 ...Scotland would be in deep shit (unable to fund it's current level of public services by a huge amount) if it tried to self-fund today?

 

 

Comedy gold, Neil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, LJS said:

Neil

Comedy gold, Neil.

What's too difficult for you to understand, LJS?

iScotland will manage fine.

Either by massive cutting of public services or by crippling tax rises. Or even going the way of Greece and pretending for a while it can't happen until it does.

What's difficult to understand? I'm not thinking you'll be disappearing in a puff of smoke, I'm thinking you'll be living in a very-changed iScotland where none of the hoped-for benefits of indy are realised apart from having a flag to wave (tho you've got that already).

While you say that a £10Bn deficit gap is "irrelevant".

Who's the comedian? :lol:

 

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

How anyone can do anything more than " guess " at the finances in an independent Scotland at an undetermined time is beyond me.

 

 

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

Yep, we can only guess .................

 

So why comfy thinks that can be done in just 15 years when Scotland's biggest advocate thinks it'll take 120 years, who knows.

 

 

 

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

No one can correctly 'guess' correctly apart from comfy, who foresees great riches. :P

 

I never said I forsee great riches. I think my crystal ball related point is going over your head !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

How will Scotland's finances be in 10 or 15 years time?

Scottish on-shore deficits since 1980 (numbers © SNP, from GERS):-

best: 2000 -2.2% of GDP
worst: 2009 - 17.2% of GDP
average: -9.7% of GDP
latest year (2013/14): -12.2%

average whole-UK deficit for the same period: -3.3%

There's been just one year (2009/10, at the height of the global financial crisis) where whole-UK deficit has got close to the Scottish average.

What will change the situation in Scotland? No one knows. Not comfy, not LJS, and not the SNP.

Alex says that it will take an independent Scotland - with full powers (you know, those magical 'levers' he's talked about) - one hundred and twenty years to span the difference.

Comfy thinks it can be done in 10 or 15 years without those full fiscal powers.

What was it comfy said? "How anyone can do anything more than " guess " at the finances in an independent Scotland at an undetermined time is beyond me. "

:lol:

You need to think through that last bit about the undetermined point in time............

Anywayz, why we talking about " on-shore " specifically. Can you please provide the total numbers as a whole ;)

Are water costs included for all regions ? and are there any other accounting " tricks " we need to take into account ?

Over the same period seems fair ( from 1980 ). Instead of comparing with the UK average, I`m assuming you have used the Scottish " region " in the average figure you then go on to compare us against, can you provide a comparison with another region of the UK ?

Perhaps one similar in size or heavy on rural communities. Would be interesting to see the numbers with London taken out as it is clearly an out-lier for all regions.

North east maybe ? You choose :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I never said I forsee great riches. I think my crystal ball related point is going over your head !

...and if it's in deep shit now, and not in deep shit in 10 or 15 years when you think it will be "fine", what have you foreseen?

Might you have foreseen great riches falling onto Scotland, to make up the difference between the situation now and when it will be "fine"?

Why, yes you have.

You've been using that crystal ball and not realising.

Even Salmond thinks it'll take 120 years to make up the difference that you think can be made "fine" in just 10 or 15 years.

Your crystal ball appears to be the very best of them all. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

How would it be if self-funding today?

 

Are you suggesting that TODAY " we " are self funding ?

Have the Tories led us to be debt free with all the countries they govern now running at a profit ?

Has the debt been paid off ?

Have the Tory policies led to a narrowing of the gap between rich and poor.

Or are some of their policies and ideals not working out so well for us ?

Is the evidence not in the GERS figures you posted earlier ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Are you suggesting that TODAY " we " are self funding ?

:rolleyes:

We know what the position of everything is according to the last GERS, yes? And that says Scotland would be in the financial shite if it tried self-funding today.

You have predicted that in 10 or 15 years time things will be different and everything will be "fine".

If that's not foreseeing great riches for Scotland, what is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Yes it is.

Just as the evidence of you foreseeing great riches for Scotland is in your words that in 10 or 15 years time everything will be "fine".

I realise this is pointless but for the record, what I said yesterday in reply to LJS was :

" We know we could manage fine as an independent Country "

and yet again, tedious as it is, I have never as in never ever said that I forsee great riches for Scotland.

10 or 15 years is my complete and utter guess at the earliest possible date for Scotland becoming Independent.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

:rolleyes:

We know what the position of everything is according to the last GERS

Well we have a version ;) " on-shore " I think was what you called it and we remain unclear as to who was including water costs etc.

Do you want to provide the actual figures for the period and we can have a go at the comparison thing with similar regions of the UK. We should also maybe take a look at who has the biggest tax take per head across these islands.

We seem to be on the same side here though. The Finances are being badly run. We are in huge debt and the Tories are shrinking the state and cutting back on investments on things like renewable energy where Scotland is well placed to make advancements although they do not have the biggest coastline in europe. The gap between the haves and the have nots is getting wider.

Away from the Tory policies I think that a Labour or SNP Govt would leave Scotland  better* placed. Clearly this won`t happen tomorrow so in the meantime we have Dave and then probably Gideon :(

 

* better doesn`t mean richer. In fact it can have a meaning that has nothing to do with money :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...