The Dirty Independence Question

[kaosmark2]

8 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Neil, you do realise that we weren`t voting on the SNP white paper ?

What vision of independence were you voting on then?

[Comfy Bean]

35 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

What vision of independence were you voting on then?

Should Scotland be an independent Country?  Simple as that. You think not. I disagree. Unionists want to keep the empire in tact. 3 days out the establishment nearly shat itself. Pmq's abandoned etc.

I'm pretty sure you know it was feck all to do with one party's white paper...... 

[MichaelsBeard]

So you would have voted yes no matter what the financial consequences were?

[micawber]

7 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Should Scotland be an independent Country?  Simple as that.

Tying this back to the honesty discussion then, I think the question would have been more honest if it had been able to indicate what that country might look like. For example, the result would have been wildly different if the question had been Should Scotland be an independent country like Albania (I'm just using that example for effect only).

On the progressive taxation point, these figures may help. Total revenue from taxes and social contributions in 2014 were around 34.4% of GDP in the UK. In Denmark (the highest in the EU I think), that figure was a bit over 50%. This suggests that Scotland could increase it's tax take by around 45%. I don't know what that means in absolute numbers and how that compares to the deficit but it may be useful to know.

[eFestivals]

21 hours ago, tonyblair said:

where really it's only a difference of opinion

Nope.

Facts are not opinions.

That's how dim you are.

[eFestivals]

16 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I didn`t interpret his comments as being " too poor ". Especially when you read what he said and not just lift one line from the middle ofit 

 

so when he talks about how it would be "economic suicide" for Scotland to self-fund, he's not referencing that Scotland is too poor to self-fund at the current rates of spending/, and that if Scotland did self-fund it would be a massively changed Scotland?

The Scottish Govt can tell you about the £8Bn that is fiscally transferred to Scotland each year, to pay for Scotland's higher costs of delivery.  Have a look at GERS.

I can only conclude that you've decided that the SNP are lying to you, because they're really secret unionists.

 

[eFestivals]

16 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I am pretty certain that the folk in Scotland on both sides of the Indy debate are very much aware of the Tory cuts and have been for years.

I am in favour of a more progressive tax system. " Robbing the rich " as Neil puts it !

The cuts the SNP would have to impose would be much greater than any tory cuts ... unless there's magic money? FFS.

And if a self-funding Scotland targeted the rich while rUK didn't - and different policies with rUK is what you champion as pro-indy - , where are the small number of people who contribute 50% of Scotland's taxes going to move to?

But let's just pretend black is white, and then we can pretend that a self-funding Scotland would be gloriously wealthy. But it's not about the money like any me-me-me Thatcherist, eh?

It only stops being about the money when you can face up to the money by referencing the facts that show the desperate starting position of any self-funding Scotland.

[eFestivals]

16 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Neil, you do realise that we weren`t voting on the SNP white paper ?

care to show me the bit which said you'd get the choice to vote on a different path to independence?

The SNP made absolutely sure that voting for (or not) the white paper was the *ONLY* choice - which is why they set indy-Day to be within their own term in the Scottish parliament.

And so you'd have already been locked in to what the SNP delivered for you - which would have been a much poorer Scotland (£8Bn poorer - £1600 p.a. for every man, woman and child in Scotland poorer), without any plan at all to cover that huge loss of money.

The only outcome could have been SNP-imposed cuts that would have made tory cuts look like a spending spree.

And unfortunately for you, no one else has a different plan, apart from the plans which involve magic money, because Scotland has the biggest deficit in the EU (bigger than Greece!!!).

Why does Scotland have that massive deficit? Because the UK spreads its wealth to ensure Scotland doesn't have to live on its own resources, and can instead have a lifestyle at the same level as the rest of the UK rather than be much poorer.

If you think you'll be richer when £1600 per-person has gone missing, I'd love to hear the details for how. ... but no one knows, not even the fantasy version of indy you say you voted for.

Edited January 24, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

16 hours ago, micawber said:

The progressive taxation approach is quite laudable but there is a limit to which it can be deployed before returns fall off the cliff. That incremental tax take is highly unlikely to head off deep cuts. For Ref2 the pro-indy parties will need to be honest about what is and isn't possible. Get independence if the Scots wish it, but get it honestly.

This ^^

Anything else is a far bigger lie than any of the lies the snippers accused 'unionists' of making.

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Fair points well made I think micawber. An Indy Scotland would be governed by a Labour or SNP Government and a different path on tax would be a sure thing in my opinion. As would be a different foreign policy and a different view on nuclear weapons. We know about the cuts and the shrinking of the state at the hands of the Tories but what is always forgotten by the unionist types on here is that at some point down the line our finances and policies would be different to what we have today.

And that point would be on i-Day, when cuts of 16% to every service in Scotland would have to be implemented to avoid bankruptcy.

How would Scotland be with 16% less NHS?
How would Scotland be with 16%less spent on education??
And 16% less on police, benefits, and everything else?

Salmond said it would take 120 years make up the difference.... so that's 120 years of poverty (compared to now) for Scotland.
 

Quote

We would be on a different path with different priorities than what we see under the Tories. 

the tories in Westminster are the only tory govt in the world.

Care to show me the country that delivers the current Scottish standards of living with a hugely lesser economy? There isn't one.

 

Quote

With over half of England voting Tory or UKIP ( as they are entitled to do ) the maths / geography means we are tied in even though we returned one Tory only.

That's because there is no such thing as Scotland in a UK general election.

Scotland freely chose that as the best for Scotland.

And that's because things can be even worse than what the tories do. Such as what a self-funding Scotland would *HAVE TO* do.

 

Quote

We ALL agreed that the way the referendum engaged the yoof was a good thing and we now know that a huge % of the younger generation prefer going our own way.

... on the basis of lies they've swallowed.

Or show me the indie supporters who are facing up to the facts of GERS and planning a future in a much poorer Scotland.

 

Quote

Leaving a side the history of Scotland over the centuries, imagine we were starting a fresh from today. Why would Scotland with it`s own Parliament etc not want to take decisions for itself. Why be led by another Country`s Govt when the politics of the people in both Countries are so different. It`s a no brainer 

Try asking that question again by include the resality of the Scottish fiscal position.

Imagine voting for your life to remain the same but then to find out out you (and everyone else) are MUCH poorer.

Yep, it's a no-brainer that everyone in Scotland wants their lifestyle reduced to poverty levels.

 

Quote

Everyone on here seems to agree that Scotland is perfectly capable of running it`s own affairs.

Tho some are saying it would run it's affairs with MUCH less cash, because thqat's the reality.

The only people who don't say that are those who say Scotland is too wee too poor and too stupid to be independent, and those people are the snippers - Salmond, you, and endless other snippers.

 

Quote

Unfortunately the unionist`s will continue to talk about the current mess of the cash ( under Gideon ) and the white paper predictions of one Scottish party as a deflection tactic to what we are actually talking about here....... Oh and the oil price.

The current mess of Gideon's makes Scotland richer than it would be under indy. Even Salmond and Sturgeon know this, which is why they do not want FFA - because asking for FFA at some undefined point in the future only gets to prove they know it can't be afforded today.

And if there's an alternative plan (as you're now rejecting the SNP, which is fantastic of you after 2+ years of calling it faultless via your defence of it ), perhaps you'd like to0 show us all that alternative plan....?

Except you know you can't, because there is no alternative plan apart from one where Scotland is much poorer - and no one is putting forwards a "vote yourself poorer for the glory of indy" plan.

And as I keep telling you, it's not about the oil price but the govt oil revenues - which Salmond lied about, as there was nothing of "oil industry predictions" in his govt revenue forecasts.

 

Edited January 24, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Following on from the many posts about the job losses in Aberdeen........news this week that even taking this into account....

Employment in Scotland reached a record level between September and November, according to official figures.

The Office for National Statistics said 21,000 more Scots were in work, compared with the previous quarter, bringing the total to 2,631,000.

Scotland now has the highest employment rate out of the four UK nations, and is outperforming the UK as a whole.

For the first time, employment in Scotland is now higher than it was before the recession.

The rate north of the border reached 74.9% over the quarter - above the level of 74.6% recorded prior to the economic crisis.

Meanwhile, Scottish unemployment fell by 11,000 and now stands at 152,000.

The unemployment rate was down by 0.7% to 5.4% - the largest quarterly fall since the summer of 2014.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-35357497

 

So what you're saying is that Gideon is destroying Scotland by sending it £8Bn a year *extra* and making it the most successful revenue-creating part of the UK?

My god, Gidion is evil. Hang him!

[eFestivals]

6 hours ago, MichaelsBeard said:

So you would have voted yes no matter what the financial consequences were?

I've previously asked him if he'd live in a cave for indy. He said 'no'.

I then asked what was the biggest economic hit he'd be prepared to take for the glory of indy, but for some reason he didn't want to answer the question.

How very odd, eh?

 

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, micawber said:

Tying this back to the honesty discussion then, I think the question would have been more honest if it had been able to indicate what that country might look like. For example, the result would have been wildly different if the question had been Should Scotland be an independent country like Albania (I'm just using that example for effect only).

On the progressive taxation point, these figures may help. Total revenue from taxes and social contributions in 2014 were around 34.4% of GDP in the UK. In Denmark (the highest in the EU I think), that figure was a bit over 50%. This suggests that Scotland could increase it's tax take by around 45%. I don't know what that means in absolute numbers and how that compares to the deficit but it may be useful to know.

A self-funding Scotland would have to add about 40% to every person's tax burden to keep up with current spend rates.

Unfortunately for Scotland if it did that, the small proportion of people in Scotland who contribute 50% of govt revenues would head south, and it would be in even worse shit.

And all of that is ignoring the fact that Scotland's banking sector would head south too, as would many other industries, leaving a self-funding Scotland even more destitute than a simple look at the numbers suggests.

But anyway, all of the claimed rationale for indy is bollocks anyway, because it's based within the idea that the UK has been ripping Scotland off, when the exact opposite* has been happening - of the UK showering Scotland with more money than it generates.

(* there is a ten year period - 1980-89 - where Scotland positively contributed more than the rest of the UK, but outside of that it's showered with other people's money ... but that's not a 'problem' rUK thinks of a problem, because the UK mostly grasps the idea of pooling and common cause.

It's only the snippers in Scotland that wants it all for me-me-me like any Thatcherist - tho if they cared to engage with the facts they'd know straight away there is nothing better for that me-me-me, only poorer)

Edited January 24, 2016 by eFestivals

[russycarps]

18 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I am pretty certain that the folk in Scotland on both sides of the Indy debate are very much aware of the Tory cuts and have been for years.

I am in favour of a more progressive tax system. " Robbing the rich " as Neil puts it !

Brilliant. So your band plan is to tax 'the rich' by a sufficient amount to cover the vast deficit. Just how rich are the rich of Scotland?? Presumably you have more oligarchs than Russia.

And presumably you are going to seal the border to prevent them fleeing south when they don't fancy paying the draconian rates?

Oh wait. I forgot about Scottish exceptionalism. I am sure they will be thrilled to cover the shortfall. Everyone in Scotland is socialist after all right!

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, tonyblair said:

And opinions aren't facts 

the fact that Scotland is financially fucked from the self-funding point of view while delivering the current levels of public services is very clearly fact and not opinion.

The fact that there is no plan to deal with that by any strand of the pro-indy supporters is not opinion, but fact.

The fact that an indy Scotland would be hugely poorer compared to current levels is not opinion but fact.

Etc, etc, etc.

[russycarps]

14 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Following on from the many posts about the job losses in Aberdeen........news this week that even taking this into account....

Employment in Scotland reached a record level between September and November, according to official figures.

The Office for National Statistics said 21,000 more Scots were in work, compared with the previous quarter, bringing the total to 2,631,000.

Scotland now has the highest employment rate out of the four UK nations, and is outperforming the UK as a whole.

For the first time, employment in Scotland is now higher than it was before the recession.

The rate north of the border reached 74.9% over the quarter - above the level of 74.6% recorded prior to the economic crisis.

Meanwhile, Scottish unemployment fell by 11,000 and now stands at 152,000.

The unemployment rate was down by 0.7% to 5.4% - the largest quarterly fall since the summer of 2014.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-35357497

 

Fantastic news. Great to see the union is working. Hopefully wages can start moving in the right direction too.

 

[eFestivals]

18 hours ago, tonyblair said:

speculating on what companies or banks might do if Scotland became independent is not a fact

Repeating what plenty of companies and banks have themselves said is not speculation.

(no doubt some of that is hyperbole and they won't move. But also, not all of it is hyperbole and some will move - particularly the banks, who will die a very quick death without a lender of last resort that actually has the capacity to lend at the needed levels).

Alex Salmond speculated on just that, and he said it would take Scottish companies and banks 120 years to make up the gap - *IF* everything went in iScotland's favour for that 120 years.

When even the most staunch nationalist with all the economic data at his fingertips recognises how difficult things would be*, care to tell me why dim tony knows better?

(* and of course, because he's biased, the reality is likely to be worse than he says - as it has been with oil revenues and much more he's said).

Edited January 25, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Don't ya just love St. Nicola?

I'm not quite sure why St Nocola has decided it's her job to speak for the Welsh and NornIrn's, tho she's done so anyway. But I think the Welsh and NI's should ignore her slur onto their intelligence.

As English i don't have to fight off any slur from her. She's rightly recognised our talents (), especially our ability to make two different considerations within a few weeks of each other.

But as leader of the Scots she's said that Scottish people aren't able to manage two different political considerations within a few weeks of each other, so now we have St Nicola saying the Scots are too stupid.

As I've pointed out before, it's only the nationalists who ever say the Scots are "too wee too poor too stupid". And thanks for proving it again Nicola.

 

[russycarps]

Did you see the hapless Marr interview her? Utterly failed to ask the pertinent questions about the oil revenues and associated issues.

Is he poorly briefed? Scared? Incompetent? Or are there other motives?

Regardless of his performance, she came across as just another lying, slippery politician that infests all the parties.

 

 

[eFestivals]

17 minutes ago, tonyblair said:

so at what point does it become fact that they move out from Scotland? When they do it, or before? It's a fact that companies say they will move. It's not a fact that they will

Ahhh ... the 'baseless hopes over reality' defence.

If you were aware of how banks work, you'd know with certainty that the banks would move.

An indy Scotland just can't cover the liabilities of the banks currently based in Scotland. They'd have to move, or they'd have to accept all of their business evaporating (if not instant outright bankruptcy).

Either way, at best Scotland ends up with a banking sector that covers just internal Scottish business - which means a big hit to Scottish GDP, taxes, and wealth.

With regard to other businesses, many are very iikely to re-locate to where the majority of their business is, or they'll see much of their business fall away over time. All customers firstly look within their internal market for their needs, and when 66% of Scottish exports are with rUK (and just 10% with the EU) that means plenty of those will also head south (and that's before their execs start considering the higher taxes they'll be paying if the SNP follow thru on their 'tax the rich' promises).

So while GERS (you do know what GERS is, don't you?) makes clear that with everything else remaining the same Scotland is in deep shit without *massive* cuts to public spending, everything else isn't likely to stay the same and so it's very likely to be in even deeper shit than GERS suggests.

None of that means that Scotland couldn't be independent. What it means is that an iScotland will be noticeably poorer than the current lifestyles its able to support - because it currently gets around £8Bn a year transferred from rUK, which is £1600 for every man, woman and child in Scotland.

 

Edited January 25, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, tonyblair said:

the baseless reality over Neils reality

 

bank reality.

Who wants to put their money in an unprotected bank? You. I guess you might, as you're managing forever-dim in this thread.

Or do you think all of the three banks (plus some other financial concerns) based in Scotland said they'd head south just to piss Salmond off? I guess you might, as you're doing dim.

And the £8bn required for Scottish public services to remain the same? That's a nothing, cos £1600pa per person doesn't matter, eh?

Edited January 25, 2016 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

On 24/01/2016 at 3:12 AM, MichaelsBeard said:

So you would have voted yes no matter what the financial consequences were?

Nope.

[Comfy Bean]

On 24/01/2016 at 9:31 AM, eFestivals said:

I've previously asked him if he'd live in a cave for indy. He said 'no'.

 

Good. You previously stated I didn`t answer the cave question. I try to do you a favour by not bringing up your cave question due to how absurd it is that you seem to actually think this ( us living in caves ) a realistic possibility when we vote to be an independent Country. It`s a bizarre idea even for you.

Happy Burn`s night by the way. Did you tuck into a plate of the haggis earlier ?

 

 

 

 

[Comfy Bean]

13 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Don't ya just love St. Nicola?

I'm not quite sure why St Nocola has decided it's her job to speak for the Welsh and NornIrn's, tho she's done so anyway. But I think the Welsh and NI's should ignore her slur onto their intelligence.

As English i don't have to fight off any slur from her. She's rightly recognised our talents (), especially our ability to make two different considerations within a few weeks of each other.

But as leader of the Scots she's said that Scottish people aren't able to manage two different political considerations within a few weeks of each other, so now we have St Nicola saying the Scots are too stupid.

As I've pointed out before, it's only the nationalists who ever say the Scots are "too wee too poor too stupid". And thanks for proving it again Nicola.

 

Hopefully if you were to read this back and then read what she actually said ( the Welsh are now agreeing with her ) YOU might feel a liitle bit " stupid ". I doubt you will of course.

" St Nicola "   

[Comfy Bean]

On 24/01/2016 at 10:41 AM, russycarps said:

Brilliant. So your band plan is to tax 'the rich' by a sufficient amount to cover the vast deficit. Just how rich are the rich of Scotland?? Presumably you have more oligarchs than Russia.

And presumably you are going to seal the border to prevent them fleeing south when they don't fancy paying the draconian rates?

Oh wait. I forgot about Scottish exceptionalism. I am sure they will be thrilled to cover the shortfall. Everyone in Scotland is socialist after all right!

" Brilliant ". The conversation around Scotland having a fairer and more progressive tax system gets past a couple of posts and you refer to " draconian rates ".

Interesting that you claim ( as did Neil ) that any of our richer residents who don`t fancy paying their " fair " share in tax should " flee " to England.

Leaving aside you both automatically assume these folk would head to England when there is a big wide world out there, I think it`s interesting that you assume they would be made most welcome and be allowed to keep more of their wealth all to themselves down your way. 

Interesting that you both feel the same way on this. If we want to narrow the gap with a fairer tax system then I agree that some people won`t fancy it.