The Dirty Independence Question

[Comfy Bean]

On 24/01/2016 at 11:51 AM, russycarps said:

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

 

I`m glad your pleased with the job news 

You appeared to have forgotten the " union " bit when you rushed ( the odd time  ) to post the sad news of job losses in Aberdeen. 

[Comfy Bean]

On 24/01/2016 at 9:19 AM, eFestivals said:

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.

 

I disagree with this. Leaving aside your 16% claims - is this for 120 years lol - do you accept that parts of the tax changes coming into force this year have been under negotiation with the Tories for 7 years ?

Indy will not be like flicking a light switch and since we have absolutely no idea when the process of running all of our own affairs will even start, your 16% cut to every service in Scotland seems a little silly and cannot be based on fact when we are talking about an undetermined time in the future.

I would also add that many of the services in Scotland and in the UK will be unrecognisable by the time we get to find out how wrong you are  

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Good. You previously stated I didn`t answer the cave question.

Not true.

Exactly as I've just said again, you've refused to say where the line between "worth it" and "I don't want to live in a cave" falls.

 

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

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.

Is that really what you think? I can only think your mother denied you dot-to-dot puzzles as a kid.

Indy might be hugely beneficial, or it might be a massive disaster, or it might land somewhere inbetween. At it's worse all of society might crumble and all that's left are caves for you to live in. There's a famous quote - from a senior SNP member, no less - about Swinney and how he'd live in a cave for indy.

You've made clear that you wouldn't accept swapping the UK for life in a cave; fair enough, and I'm glad to hear it.

But what would be useful to know is what sort of hit you'd be happy to take to your lifestyle for indy? It's really not a hard question, is it?

Because the facts show that indy will cost you a big hit to your lifestyle.

So it would be interesting to see if the hit you'd be happy to take to your lifestyle is more or less than the hit indy would make to your lifestyle.

But even just the "I won't live in a cave for indy" thing makes clear it's all about the money for you.  I just want to see how much money.

 

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

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 "   

she said thinking about 2 issues at once is more than the people of Scotland are able to do.

She's welcome to think that if she wishes. I think the people of Scotland are far cleverer and more-able than she says.

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

" 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 ".

The average tax burden of every man, woman and child would have to rise by 16% to fund Scotland at current levels (see chokkablog for the workings on this).

Which of course means that the tax rise would be a wacking great 40-ish percent extra on *ALL* (average) workers. It's waaaaay beyond what any progressive tax system can deal with, particularly in a country where a small proportion already pay 50% of all taxes.

 

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

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. 

Do the rich object to paying high taxes and try to avoid them?

The most likely choice of any rich Scot who wants to escape high taxes i Scotland is very obviously rUK - because of all the common values we already share, and because of the ease in transferring their life from Scotland to England (something plenty of Scots already do [and of course in the opposite way too]).

Given that you say rUK will be forever tory after an iScotland has floated off into the sunset, and tories love low taxes, then it hardly takes a leap of faith by me to suggest they'd be likely to pay lower taxes in rUK than iScotland.

But of course on top of that, rUK costs about 20% less to run than Scotland, so rUK can afford lower taxes than iScotland when delivering an identical standard of life (and benefits/public services, etc) - and so just by that fact they *would* be able to keep more of their wealth without anyone suffering for it.

Awkward these facts, eh?  You've attempted to call the England 'tory', and all you've done is highlighted that if everything is equal with lifestyles and public services both sides of the border, those in rUK will be paying lower taxes.

Oh dear.

Just keep on saying "Scotland contributes an equal amount" (which it does) and never ever reference the fact that Scotland receives more-than its equal share back - an extra £1600 per-person - and then you can pretend black is white.

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I`m glad your pleased with the job news 

You appeared to have forgotten the " union " bit when you rushed ( the odd time  ) to post the sad news of job losses in Aberdeen. 

those job losses would be happening whether Scotland was indy or as it is.

It's a result of world prices, and not the result of unionist - or SNP - policy.

But just blame the world's economic realities on the nasty Eton tory English Westminsters, and then you can be just like the tories blaming Labour for the global economic crisis.

Yep, like any tory. That's what indy has made you.

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I disagree with this. Leaving aside your 16% claims - is this for 120 years lol -

According to Salmond himself - YES IT IS!!

Its for as long as the time it takes for an iScotland (or FFA Scotland) to bridge the current funding gap, The *only* considered view on this is the one your own leader offered. 120 years.

 

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

do you accept that parts of the tax changes coming into force this year have been under negotiation with the Tories for 7 years ?

Nope.

When was the last Scotland Act passed? Oh, that will have been in 2012.

Were there any financial issues around that, that impacted into Scotland's funding? Nope, none at all.  The only financial issues were for a straight transfer of money to Holyrood from Westminster alongside those (fairly minor) new powers.

The current Scotland act is different and there's plenty of complicated financial issues with it, but unless Sturgeon decides herself to delay what she says she wants it will have all take less than 2 1/2 years.

Never mind, eh?

 

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Indy will not be like flicking a light switch

It'll be *exactly* like that.

On i-Day, all fiscal transfers from rUK will end.

And Scotland will have to live on far less money - £1600 per person less.

 

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

and since we have absolutely no idea when the process of running all of our own affairs will even start, your 16% cut to every service in Scotland seems a little silly and cannot be based on fact when we are talking about an undetermined time in the future.

If Scotland became indy today, that 16% is correct.

If Scotland had become indy 10 years ago, that 16% is correct.

If Scotland had become indy 20 years ago, that 16% is correct.

Unless anything changes *MASSIVELY* in Scotland, in 10 years time that 16% will be correct.

What have you missed comfy?

 

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I would also add that many of the services in Scotland and in the UK will be unrecognisable by the time we get to find out how wrong you are  

even if Gidiot succeeds in his plan to run a UK surplus, guess what? That 16% is still correct.

Cos that 16% is what is currently covered by UK fiscal transfers,. that gives Scotland an extra £1600 per person each and every year.

What have you missed comfy?

Meanwhile, you have big hopes that 16% might be different at the time of indy, but you have no plan for why it might change, and you can point at no plan by others fror why it might change.

The SNP don't have a plan. They've admitted they don't.

How's it going to even start to change without a plan to change it, comfy?

The only workable plan is massive cuts in Scottish public spending AND massive tax increases in Scotland .. and which will make tory cuts look like a spending spree.

[eFestivals]

I've just remembered about how things were at the start of the indyref campaign.

And how things were had people on all sides and no sides asking for facts, demanding facts, and wanting facts - so they could make their decision on the facts.

And they got facts. The facts of GERS was pointed out; the fact of the volatile oil price was pointed out; the fact of the high costs (and growing fast) of North Sea extraction were pointed out; the fact that levels of pensions equal to rUK couldn't be guaranteed was pointed out, and so much more.

And these facts were rejected by snippers as smears, or doing Scotland down, or bluster, or bullying, or lies.

And now we have a bunch of snippers who will never reference those facts and what they mean to a self-financing Scotland, and who instead cling to baseless hopes of a better tomorrow where all of the real issues facing a self-funding Scotland are ignored, exactly as comfy is doing here.

Somehow they'll be a better tomorrow and everything will be fine.

Based on nothing at all except hopes with no basis.

Who needs the facts, eh?

[Comfy Bean]

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Indy might be hugely beneficial, or it might be a massive disaster, or it might land somewhere inbetween. At it's worse all of society might crumble and all that's left are caves for you to live in. There's a famous quote - from a senior SNP member, no less - about Swinney and how he'd live in a cave for indy.

You've made clear that you wouldn't accept swapping the UK for life in a cave; fair enough, and I'm glad to hear it.

But what would be useful to know is what sort of hit you'd be happy to take to your lifestyle for indy? It's really not a hard question, is it?

Because the facts show that indy will cost you a big hit to your lifestyle.

So it would be interesting to see if the hit you'd be happy to take to your lifestyle is more or less than the hit indy would make to your lifestyle.

But even just the "I won't live in a cave for indy" thing makes clear it's all about the money for you.  I just want to see how much money.

 

The bit in bold could well be my favourite line yet. #scenes 

Why did you put " I won`t live in a cave for indy " in quotes ?

I recall that you bizarrely asked if I would vote for Independence if it meant everyone would have to return to living in caves. A perfectly normal debating point in your view. I guess if anyone in the real world did actually ask me that ( unlikely but I`m doing what I can here ) then I would say no.

You now appear to be saying that I am saying " I won`t live in a cave for Indy ". 

If you ask me if I would up sticks and move myself into a cave if my actions would prevent all of society from crumbling then I suppose I would. Perhaps there is a movie in this idea. I`d suggest that a young Brad Pitt plays me and that fella " Wilson " from Castaway plays your good self 

[Comfy Bean]

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

those job losses would be happening whether Scotland was indy or as it is.

It's a result of world prices, and not the result of unionist - or SNP - policy.

But just blame the world's economic realities on the nasty Eton tory English Westminsters, and then you can be just like the tories blaming Labour for the global economic crisis.

Yep, like any tory. That's what indy has made you.

The top 2 bits I fully agree with you Neil. I was merely making the same point to Russy and if you don`t mind, he prefers " Brave " Unionists.

On the bottom 2 bits, where did I say " Eton " Tory " or " English " in relation to the oil industry job losses. I think Westminster and the Scottish Govt should do what they can to protect all industries, skills etc.

I`m not sure I have ever mentioned " Eton " on this or any other thread. I think you are struggling a bit here and was not surprised when you finished off by calling me a Tory 

[Comfy Bean]

On 24/01/2016 at 9:54 AM, tonyblair said:

And opinions aren't facts 

I agree Tony. Just seen your opinion on the news. I have said before that Labour will be key players in an Indy vote. We have already seen Scottish Labour soften their position when Keza said she will allow her MSP`s / MP to openly support the idea. 

So.... do we agree with Tony. Will the EU vote be another piece of the jigsaw ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35412473

[Comfy Bean]

Woops. Double post !

Edited January 26, 2016 by comfortablynumb1910

[lost]

On 1/22/2016 at 0:41 PM, tonyblair said:

anyone stumbling in on this thread might be confused into thinking you're an outright racist towards Scotland (if Scots were a 'race')

I was chatting about this with a mate and what he says seems to check out on wiki. As close to the "scottish race" as you can get is the picts and gaels who formed the kingdom of Scotland. But the border regions of modern Scotland are actually Anglo Saxon and used to be joined with Yorkshire to form the kindom of northumbria which became part of England

This shows how stupid it is talking about the Scots as a race with certain characteristics different to the English because modern Scotland is Scotland with a big chunk of England within it. Its just a line drawn at a certain point in time.

This is why I agree with him that Scotland has dodged a massive bullet here and illustrates what happens when you stir the nationalist pot. Voting to stay in the UK was already much stronger in these regions and if the indy side had won, I recon that as the oil prices dropped and public services cut the English/British identity would have risen and some movement would of started to break away from Scotland rejoin the UK. What happened after that is anyone's guess but we've got the Balkans and Northern Ireland as two recent examples.

 

[Comfy Bean]

1 hour ago, lost said:

I was chatting about this with a mate and what he says seems to check out on wiki. As close to the "scottish race" as you can get is the picts and gaels who formed the kingdom of Scotland. But the border regions of modern Scotland are actually Anglo Saxon and used to be joined with Yorkshire to form the kindom of northumbria which became part of England

This shows how stupid it is talking about the Scots as a race with certain characteristics different to the English because modern Scotland is Scotland with a big chunk of England within it. Its just a line drawn at a certain point in time.

This is why I agree with him that Scotland has dodged a massive bullet here and illustrates what happens when you stir the nationalist pot. Voting to stay in the UK was already much stronger in these regions and if the indy side had won, I recon that as the oil prices dropped and public services cut the English/British identity would have risen and some movement would of started to break away from Scotland rejoin the UK. What happened after that is anyone's guess but we've got the Balkans and Northern Ireland as two recent examples.

 

Not sure where your referring to with... Voting to stay in the UK was already much stronger in these regions? 

Also not sure how you give northern Ireland as one of your recent examples.

Might be my bad :-)

Just not sure what you mean with these 2 bits.

Take your point about us all being similar. That point has been made before on here and has its merits. Politically there are differences though, most obviously in the number of tory seats returned from up here plus differing views on nuclear weapons , Syria and Europe. 

The snp will make a clear stance on all 3 and we will see how the voting goes in may I suppose. 

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

The bit in bold could well be my favourite line yet. #scenes 

You're clearly having difficulties with the concept, so you got a child-like explanation of it.

Did it work? Or are you still confused by it?

 

12 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Why did you put " I won`t live in a cave for indy " in quotes ?

Oh, I see you're still confused by it.

 

12 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I recall that you bizarrely asked if I would vote for Independence if it meant everyone would have to return to living in caves. A perfectly normal debating point in your view. I guess if anyone in the real world did actually ask me that ( unlikely but I`m doing what I can here ) then I would say no.

As I've already explained, the 'live in a cavwe' thing is a comment by a senior SNP member about Swinney.

If you're offended by it, take it up with your heroes ... but don't forget to ask why some senior SNP members think Swinney is a moron, will you?

You were asked in the real world, by me here. You said 'no' months ago.

But I see you want to re-answer the same question again, but strangely don't wish - again - to answer the question posed alongside it. Why is that?

 

12 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

You now appear to be saying that I am saying " I won`t live in a cave for Indy ". 

You've said you won't. I'm referencing what you said. Do you really need to have 'how conversations work' explained to you now? Is that how fast your intelligence is slipping away?

 

12 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

If you ask me if I would up sticks and move myself into a cave if my actions would prevent all of society from crumbling then I suppose I would. Perhaps there is a movie in this idea. I`d suggest that a young Brad Pitt plays me and that fella " Wilson " from Castaway plays your good self 

What if ask you - as I have twice, which you keep on avoiding answering (I wonder why? What scares you? ) - what level of personal and societal losses you'd be prepared to suffer for independence?

What would you say?

Can you answer a nice easy question, or does the question turn you into a chicken that can't face up to the costs of indy?

 

 

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

On the bottom 2 bits, where did I say " Eton " Tory " or " English " in relation to the oil industry job losses. I think Westminster and the Scottish Govt should do what they can to protect all industries, skills etc.

You've tried to shut down any mention of the White Paper proposals by saying that mention of the oil price is glorying in the job loses of real people.

People reading here aren't as stupid as you think they are.

 

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I agree Tony. Just seen your opinion on the news. I have said before that Labour will be key players in an Indy vote. We have already seen Scottish Labour soften their position when Keza said she will allow her MSP`s / MP to openly support the idea. 

Labour are evil, a bunch of lying shysters who didn't support yes.

And I'll show how much better the indy side is by posting things I've invented about Labour, that Labour have never said.

 

[Comfy Bean]

Morning Neil. Could you please be specific in that last bit. What are you saying I've invented that labour never said? 

I'm moving on from cavegate. I do not think that anyone in Scotland or Wales or Ireland or England would be forced to return to cave dwelling if we saw the demise of our political union. As I have said already,  if that was in any way a possible result of any country going it alone then they wouldn't have my support. 

Paying more tax in an effort to reduce the gap between rich and poor and no nuclear weapons will continue to get my support. 

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Morning Neil. Could you please be specific in that last bit. What are you saying I've invented that labour never said? 

Dugdale hasn't said that she "will" allow individuals to support indy, she's said she 'might'.

 

Quote

I'm moving on from cavegate. I do not think that anyone in Scotland or Wales or Ireland or England would be forced to return to cave dwelling if we saw the demise of our political union. As I have said already,  if that was in any way a possible result of any country going it alone then they wouldn't have my support. 

Yes, I know you want to avoid answering the simple question I've asked of you, and wish to hide behind 'cavegate' as the way to do it.

Are you fooling yourself? Cos you're certainly not fooling anyone else, and just look foolish for your avoidance and flag up big that you're scared of indy.

 

Quote

Paying more tax in an effort to reduce the gap between rich and poor and no nuclear weapons will continue to get my support. 

What about paying more tax and increasing the poorness of the poorest? Cos that's the reality of what you're supporting.

Your hopes that tomorrow will be different are empty hopes until you can point at something to cover the £8Bn loss of govt revenues.

How do you think Scottish public services will be when they have £1600 less to spend for every man woman and child? Better, or worse?

And who do you think is going to be hit hardest by that massive loss (16% loss!) of public services, comfy? The rich or the poor?

You'll go all Life of Brian about these questions, and run away run away run away.

 

Edited January 27, 2016 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

33 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Dugdale hasn't said that she "will" allow individuals to support indy, she's said she 'might'.

 

Yes, I know you want to avoid answering the simple question I've asked of you, and wish to hide behind 'cavegate' as the way to do it.

Are you fooling yourself? Cos you're certainly not fooling anyone else, and just look foolish for your avoidance and flag up big that you're scared of indy.

 

What about paying more tax and increasing the poorness of the poorest? Cos that's the reality of what you're supporting.

Your hopes that tomorrow will be different are empty hopes until you can point at something to cover the £8Bn loss of govt revenues.

How do you think Scottish public services will be when they have £1600 less to spend for every man woman and child? Better, or worse?

And who do you think is going to be hit hardest by that massive loss (16% loss!) of public services, comfy? The rich or the poor?

You'll go all Life of Brian about these questions, and run away run away run away.

 

I accept your position that I am a moron or foolish or whatever else you have called me 

Can we agree that I know the difference between " YES " and " Might ".

There is no fool like an old fool as some might say.

 

Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale has said she would not stop MPs and MSPs campaigning for independence if there was another referendum.

Ms Dugdale told BBC Scotland she would not "shut down" debate on the issue within Scottish Labour.

Her comments came after former leader Johann Lamont said Labour should consider having a "free vote" in any future independence referendum.

Ms Dugdale said she had "tremendous respect" for this position.

When asked if Labour's MP and MSPs should be allowed to campaign against party policy, as they did in the 1979 devolution referendum, Ms Dugdale said: "Yes. Many Labour members, in fact almost 30% of Labour party supporters, voted Yes. We know that now from all the evidence and I respect that.

"I'm not going to shut down my party's renewal and debate in my party because people hold a different position on independence."

She added: "If somebody holds that view on the question of independence, I'm not going to try to shut down the debate."

Full article ( there are plenty to choose from ) :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-34301969

 

On the cash front, you know my view on your projected numbers into an unknown time ( if ever ) into the future. My point that public services, health, local authority`s etc will be unrecognisable by then the other day passed you by. I think it`s apples and pears, you disagree. It`s a bit like how long is a piece of string in my view. We are talking about a Labour Govt or SNP having control of 100% of everything. We are looking way into the future and we all agree ( I think ) that Scotland is capable of taking it`s own decisions. This is not to say that the finances will not be important, of course they will but I don`t accept your " facts " but prefer to note your estimates. 

When you are thinking this through and imagining we will be gubbed etc what year are you imagining we are in ? Serious question, even roughly eg 2022 ?

Oh and just because you don`t agree with my answer doesn`t mean I`m avoiding your question 

How long is a piece of string Neil ? 

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I accept your position that I am a moron or foolish or whatever else you have called me 

Can we agree that I know the difference between " YES " and " Might ".

There is no fool like an old fool as some might say.

Fair enough, the facts have proven me wrong.

I'm quite happy to be put right by the facts. I'm not scared of facts.

What about you?

And I see you avoided - again - answering the question of what would be too-high a price to pay for indy. What is it that scares you about giving an answer to that?

Would you accept your lifestyle - and everyone else's - to be diminished by 10%

What about 15%?

Or even 16%?

How does 16% poorer make the poorest better off, comfy?

What's the benefit in voting for a better Scotland that Scotland is unable to actually deliver?

You said in a previous post that indy won't be like flicking a switch, and yet Salmond said in the indyref that it would be. Why is it now different, and why would rUK keep sending an iScotland money that iScotland had voted to reject?

[Comfy Bean]

On 1/27/2016 at 7:20 AM, eFestivals said:

You've tried to shut down any mention of the White Paper proposals by saying that mention of the oil price is glorying in the job loses of real people.

People reading here aren't as stupid as you think they are.

 

Neil I`m not so sure about this. I think we have been discussing the white paper for years. Nobody is trying to shut down mentions of it. Lets be honest, it`s been mentioned 100`s of times on here. My point remains it was what it was and we were not voting on it as you know. Anywayz, here`s some words from your side of the debate around our oil industry. I`m sure you will be equally scathing regards what your Unionist heroes were saying just before the vote or are you to busy wrapped in the flag 

Vote NO - Safeguard jobs ....unlock £200billion...

HUNDREDS of billions of pounds worth of North Sea oil and gas revenues will be at risk if Scotland votes for independence, David Cameron will warn today as he brings the UK Cabinet north of the Border for only the third time in its history.

At a meeting in Aberdeen, ministers will agree to fast-track proposals experts say could unlock up to £200 billion in reserves over the next 20 years.

The Coalition Government will insist the windfall - which could see household energy bills drop - is only possible with the resources of a united UK.

The plans will also help safeguard the 450,000 jobs in the oil and gas industry in Britain, Downing Street believes.

[Comfy Bean]

On 1/27/2016 at 11:11 AM, eFestivals said:

Would you accept your lifestyle - and everyone else's - to be diminished by 10%

 

If we assume we are a decade down the line here as you didn`t answer my question on when we are imagining things.

Are we imagining the deficit and debt WE all have will have been reduced ?

I was reading about Labours plans to get Cooncil debts written off, is this factored in ?

Can you provide an estimate of the oil price per barrel in 10 years time ?

Could there be another boom in the period between now and then.

I posted figures on Scotlands unemployment figures that stated Scotland was out performing rUK. Will this continue ?

You know I`m a hope over fear guy so what if we get the 10% down to 6% or maybe even 4 as it could be longer than 10 years till Indy. As you have shown, your numbers range from 16 - 10 - 8 so they can`t all be right.

For talking sake I`ll call your 10 and lets go with 4. So your asking if I would accept my lifestyle was reduced by 4% " and everyone elses ". Well my point is........

Why should everyone contribute the same ? How about the poorest in our society contribute 0% and the more affluent pick up 3% with those somewhere in between picking up the slack.

Council tax reform would be a start and with more people working ( in this scenario ) and the tax revenue on the up with higher bands as well as from more employment we could be on our way.

Couple of quid from less wars, nuclear weapons and house of lords type waste and there could be no stopping us 

I also meant to pick you and Russ up on all the bullshit about the rich who don`t want to pay there fair share up here moving to England. As all you Unionist types know, it`s WALES that they will move to if they don`t want to contribute to a fairer society.

 

 

Edited January 29, 2016 by comfortablynumb1910

[Comfy Bean]

On 1/24/2016 at 8:50 AM, eFestivals said:

 

But let's just pretend black is white, and then we can pretend that a self-funding Scotland would be gloriously wealthy.

Neil, you are the only person on here that has claimed Scotland would be gloriously wealthy.

A little fairer perhaps and maybe a little greener. Certainly big enough to take it`s own decisions.

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Neil I`m not so sure about this. I think we have been discussing the white paper for years. Nobody is trying to shut down mentions of it. Lets be honest, it`s been mentioned 100`s of times on here. My point remains it was what it was and we were not voting on it as you know.

Bullshit.

It's contents would have become Scottish law, without anyone in Scotland having the chance to reject it. Even the words 'white paper' give it all away.

You might have chosen a different course afterwards, after independence (if given the chance, see below), but the white paper were proposals for Day 1 of indy. Everything about Scotland's future would have already been negotiated, and its future set in stone.

All that would be left would be for you to make decisions within the parameters it had already set, such as how you'd make 100% of income fund services that cost 120% of that income.

(the answer of course is that you wouldn't have been able to, and cuts like you can't imagine - waaay waaaaay WAY worse than the tories - would have been brought down onto Scotland by your own choice.)

And yes, I know elections would have - supposedly - followed 8 weeks after indy, but they wouldn't have actually happened. iScotland would have already declared a national emergency due to the massive funding crisis, and elections would have been cancelled on the basis that they risked further destabilising a new nation that had sunk to its knees in a flash ... and so begins the wonderful new nation of iScotland.

And yes, I know that's only my prediction .... but it's more based in reality, in the facts of what iScotland would have to deal with - than anything of yours that rejects the idea of those unavoidable cuts.

 

Quote

Anywayz, here`s some words from your side of the debate around our oil industry. I`m sure you will be equally scathing regards what your Unionist heroes were saying just before the vote or are you to busy wrapped in the flag 

Vote NO - Safeguard jobs ....unlock £200billion...

HUNDREDS of billions of pounds worth of North Sea oil and gas revenues will be at risk if Scotland votes for independence, David Cameron will warn today as he brings the UK Cabinet north of the Border for only the third time in its history.

At a meeting in Aberdeen, ministers will agree to fast-track proposals experts say could unlock up to £200 billion in reserves over the next 20 years.

The Coalition Government will insist the windfall - which could see household energy bills drop - is only possible with the resources of a united UK.

The plans will also help safeguard the 450,000 jobs in the oil and gas industry in Britain, Downing Street believes.

Salmond got it badly wrong on oil extraction, Fat Dave got it badly wrong.on oil extraction.

Salmond got it badly wrong on govt oil revenues, Fat Dave got it badly wrong on oil revenues.

Salmond had bet the future of his country on oil revenues. Fat Dave hadn't.

Salmond's prediction would have led Scotland to disaster. Fat Dave's prediction has neither led Scotland to disaster or the UK to disaster.

Salmond would have had to slaughter Scottish public services on the basis of his huge error. Fat Dave doesn't have to, and the 120% of funding Scotland needs keeps flowing north.

Oh look, they're not the same thing. Who noticed? Not you.

Edited January 30, 2016 by eFestivals