The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, LJS said:

I didn't draw any conclusions from any slides.

I didn't read Alex Salmond. I have cancelled my subscription to the Herald.

You should take a look, and ask yourself how come

1. it doesn't appear to be anything about a decision of the Scottish people, but about a decision  of the SNP., and

2. why it's no longer about how an EUref 'leave' vote would trigger a new vote.

 

6 minutes ago, LJS said:

I would dispute your interpretation of slide 18.

You're welcome to, but how exactly?

The question on the left asks the 'perfect world' question of whether or not people are against nukes. People say they're against nukes.

The question on the right puts it into the 'real world' of other countries having nukes, and asks whether the UK should have nukes or not when others have nukes. People say they're for nukes.

Now, do we have a perfect world or do we have a real world?

FFS.

 

6 minutes ago, LJS said:

I have no idea what you are on about 're slide 15.

It shows majority support for indy - unlike almost every other poll that been done over many years. There have been occasional majority-for-indy polls, but subsequent polling has shown those to be rouge polls.

Given that other recent polls have shown support for indy is falling even further below the required majority rather than rising yet this one shows a big rise, this classes as a rouge poll until other polls confirm what this poll says.

 

6 minutes ago, LJS said:

I have no idea if a brexit would lead to a 2nd Indy ref although it would surely shorten the odds.

So it's fuck all to do with a 'leave' vote 'triggering' a new indyref, and it's in fact only about whether a new indyref can be won?

Who'd have thought it, eh?

 

 

[LJS]

What a load of tosh. Sadly I shall not be able to demolish it in detail until this evening.

 

In the meantime , what is a rouge poll? Is it one showing French socialists in the lead?

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, LJS said:

In the meantime , what is a rouge poll? Is it one showing French socialists in the lead?

when I wrote it I thought "is that the right spelling".

Having just googled I now know for certain it's not, yet I can't for the life of me think what the right spelling is. Brain freeze.

You know what I mean, get over it.

[eFestivals]

15 minutes ago, LJS said:

What a load of tosh. Sadly I shall not be able to demolish it in detail until this evening.

well, I've got to say, I'm intrigued at how you might interpret slide 18 differently, when the clue is in the questions asked, and where nukes are more supported when reference is made to other countries having nukes - which is the case in the real world.

And you won't be able to dispute that it's a 'rouge' poll, especially as you so kindly referenced Prof Curtis. He likes to details poll results, have you looked at what they've been saying?

Here you go, here's a handy link:-

http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/how-would-you-vote-in-the-in-the-scottish-independence-referendum-if-held-now-a#table

Edited February 11, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

and my brain has unfrozen.

I of course meant rogue. Doh.

 

[LJS]

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

In the way I just used it - and referencing Sturgeon's back-down - one is conceding that you've misconstrued the whole basis of the 'negotiations', and the other is an adjustment of the formula having rightly gone along with the purpose of the 'negotiations'.

That is entirely your interpretation  - you r side "adjusts" the other side "concedes"  There is nothing (other than the spin from Westminster to support this. You will note that I am not  claiming "my" side to be more righteous in this - I acknowledge negotiations are complex & difficult.

Quote

 

Nope. She's conceding she'd been trying to take the piss.

Has she really? 

Quote

 

So it's not straightforwards that if the new formula as suggested by the UK had been in place since devolution that Scotland would have had a greater income?

Link please? (& not some treasury spokesman saying so)

Quote

If that classes as the UK govt being nasty to Scotland, you have a warped sense of realism and a false sense of grievance.

Have I said the UK Govt is being nasty to Scotland?

Quote

You're getting compatible risks to the new powers.

Not all the risk and limited new powers.

That would be the self-funding that Scotland doesn't want, and that terrifies the SNP.

And YOU!

I do not have enough information or expertise to jusdge whether the risks are compatible with the powers, which is why I am not making wild accusations.

Quote

 

We have a statement from the UK govt that that's the case.

How many reasons do you want? & since when did you accept the word of the UK government as gospel. Jeremy Hunt is part of the UK Government.

Quote

As I said, as this can be easily checked by someone who wants to check, why would they lie?

If you want to dispute it, find something to dispute it with. Even Sturgeon is not disputing it.

Yes she is.

Quote

 

We both have 'sides'.

I have a side in the independence debate. I have a side in this debate only in the sense that I live in Scotland & clearly want a fair deal for my country. I do not want this at the expense of other parts of the UK which is why I am not making wild & unsubstantiated allegations about the "other" side. 

Quote

I'm referencing clear statements. You're disputing them with nothing at all.

Not even Sturgeon has disputed what the UK govt has said.

yes she has.

 

Anyway let's  forget about what the SNP say - because they are undoubtedly biased  Let's have a look about what representatives from other parties on the Smith commission are saying

 

Quote

 

Six of the 10 members of the cross-party Smith Commission which drew up the blueprint for the devolution settlement, including senior Labour, Liberal Democrat and Scottish Green members, have said they broadly support the Scottish government over the issue.

They include Labour's Iain Gray, Liberal Democrat Tavish Scott and Green co-convenor Maggie Chapman, who explicitly back calls for budget protection from the population effect.

Mr Gray said: "To a degree I think I largely agree with John Swinney on this position. What has been talked about is a population trend which is in place and would be nothing to do with decisions that had been taken in Scotland. In my view it does have to be factored into the discussions."

Mr Scott agreed it was "logical" that the new fiscal framework should take Scotland's slower population growth into account.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35548190 

 

I see your pal has finally broken his silence on the subject - I doubt you will have missed this

http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/

I'm not entirely sure what to make of it other than that he appears to conclude that Scotland will be ( & should be) worse off as a result of all this.rather than lamenting this he simply concludes it is another case of SNP baad.. 

He also uses a favourite trick of yours by quoting St Nic but conveniently ... missing out... part of what she actually said to favour his case. 

In fairness it is a complex article which i have not fully digested as yet.

Edited February 11, 2016 by LJS

[LJS]

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

You should take a look, and ask yourself how come

1. it doesn't appear to be anything about a decision of the Scottish people, but about a decision  of the SNP., and

Nonsense - he states that another Tory win with between 0 & 1 MP's in Scotland might " lead to a second Scottish independence referendum "  - are you so stupid that he then needs to add ... " but only if the Scottish people want it" at the end of every such statement.  

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

2. why it's no longer about how an EUref 'leave' vote would trigger a new vote.

It is possible to have a number of different "potential triggers" for a new indy ref - discussing one does not rule out another.

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

You're welcome to, but how exactly?

The question on the left asks the 'perfect world' question of whether or not people are against nukes. People say they're against nukes.

The question on the right puts it into the 'real world' of other countries having nukes, and asks whether the UK should have nukes or not when others have nukes. People say they're for nukes.

Now, do we have a perfect world or do we have a real world?

FFS.

Or we coudl ask "would you rather spend £170Bn on WMD's or build 100 Hospitals, 1000 schools and employ 10,000 extra police officers?"

 

That's a real world question too.

But then no doubt you woudl have the question for Indyref2 as " are you fucking irresponsible enought to vote Scotland independent even though it means your kids will be living in caves?"

 

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

It shows majority support for indy - unlike almost every other poll that been done over many years. There have been occasional majority-for-indy polls, but subsequent polling has shown those to be rouge polls.

Given that other recent polls have shown support for indy is falling even further below the required majority rather than rising yet this one shows a big rise, this classes as a rouge poll until other polls confirm what this poll says.

Support has risen & fallen but all polls have shown support greater than the 45% recorded in the Indyref - I think the poll I linked today actually showed a drop in support form the last poll from the same organisation. I thought the range of issues covered in this poll made it of more interest than most.

Bar

Line

Table

• ExportpercentageYesNoNov '14Jan '15Mar '15May '15Jul '15Sep '15Nov '15Jan '160255075
  Insert 'Don't Know' and 'Refused' responses

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

So it's fuck all to do with a 'leave' vote 'triggering' a new indyref, and it's in fact only about whether a new indyref can be won?

Who'd have thought it, eh?

 

I'll tell you a secret Neil - I don't make SNP policy. I do have opinions. My opinion is a Brexit will make Indyref2 more likely but not inevitable. I can't really see what your issue with that opinion is.

 

p.s you'll love this story

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/politics/expert-says-simple-boundary-re-draw-would-allow-scots-to-stay-in-eu-if-rest-of-uk-votes-to-leave-1.923813

[LJS]

11 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

I do like how Curtis notices how Scotland is becoming more tory, in the land where - apparently - there's no tories.

 

Yup they've maybe gained on average a couple of % over the past few months. I think we can live with one in 6 Scots voting Tory  

[LJS]

A couple of other article on the FF thing - this time form the Indy side

 

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2016/02/11/the-treasury-just-admitted-that-the-scotland-bill-is-a-trap/

 

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2016/02/07/will-a-disastrous-fiscal-settlement-be-the-end-for-john-swinney/

 

http://reidfoundation.org/2016/01/adjusting-the-scottish-government%E2%80%99s-block-grant-taking-the-wider-perspective/

[eFestivals]

13 hours ago, LJS said:

Yes she is.

Nope.

She's saying that Scotland will lose money in the future.

She's not disputing the UK govt claim that their calc method would have given the SG more income in past years.

 

13 hours ago, LJS said:

 Let's have a look about what representatives from other parties on the Smith commission are saying

If numbers prove something wrong, I presume you're siding with the Scottish councils against the cuts the "anti-austerity" (snigger) SNP are enforcing on the Scottish councils....?

Meanwhile, which politician wanting support from the Scottish public is likely to say "Scotland should have less money"? 

England is having less money in the future. Wales is having less money in the future. N.I. is having less money in the future.

Scotland feels a better deal than the other three is penalising Scotland.

What have you missed?

[eFestivals]

14 hours ago, LJS said:

I see your pal has finally broken his silence on the subject - I doubt you will have missed this

http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/

I'm not entirely sure what to make of it other than that he appears to conclude that Scotland will be ( & should be) worse off as a result of all this.rather than lamenting this he simply concludes it is another case of SNP baad.. 

He also uses a favourite trick of yours by quoting St Nic but conveniently ... missing out... part of what she actually said to favour his case. 

In fairness it is a complex article which i have not fully digested as yet.

(I'm just reading it for the first time now)

He's pointed out that Sturgeon has written in her letter to Cameron that she's asking for something MORE than Smith recommended.

 

Quote

"we are not about to accept risks [...] about which Smith made no recommendation"

Edited February 12, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

(I'm just reading it for the first time now)

He's pointed out that Sturgeon has written in her letter to Cameron that she's asking for something MORE than Smith recommended.

 

Try reading the whole sentence without the bit your pal omitted.

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, LJS said:

Try reading the whole sentence without the bit your pal omitted.

I just have.

It says - in effect - that Sturgeon is not prepared to accept the population proportion of Scotland within the UK falling (which it will, via different population growths) and causing the proportion of Scotland's funding to fall along with it.

The pertinent point is that Scotland getting a lower proportional share in the future isn't actually a cut to Scottish funding. The funding per-head would (if everything else remained equal*) remain the same for Scotland.

(* I realise there's overall cuts to whole-UK spending, which further confuses things)

Sturgeon & Swinney are demanding that Scotland keeps a fixed proportion of UK funding, without reference to relative population sizes.

Sturgeon and Swinney are demanding an increase per-head via the population proportion changes that everyone accepts will happen over coming years.

[eFestivals]

14 hours ago, LJS said:

Nonsense - he states that another Tory win with between 0 & 1 MP's in Scotland might " lead to a second Scottish independence referendum "  - are you so stupid that he then needs to add ... " but only if the Scottish people want it" at the end of every such statement.  

It's him kicking when that 'trigger' will happen further down the road than has been the recent SNP mantra, and hoping the population will suck up that change.

That's the bit I was pointing at.  Him moving the goalposts, and him hoping the Scottish people will be led by the nose by him to a point further into the future.

Because he knows that an indyref2 triggered by the EUref would be another lost indyref, because the dream of everything staying the same couldn't be accepted by the people of Scotland in the current economic circumstances of Scotland. People wouldn't fall for it.

 

14 hours ago, LJS said:

It is possible to have a number of different "potential triggers" for a new indy ref - discussing one does not rule out another.

True.

Nothing of that changes the point that an indyref2 triggered by the EUref result would be an indyref2 that would be lost yet again.

Which is why the suggestion is now being made of an indyref2 at a later time, and not triggered by the EUref as has been previously suggested

 

14 hours ago, LJS said:

Or we coudl ask "would you rather spend £170Bn on WMD's or build 100 Hospitals, 1000 schools and employ 10,000 extra police officers?"

 

That's a real world question too.

True.

But of course the fact of freed-up money to be used for something else by not buying Trident is equally implicit in both questions, so they're 100% equal on that part.

The part they're not equal with is the reference to external threats, which is a strongly relevant part of any defence plan. After all, you only need a defence plan after having referenced external threats.

I don't disagree that the question asked makes a difference, but the questions asked there demonstrate a want of nukes in the real world, and not a not-want.

 

14 hours ago, LJS said:

But then no doubt you woudl have the question for Indyref2 as " are you fucking irresponsible enought to vote Scotland independent even though it means your kids will be living in caves?"

I would like the SNP to present a best case scenario and a worst case scenario, unlike the utopian-laughable scenario they presented last time.

People would then be able to consider the possibilities, and whether they felt the risks were worth any possible benefits.

You know, a fair consideration, and not the lie that was presented for Sept 2014 that almost every snipper is still clinging to despite the facts ... and that's because they can't face up to the fact that was was presented as "better for Scotland" was actually "trying to take Scotland for mugs".

 

 

[eFestivals]

14 hours ago, LJS said:

Support has risen & fallen but all polls have shown support greater than the 45% recorded in the Indyref

Not true.

There's been two polls in just the last month below 45%.

And nine other polls which were also below 45%.

All the rest have been consistently 'no' bar the occasional out-of-step with the rest 'rogue' poll that has suggested yes.

[eFestivals]

14 hours ago, LJS said:

p.s you'll love this story

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/politics/expert-says-simple-boundary-re-draw-would-allow-scots-to-stay-in-eu-if-rest-of-uk-votes-to-leave-1.923813

yep, I love dundee cake much more than that 'expert' references international law and treaties.

[eFestivals]

14 hours ago, LJS said:

Yup they've maybe gained on average a couple of % over the past few months. I think we can live with one in 6 Scots voting Tory  

I see you're happy with the rise of the tories too.

It's very clear that most snippers hate Labour far more than they hate the tories.

[LJS]

13 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Not true.

There's been two polls in just the last month below 45%.

And nine other polls which were also below 45%.

All the rest have been consistently 'no' bar the occasional out-of-step with the rest 'rogue' poll that has suggested yes.

Sorry, I should have added "excluding don't knows"

[LJS]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I see you're happy with the rise of the tories too.

It's very clear that most snippers hate Labour far more than they hate the tories.

What I am saying is the Tories remain an irrelevance. Whether the poll 16 or 18%. I see nothing to make me think they are likely to get over 20%.

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, LJS said:

Sorry, I should have added "excluding don't knows"

thing is, the don't knows turn primarily into no's.

We saw that in Sept 2014.

[LJS]

9 hours ago, eFestivals said:

thing is, the don't knows turn primarily into no's.

We saw that in Sept 2014.

Ahh, that means they always will then doesn't it?

 

You might equally argue that support for Indy rose significantly in the 2 years up to the last referendum. If it does the same again, yes would win easily.

 

 

[LJS]

Neil, I don't really intend to waste much more time on the FFA negotiations as you have clearly decided that one side is snow white whist the other is devious & dastardly.

 

I will make a couple of quick points though. 

 

1: the UK Government has come up with an additional £4.5bn for Scotland ( The Treasury is to table a fresh offer, which BBC Scotland understands would include £4.5bn of compensation for the impact of population growth, spread over 10 years. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35548190)

Why would they do that if their initial position was fair & honest? Or is this just an example of the kindness & generosity of the Tories?

2: you defend Kev Hague's filleting of Nicola's quote.

Let's just look at the before & after.

here's what Nicola said.... “What we are not prepared to do is to accept risks which are not symmetrical, over which we have little influence and no control, and about which Smith made no recommendation"

 

Here it is as filleted by Kevin ... "we are not about to accept risks [...] about which Smith made no recommendation"

 

You apparently think that makes no difference to the sense of the sentence. I disagree. the two versions read very differently.

 

But I'll tell you what. I'll fillet it the way that suits me...

“What we are not prepared to do is to accept risks which are not symmetrical, over which we have little influence and no control..."

How's that?

Anyway that will do for just now. If you show some interest in debating rather than your usual point scoring - I may add some more. Please note that I am not accusing either side of anything (or perhaps more accurately it seems to me that both sides are using negotiating strategies). I recognise these are very difficult & complex negotiations which will require give & take from both sides. You seem to just see it as a vehicle to pursue your anti SNP grievance politics.

 

 

 

[Stash]

2 hours ago, LJS said:

Neil, I don't really intend to waste much more time on the FFA negotiations as you have clearly decided that one side is snow white whist the other is devious & dastardly.

If you were interested in a debate, Neil's opinion shouldn't effect you. There are other people here. 

It's interesting that your reasoning for your lack or inability for debate changes upon different scenarios. The one consistency seems to be that you try your best to avoid referencing facts, figures or other tangible metrics.

 

2 hours ago, LJS said:

1: the UK Government has come up with an additional £4.5bn for Scotland ( The Treasury is to table a fresh offer, which BBC Scotland understands would include £4.5bn of compensation for the impact of population growth, spread over 10 years. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35548190)

Why would they do that if their initial position was fair & honest? Or is this just an example of the kindness & generosity of the Tories?

  So despite the fact that the agreed Smith commission report does not ask for this extra money, you somehow see it as being a sign that nefarious activity is going on? I'd remind you that the SNP accepted the Smith report as a fair position when negotiations began. 

2 hours ago, LJS said:

2: you defend Kev Hague's filleting of Nicola's quote.

Let's just look at the before & after.

here's what Nicola said.... “What we are not prepared to do is to accept risks which are not symmetrical, over which we have little influence and no control, and about which Smith made no recommendation"

 

Here it is as filleted by Kevin ... "we are not about to accept risks [...] about which Smith made no recommendation"

 

You apparently think that makes no difference to the sense of the sentence. I disagree. the two versions read very differently.

 

But I'll tell you what. I'll fillet it the way that suits me...

“What we are not prepared to do is to accept risks which are not symmetrical, over which we have little influence and no control..."

How's that?

 

 You'll surely disagree with this regardless of it's merit anyway, but the "filleting" you describe doesn;t actually make a difference to the meaning of the sentence you quote. Whether the SNP has control over the risks, or whether their was a Smith recommendation, there is no significant difference in meaning. 

Regardless of your, Neil's or my interpretation of that sentence however, the pertinent clause in the Smith commission seems to be a good place to end this post: 

 

Quote

No detriment as a result of the decision to devolve further power: the Scottish and UK Governments’ budgets should be no larger or smaller simply as a result of the initial transfer of tax and/or spending powers

 

Where in that sentence does it talk about the next ten years. Where in that sentence does it suggest that taxpayers in Belfast, Cardiff or London should be shielding taxpayers in Edinburgh to population shifts in the UK over the next decade and why on earth should the needs of 8% over right the needs of 92%? 

[Stash]

Whilst I'm here, there is an interesting article in the Telegraph: 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/agriculture/farming/12152910/SNP-payment-delay-inflicting-devastating-toll-on-farmers.html

 

I will preface my comments by admitting that I have no personal information about the issues experienced by the Scottish authorities, so am relying on the veracity of the article itself. Feel free to provide accurate info if it exists on-line. 

My particular interest comes with the quote in the article from Nicky herself; 

Quote

 

“My team, both in Government and in the civil service, are working to make sure that we get payments to farmers as quickly as possible. The Cabinet is discussing the issue weekly.

“It is true that processing payments has taken longer than we had intended due to the complexities of the new common agricultural policy system. We have been open with farmers and with industry about those complexities and what we are doing to address them.”

 

I know from my own personal involvement into other regional administrations that these challenges haven't been as "challenging":

Both the Irish & Northern Irish governments were able to record a plus 90% payment record before end December 2015. The English rural payments agency reported a 77% plus payment by end of January, yet the figures reported today (as yet undisputed) suggest Scotland (the land where milk, honey and administrative nirvana will occur) has only achieved a less than 40% payment rate to date, is actually pretty standard due to the complexity involved!!!!

I'll be the first to admit that I have no love for Scottish secession, but this is one of those stories where I wonder just how bad life could really be in a newly "independent" Scotland??

 

[LJS]

9 minutes ago, Stash said:

Whilst I'm here, there is an interesting article in the Telegraph: 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/agriculture/farming/12152910/SNP-payment-delay-inflicting-devastating-toll-on-farmers.html

 

I will preface my comments by admitting that I have no personal information about the issues experienced by the Scottish authorities, so am relying on the veracity of the article itself. Feel free to provide accurate info if it exists on-line. 

My particular interest comes with the quote in the article from Nicky herself; 

I know from my own personal involvement into other regional administrations that these challenges haven't been as "challenging":

Both the Irish & Northern Irish governments were able to record a plus 90% payment record before end December 2015. The English rural payments agency reported a 77% plus payment by end of January, yet the figures reported today (as yet undisputed) suggest Scotland (the land where milk, honey and administrative nirvana will occur) has only achieved a less than 40% payment rate to date, is actually pretty standard due to the complexity involved!!!!

I'll be the first to admit that I have no love for Scottish secession, but this is one of those stories where I wonder just how bad life could really be in a newly "independent" Scotland??

 

My expertise in the field (no pun intended) of agricultural subsidy is equal to Neil's love of Alec Salmond, so all I can do is quote another report

 

Quote

 

Farmers hit by delays to EU payments are to be offered loans from a £20m fund set up by the Scottish government. ...

"That is why the Scottish government is taking further action to ease cash flow pressures in the sector by earmarking up to £20m to ensure those most in need can access the credit they require until their payments come through.

"We will work with NFUS, banks and others to finalise the detail of the scheme and ensure it is available as quickly as possible and simple to access."

 Responding to the announcement, NFU Scotland chief executive Scott Walker said: "The Scottish government has recognised the severe financial pressures that many farm businesses are under.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35556253

 

This appears to be the result of some sort of i.t. problem. These problems, I would respectfully suggest are not entirely confined to the SNP.

Incidentally, it took me about 20 seconds to find my story, did you make any attempt to find another side to it or did you just pick the one that showed the SNP in the worst light?