The Dirty Independence Question

[Stash]

29 minutes ago, LJS said:

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

 

 

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? 

 

No idea how I managed this non-quote quote. - Basically nothing to see here

 

Edited February 12, 2016 by Stash
no idea!

[LJS]

46 minutes ago, Stash said:

 

57 minutes ago, Stash said:

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

It doesn't but he is the only consistent Unionist voice on here - Russy pops up now & again but only when the oil price has dropped a bit more. You appear much more rarely. But I will be happy to discuss the current fiscal framework negotiations with you. 

Quote

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.

I have been debating on here for over two years. I have referenced countless facts figures and other tangerines or whatever you said. You are of course entirely correct if what you mean is "I don't mindlessly accept Neil's Fact's Figs & tangerines" nor am I prepared to allow him to set them terms and boundaries of the debate.

Quote

 

  So despite the fact that the agreed Smith commission report does not ask for this extra money,

 

What extra money?

Quote

you somehow see it as being a sign that nefarious activity is going on?

 

I have not suggested nefarious activity is going on. Neil has. I accept that negotiations will be complex & that each side will inevitably take "negotiating positions" The only suggestion I made that might be interpreted as suggesting "nefarious activity" was going on was the apparent £4.5bn "improvement" in the UK offer. Neil had suggested the Scottish Government adjusting their position proved they had been "at it" before - my point was - how is this differnet when the UK gov change their position? 

Quote

I'd remind you that the SNP accepted the Smith report as a fair position when negotiations began. 

The Smith report gives broad principles but does not lay down specific measures to achieve these. that is what is being negotiated. The UK Government is not disputing the fact that these negotiations are necessary. 

Quote

 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.

You are correct, I disagree. The "filleting" at the very least changes the emphasis of the sentence. & if it doesn't change the meaning, why do it? Why not quote the whole sentence?

Quote

Whether the SNP has control over the risks, or whether their was a Smith recommendation, there is no significant difference in meaning. 

It's not the SNP that would or would not have control of the risks, it is the Scottish Government which is maybe why Scottish Labour & the Scottish Libdems are broadly supportive of the Scottish government position. Neil dismissed this but we all know how rare it is in the poisonous atmosphere of current Scottish politics for such consensus to occur.

 

Quote

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%? 

I have no idea what point you are making here. To the best of my knowledge The UKgov introduced the next ten years bit by offering £4.5bn "compensation" for losses that Scotland apparently weren't going to suffer in the next 10 years. There is a complex argument regarding population shifts & their effect. The IFS touched upon it in their report http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8061

You are guilty of oversimplifying it. I do not pretend to understand all the complexities of these things although I can count up to 20 without the use of my toes. It's why I elect politicians to do these things for me. I am also not naive enough to swallow the first newspaper piece that happens to agree with my point of view. 

Incidentally if you follow this thread, you will see that I have posted a number of links to arch SNP enemy Kevin "chokkablog" Hague. I don't ever see you or Neil doing that!.

Now, debate away!

 

 

Edited February 12, 2016 by LJS

[eFestivals]

13 hours ago, LJS said:

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?

because they want to get a deal done?

The way the funding is set-up currently, Scotland is (on average) gaining a little bit more (on a per-head basis) each year from rUK.

A new arrangement that is no-detriment to either side would have to see that benefit end for the transferred powers & funding, to instead lock it in on a per-head basis (rather than a growing-advantage basis).

The new offer is some transition money, it's not them backing down on Scotland's funding being related to its population and not just to the fact there's something called Scotland.

[LJS]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

because they want to get a deal done?

The way the funding is set-up currently, Scotland is (on average) gaining a little bit more (on a per-head basis) each year from rUK.

A new arrangement that is no-detriment to either side would have to see that benefit end for the transferred powers & funding, to instead lock it in on a per-head basis (rather than a growing-advantage basis).

The new offer is some transition money, it's not them backing down on Scotland's funding being related to its population and not just to the fact there's something called Scotland.

Of course it is because we know the Tories are fair and honourable people & we can trust them 100%. 

Your mind is made up Neil. Debate is pointless.

[eFestivals]

13 hours ago, LJS said:

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

They might read differently, but in the real world they end up meaning the same.

It ends up in an argument over Scotland's ability to attract migrants compared to rUK.

Currently we have open borders with the EU. There's nothing further a more-powers Scotland could offer EU citizens to entice them to Scotland.

A more-powers Scotland could open its borders to the rest of the world, but that would cause rUK to put in border controls with Scotland, and so doesn't end up anywhere better for Scotland.

And so Sturgeon bitching about her not having the powers to manage population risks ends up nowhere better than the deal on offer.

And don't forget, rUK also carries a risk from the transfer of these new powers, that a more-powers Scotland could act in such a way that is detrimental to rUK, and where rUK picks up extra costs as a result. It's not a one-way street on the 'risks' front.

[LJS]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

They might read differently, but in the real world they end up meaning the same.

It ends up in an argument over Scotland's ability to attract migrants compared to rUK.

Currently we have open borders with the EU. There's nothing further a more-powers Scotland could offer EU citizens to entice them to Scotland.

A more-powers Scotland could open its borders to the rest of the world, but that would cause rUK to put in border controls with Scotland, and so doesn't end up anywhere better for Scotland.

And so Sturgeon bitching about her not having the powers to manage population risks ends up nowhere better than the deal on offer.

And don't forget, rUK also carries a risk from the transfer of these new powers, that a more-powers Scotland could act in such a way that is detrimental to rUK, and where rUK picks up extra costs as a result. It's not a one-way street on the 'risks' front.

None of which alters the fact that whether Scotland's population rises or falls will largely depend on decisions made at a UK level.

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, LJS said:

Of course it is because we know the Tories are fair and honourable people & we can trust them 100%. 

Your mind is made up Neil. Debate is pointless.

I certainly agree with the principle that seems to behind the line that the tories are taking.

Care to explain to me why you think Scotland's money should increase if nothing in Scotland changes but England grows in population?

Why should Scotland gain if England does better but England not gain if Scotland does better?

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, LJS said:

None of which alters the fact that whether Scotland's population rises or falls will largely depend on decisions made at a UK level.

True.

Tho at some point, you've got to accept that the UK that Scotland decided to remain part of is going to retain control of some UK-wide powers.

Can you name any devolved region of any country in the world that controls immigration policy?

And let's face it, if 'the people' of either England or Scotland got a say on the matter, all immigration would stop today anyway.

[LJS]

26 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I certainly agree with the principle that seems to behind the line that the tories are taking.

Care to explain to me why you think Scotland's money should increase if nothing in Scotland changes but England grows in population?

Why should Scotland gain if England does better but England not gain if Scotland does better?

It shouldn't.

[LJS]

22 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

True.

Tho at some point, you've got to accept that the UK that Scotland decided to remain part of is going to retain control of some UK-wide powers.

Can you name any devolved region of any country in the world that controls immigration policy?

And let's face it, if 'the people' of either England or Scotland got a say on the matter, all immigration would stop today anyway.

I think that might depend how you asked the question , don't you agree?

 

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, LJS said:

I think that might depend how you asked the question , don't you agree?

perhaps, tho the questions that do get asked are pretty unanimous in the answer.

I see you decided to ignore the more relevant parts of what I said, tho - of Scotland having chosen to be part of a bigger entity, and that bigger entity always retaining some powers.

Edited February 13, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, LJS said:

It shouldn't.

Then you don't support Sturgeon's position on this.

 

[LJS]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Then you don't support Sturgeon's position on this.

 

I don't support anyone's position particularly. All I want is a fair deal for both sides. 

You have taken the word of the UK government that the deal they are offering is fair. I'm just a wee bit more sceptical.

[LJS]

8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

perhaps, tho the questions that do get asked are pretty unanimous in the answer.

I see you decided to ignore the more relevant parts of what I said, tho - of Scotland having chosen to be part of a bigger entity, and that bigger entity always retaining some powers.

Of course it does. I may not particularly like being part of the UK but I accept that , for the time being, I am. That means that some powers remain at Westminster. The question here is if decisions taken at Westminster have a knock on effect on Scotland's budget leaving it worse off, should something be done about that?

[eFestivals]

22 hours ago, LJS said:

I don't support anyone's position particularly. All I want is a fair deal for both sides. 

You have taken the word of the UK government that the deal they are offering is fair. I'm just a wee bit more sceptical.

I've also taken the word of the Scottish govt.

The word of the SG makes exceedingly clear that they're trying to exploit how each part's population proportion will change over the coming years to Scotland's advantage, to further increase the supplement per-head in Scotland.

So while you wish to label the uK govt as dishonest (which they may or may not be), we know with certainty that Sturgeon is.

And you've said you don't support the angle she's taking on this.

But all you can say is 'UK govt baaaad' when the only certain proof for this negotiation we have is the other way.

[eFestivals]

22 hours ago, LJS said:

The question here is if decisions taken at Westminster have a knock on effect on Scotland's budget leaving it worse off, should something be done about that?

As I've already pointed out, decisions taken at Holyrood can have a knock on effect on rUK's budget leaving rUK worse off.

Take, for example, the SNP's want of powers over Corp Tax, or VAT. Care to tell me how the SG could use those powers without an advantage for Scotland causing detriment for rUK?

Or, to keep within the powers being devolved, if Scotland reduced income taxes for the very wealthy, would that be at the cost of rUK? Yes it would.

You've demanded that Scotland competes with rUK around some things. The result of that competition cannot end up differently to being a gain for one is at the expense of the other. That's how it works. It cannot work in any other way.

So if "something should be done about that", can I suggest that devolution ends? It's the only way to get a decision that bears all parts of the UK in mind.

Edited February 14, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

I've also taken the word of the Scottish govt.

The word of the SG makes exceedingly clear that they're trying to exploit how each part's population proportion will change over the coming years to Scotland's advantage, to further increase the supplement per-head in Scotland.

Rubbish, The use of the word "exploit" reveals your prejudice. There is a genuine discussion of how differential population growth is factored into the calculations. The UK government recognises this...

 

Quote

 

The key disagreement concerns population, with that of Scotland set to grow more slowly than that of the UK in coming years.

The Scottish government backs a model known as "per capita indexed deduction", which would compensate financially for the slower population growth.

Mr Swinney said this was the best way of satisfying the "no detriment" principle, but Mr Hands said it was "not logical" and instead proposes a model which would update Scotland's population share of tax revenue over time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35572700

 

So in other words they disagree on HOW to reflect population change not on whether it needs to be reflected.

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

So while you wish to label the uK govt as dishonest (which they may or may not be), we know with certainty that Sturgeon is.

No we don't - this is entirely based on your interpretation of the SG position. As I have said before you start form an assumption the UKgov are acting in good faith and SGov aren't. This is based on not one shred of evidence.

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

And you've said you don't support the angle she's taking on this.

No I haven't.

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

But all you can say is 'UK govt baaaad' when the only certain proof for this negotiation we have is the other way.

I don't say UKgov Baad. I simply recognise that, as in any negotiation, both sides will start with negotiating positions which are "better" than the end outcome they aspire to. Its how negotiation works - It's not surprising from your arrogant & abusive debating style that you fail to understand that. 

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

As I've already pointed out, decisions taken at Holyrood can have a knock on effect on rUK's budget leaving rUK worse off.

Correct.

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Take, for example, the SNP's want of powers over Corp Tax, or VAT. Care to tell me how the SG could use those powers without an advantage for Scotland causing detriment for rUK?

Squirrel - What the SNP wants is entirely irrelevant to the current negotiations. we don't have these powers & there is no immediate prospect of us getting them. I can only assume you bring them in because it is difficult to support your case using the powers we are actually getting.

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Or, to keep within the powers being devolved, if Scotland reduced income taxes for the very wealthy, would that be at the cost of rUK? Yes it would.

Ahh, I was right, in order to find an example from the current powers, you have had to invent something that is extraordinarily unlikely.  But yes the principle of no detriment works both ways as is recognised by both sides.

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

You've demanded that Scotland competes with rUK around some things. The result of that competition cannot end up differently to being a gain for one is at the expense of the other. That's how it works. It cannot work in any other way.

I've demanded nothing. I support independence which would of course in effect mean Scotland woudl be in "competition" with the rUK & all other countries, just as every independent country in the world is. Of course the more powers Scotland has the more opportunities we have to "compete" with the rest of the UK. Perhaps the best current example is the Junior doctors thing.

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

So if "something should be done about that", can I suggest that devolution ends? It's the only way to get a decision that bears all parts of the UK in mind.

 

You can suggest that if you want . Good luck with your campaign.

 

[LJS]

Take a look at @kdugdalemsp's Tweet: https://twitter.com/kdugdalemsp/status/698863874917924868?s=09

[eFestivals]

21 hours ago, LJS said:

Rubbish, The use of the word "exploit" reveals your prejudice. There is a genuine discussion of how differential population growth is factored into the calculations. The UK government recognises this...

#

Just because there's a calculation method via which Scotland gets the most money doesn't get to mean that anything other than getting the most money money is detrimental to Scotland..

It's because the SG - and you - are working to the idea that anything but the most money is Westminster being nasty doesn't get to mean that it is.

If the new suggested formula from the UK govt would have given Scotland the same money over past years as it's had - which the UK govt says is the case and the SG are not disputing - then that is a formula which isn't detremental.

You ignore all of that and say "the UK  govt say it so it must be a lie" and reveal your own prejudices, while calling me prejudiced? PMSL.

Reference the facts. You might lean something useful.

 

21 hours ago, LJS said:

So in other words they disagree on HOW to reflect population change not on whether it needs to be reflected.

it's fuck all to do with population change compared to rUK.

It's everything about maintaining the same funding per-head in Scotland no matter how the proportional populations change.

No one on the SG side is saying the UK govt formula doesn't do that.  The SG side say "we've found a way via which we get more, so we demand that 'more'".

What have you missed?

You've even quoted it: "The Scottish government backs a model known as "per capita indexed deduction", which would compensate financially for the slower population growth."

Why the fuck does Scotland need compensating for slower population growth? Where does Smith say Scotland should be compensated for that?

Smith says the new deal should be the same. Not compensation for Scotland for a false grievance.that's fuck all to do with anyone outside of Scotland.

 

21 hours ago, LJS said:

No we don't - this is entirely based on your interpretation of the SG position. As I have said before you start form an assumption the UKgov are acting in good faith and SGov aren't. This is based on not one shred of evidence.

It's based on an undisputed statement made by the UK govt.

You know, facts. The thing you refuse to reference. There's that fact behind my reasoning. There's no facts to your own apart from there being a disagreement and you having chosen your side via its flag. 

 

21 hours ago, LJS said:

No I haven't.

I don't say UKgov Baad. I simply recognise that, as in any negotiation, both sides will start with negotiating positions which are "better" than the end outcome they aspire to. Its how negotiation works - It's not surprising from your arrogant & abusive debating style that you fail to understand that. 

Your words on  based in the idea that everyone goes into negotiations with dishonest intent. That says more about you than it does me.

 

[LJS]

On 2/12/2016 at 7:07 PM, 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.

 

I should have stuck with this position but Stash conned me into continuing the debate on the false promise that there were people on here actually interested in debate.

 

You clearly are not - your sole argument is based on blind acceptance of the UKGov position combined with a twisted interpretation of the ScotGov position and your tiresome and predictable distortion of my position. 

Have a nice day - why don't you use it to throw some crass & crude insults at feral on the general news thread?... Oh I see you have already.

 

I have no appetite for trying to argue with a Brit wall.

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, LJS said:

You clearly are not - your sole argument is based on blind acceptance of the UKGov position

I've referenced that the SG haven't disputed what the UK govt have said, so not blind.

You meanwhile have an argument solely based on blind acceptance of the SG govt position.

You refuse to reference any of the doings of either side - and there's a reason why, too. Do you know what it is yet?

 

4 minutes ago, LJS said:

combined with a twisted interpretation of the ScotGov position and your tiresome and predictable distortion of my position. 

What have I twisted of the SG position and your own position?

We know that the SG have found a method via which they'd get more than via other methods. Nothing about them having found that method says that method is based in anything fair.

We know that the arguments are around the fact that the changing population proportions will proportionally affect how much Scotland gets.

We also know that those changing proportions would cause the funding-per-head in Scotland to grow disproportionately if the funding remained unchanged. 

We also know that the SG is demanding the new formula mirrors that advantageous extra growth in money, while the UK govt is saying it shouldn't.

We also know that you've said that what the SG are asking for would be wrong.

So you don't support Sturgeon's position, but you hate that being said ... but it doesn't make me saying it anything distorted.

 

4 minutes ago, LJS said:

Have a nice day - why don't you use it to throw some crass & crude insults at feral on the general news thread?... Oh I see you have already.

Says the man who spent last week throwing crass and crude insults at me, while backing feral's crass and crude insult throwing.

[LJS]

 

[eFestivals]

I'm glad to see you've withdrawn your falsie of claiming I'd twisted of the SG position and your own position.

That's progress, I guess.

 

[LJS]