The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

Must be about time for Rupert Murdoch to appear!

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

This whole Unionist thing is quite outdated in my opinion.

so you don't want pooling and sharing?

Just a moment ago you were saying you wanted to get your hands on Londo0n's money to benefit Scotland.

Do you think you could make up your mind, please?

 

 

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I don`t think it was a " pack of lies ". Just for the record, you know that`s not what this is about.....I`m sure you know this but would be good to clear that up.

It was, very definitely, a pack of lies.

Salmond used the OBR's forecasts for oil prices, but didn't for oil revenues (the bit that really matters). He invented those from nothing.

He made some numbers up in his head, to make sure the projected income covered the costs of public services.

There was absolutely no reason to think those revenues were possible. There was no supporting evidence for them.

You can also find the words "the oil is just a bonus" in the white paper, alongside pages and pages of spending commitments and sources of revenues which make exceedingly clear it wasn't a bonus but a very necessary part of Scotland's financing - worth the equivalent of all of Scotland's education budget.

What the white paper claimed wasn't a reasonable expectation from anyone with a grasp of the basic facts.

What the white paper claimed wasn't even a hopeful expectation from anyone with a grasp of the basic facts.

It was a barefaced lie.

 

8 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I have acknowledged that plenty on both sides, including dave and eck were miles out with their hopes / dreams / guesses. I haven`t called any of the 2 of them liars but they were both wrong for sure.

The difference is in what their promises ultimately promised, and what was risked on them.

All of Scotland's good future was being risked by Salmond, and he would have taken Scotland to ruin.

Dave's promises, fulfilled or not, hasn't left Scotland in ruin. The oil jobs he mentioned might not be there, but the normal supports from the UK are there, so that Scottish society isn't torn to shreds by the quick collapse of a major industry without the means to mitigate.

 

8 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

This is not about the SNP White Paper. Much as it suits your argument to pretend that it is.

Then surely it's about time you wised up to the white paper?

If you have nothing invested in the white paper or the SNP, you should be able to accept fair comment about its contents.

And you'd be facing up to the financial realities and not be spouting guff about how in 10 years it will all be different, because it won't. Even if Scotland suddenly had a new boom of some sort it's hugely unlikely that it could make up even half the current shortfall in funding. Big growth is unheard of in the western world without it being bounce-back from recession (from which there's no overall gain anyway) - and Scotland isn't in recession.

 

8 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I think Scotland could have made decisions for itself. You agree with this.

I do. There's no reason whatsoever why Scotland couldn't be independent.

But nothing about that says it's a good idea. I could punch myself in the face, but that's not a good idea.

Scotland's situation means there'd be a big big hit to people's lifestyles. People can freely chose that if they want to, but don't mug them into it with lies..

 

8 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I also think that Labour would be better placed to challenge the SNP up here and hold them to account with Indy. You think Labour ( under Corbyn ) are dead. Do you agree that with Indy they could be a force again in Scotland ?

Nope. Labour are more hated in Scotland now than the tories, from what I'm seeing.

I suspect there's chance of a comeback of sorts over time - after all, when disillusionment grows with the SNP those voters will have to go somewhere - but I'd say their days as a force in Scotland are gone forever from the sorts of words I see written by Scots.

How Labour are viewed in England is something different where a lot of sympathies towards them remain, but plenty of solid Labour voters are being turned off by Corbyn, and even in the very best of circumstances I can't see him getting more than 30% of the vote in a GE tho I reckon it would more likely be 26-28% - Labour's worst ever result.

If things get that far, Labour will be finished in England too.

 

 

 

 

[LJS]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It was, very definitely, a pack of lies.

Salmond used the OBR's forecasts for oil prices, but didn't for oil revenues (the bit that really matters). He invented those from nothing.

He made some numbers up in his head, to make sure the projected income covered the costs of public services.

There was absolutely no reason to think those revenues were possible. There was no supporting evidence for them.

You can also find the words "the oil is just a bonus" in the white paper, alongside pages and pages of spending commitments and sources of revenues which make exceedingly clear it wasn't a bonus but a very necessary part of Scotland's financing - worth the equivalent of all of Scotland's education budget.

What the white paper claimed wasn't a reasonable expectation from anyone with a grasp of the basic facts.

What the white paper claimed wasn't even a hopeful expectation from anyone with a grasp of the basic facts.

It was a barefaced lie.

 

The difference is in what their promises ultimately promised, and what was risked on them.

All of Scotland's good future was being risked by Salmond, and he would have taken Scotland to ruin.

Dave's promises, fulfilled or not, hasn't left Scotland in ruin. The oil jobs he mentioned might not be there, but the normal supports from the UK are there, so that Scottish society isn't torn to shreds by the quick collapse of a major industry without the means to mitigate.

 

Then surely it's about time you wised up to the white paper?

If you have nothing invested in the white paper or the SNP, you should be able to accept fair comment about its contents.

And you'd be facing up to the financial realities and not be spouting guff about how in 10 years it will all be different, because it won't. Even if Scotland suddenly had a new boom of some sort it's hugely unlikely that it could make up even half the current shortfall in funding. Big growth is unheard of in the western world without it being bounce-back from recession (from which there's no overall gain anyway) - and Scotland isn't in recession.

 

I do. There's no reason whatsoever why Scotland couldn't be independent.

But nothing about that says it's a good idea. I could punch myself in the face, but that's not a good idea.

Scotland's situation means there'd be a big big hit to people's lifestyles. People can freely chose that if they want to, but don't mug them into it with lies..

 

Nope. Labour are more hated in Scotland now than the tories, from what I'm seeing.

I suspect there's chance of a comeback of sorts over time - after all, when disillusionment grows with the SNP those voters will have to go somewhere - but I'd say their days as a force in Scotland are gone forever from the sorts of words I see written by Scots.

How Labour are viewed in England is something different where a lot of sympathies towards them remain, but plenty of solid Labour voters are being turned off by Corbyn, and even in the very best of circumstances I can't see him getting more than 30% of the vote in a GE tho I reckon it would more likely be 26-28% - Labour's worst ever result.

If things get that far, Labour will be finished in England too.

 

 

 

 

Give up Comfy, Neil has repeated this same guff with minor variations 1000 times...so it must be true after all.

Out you come Rupert.

[eFestivals]

22 minutes ago, LJS said:

Give up Comfy, Neil has repeated this same guff with minor variations 1000 times...so it must be true after all.

Out you come Rupert.

 

So please do tell me how the stated oil revenues in the white paper were justified....?

And then comes only silence.

Because you know they were Salmond's lies, and you just can't face up to what it means.

[Comfy Bean]

Just now, eFestivals said:

 

So please do tell me how the stated oil revenues in the white paper were justified....?

And then comes only silence.

Because you know they were Salmond's lies, and you just can't face up to what it means.

Eh? 

Within the last hour I've agreed yet again that the stated oil predictions were wrong.

You should let this go as it's not what independence is about. In case you hadn't noticed the oil price, currently,  is down the shitter. It may well go up again at some point in the future. 

The indy dream hasn't slid away with the oil price no matter how much you thought it would. 

[Comfy Bean]

Labour in Scotland aren't gone forever. What nonsense. 

With indy the snp would be the ones needing to reinvent. 

Labour could quickly find their feet if they were freed up from their pursuit of the middle England vote. They wouldn't be trying to win tories or ukip votes and could perhaps focus on the things that used to matter to them. You could be right about their future in England though :-(

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Eh? 

Within the last hour I've agreed yet again that the stated oil predictions were wrong.

Yes, but they were more than just wrong, they were a lie.

Alex made up the oil revenue numbers. Invented from thin air.

That's not an insignificance.

 

6 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

The indy dream hasn't slid away with the oil price no matter how much you thought it would. 

it's one thing dreaming, it's other realising you're going to have to pay for your dream.

There was a poll done just the other day which said 23% of Scots believe they'd be better off if Scotland were independent - which only gets to show just how deep the lie has soaked.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Labour in Scotland aren't gone forever. What nonsense. 

I'm only going by what I see, and by nature they tend to be the more extreme opinions (tho I'm trying to account for that). I see more vitriol and bile going Labour's way than I do the tories, by about 5 to 1, and the stuff in Labour's direction is far more vicious and disbelieving too.

 

3 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

With indy the snp would be the ones needing to reinvent. 

Except of course, according to what you normally say, they already have themselves a niche - which they've essentially taken from Labour.

Which is another reason why it's hard to see an easy way back for Labour, because the SNP aren't going to make it easy for them, cos it'll be mostly at the SNP's expense.

 

3 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Labour could quickly find their feet if they were freed up from their pursuit of the middle England vote.

Except they just couldn't win without that "middle England" vote.

That's an important part that's missing from your analysis. "Middle England" is where the votes are, because those are the sorts of policies people want.

It's no different in Scotlanbd too, where the anti-austerity party has just rejected wealth redistribution thru the tax system in favour of cuts (tho cuts that they can conveniently blame on someone else, just as someone else would pay the bill of Scotland's wants ), because the people of Scotland* think taxes are for other people.

(* just like other places).

 

3 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

They wouldn't be trying to win tories or ukip votes and could perhaps focus on the things that used to matter to them. You could be right about their future in England though :-(

It would be a great thing is Labour concentrated on things that 'used to matter to them', and an even greater thing if Labour concentrated on what matters to the people who's votes they need.

Instead we've got Corbyn obsessing about a minor issue, that's also a minor (tho popular, but not with the majority) issue in Scotland too.

[LJS]

23 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Yes, but they were more than just wrong, they were a lie.

Alex made up the oil revenue numbers. Invented from thin air.

That's not an insignificance.

 

it's one thing dreaming, it's other realising you're going to have to pay for your dream.

There was a poll done just the other day which said 23% of Scots believe they'd be better off if Scotland were independent - which only gets to show just how deep the lie has soaked.

100% of me believes we'd be better off if we were independent.

#costofeverythingvalueofnothing

[LJS]

45 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Yes, but they were more than just wrong, they were a lie.

Alex made up the oil revenue numbers. Invented from thin air.

That's not an insignificance.

Yeah ... and the Magna Carta was pish.

 

What year is this Neil?

 

 

Edited February 16, 2016 by LJS

[LJS]

35 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I'm only going by what I see, and by nature they tend to be the more extreme opinions (tho I'm trying to account for that). I see more vitriol and bile going Labour's way than I do the tories, by about 5 to 1, and the stuff in Labour's direction is far more vicious and disbelieving too.

 

Yup there's a few hundred sad guys hunched over their keyboards in their bedrooms who really hate Labour.

 

It's good to see you finally admit that is what informs your opinion of Scottish Politics. It explains so much.

[LJS]

It's good to see our government prioritising these negotiations...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35587088

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

100% of me believes we'd be better off if we were independent.

#costofeverythingvalueofnothing

that's fine.

Just don't think you can have the "better Scotland that does better for its poor" along with it.

Scotland doesn't have the money to do that without people like you taking an absolutely massive hit - waaaay more than the recently suggested 1% rise in taxes you think is unfair to you.

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

Yeah ... and the Magna Carta was pish.

What year is this Neil?

the year you'd have been independent, the year when your country would be in very deep shit if your 'wisdom' over believing the white paper had carried the day.

And while you can say "I wasn't voting for the white paper" (tho that would make me laugh as it always does), you can't say you didn't defend what it said to the hilt when people like me were pointing out that the economy was supported by volatile oil revenues.

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

Yup there's a few hundred sad guys hunched over their keyboards in their bedrooms who really hate Labour.

That's just it, it's not just "a few hundred".

23% of Scots still believe today that they'd be richer if Scotland was independent.

That's how many fruitcakes there are on the indy side of things.

 

12 hours ago, LJS said:

It's good to see you finally admit that is what informs your opinion of Scottish Politics. It explains so much.

says the man who reads w*nkers over sense and presents it as supporting evidence.

[eFestivals]

21 minutes ago, LJS said:

It's good to see our government prioritising these negotiations...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35587088

YOUR govt said talks would be over by now.

So presumably Greg Hands felt there wouldn't be a problem taking a holiday with his kids during half-term after the date the SNP had insisted was the last date.

But let's just pretend none of that happened.

Meanwhile, it looks like Westminster are playing hardball, and are not prepared to do a deal that's over-generous to Scotland at the expense of others in the UK - which we know that Scotland is demanding.

 

Edited February 17, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

That's just it, it's not just "a few hundred".

23% of Scots still believe today that they'd be richer if Scotland was independent.

That's how many fruitcakes there are on the indy side of things.

 

says the man who reads w*nkers over sense and presents it as supporting evidence.

Liar. I have never ever presented anything from your local rev. as evidence of anything. 

I take it you are aware that using blatant lies in a debate seriously undermines your credibility.

Edited February 17, 2016 by LJS

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

YOUR govt said talks would be over by now.

So presumably Greg Hands felt there wouldn't be a problem taking a holiday with his kids during half-term after the date the SNP had insisted was the last date.

But let's just pretend none of that happened.

Meanwhile, it looks like Westminster are playing hardball, and are not prepared to do a deal that's over-generous to Scotland at the expense of others in the UK - which we know that Scotland is demanding.

 

Another lie. We only "know' this because UK gov says so. Have we now to believe everything our beloved Tory leaders say? 

You are on good form today Neil. Two blatant lies & not even 10o'clock.

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, LJS said:

Liar. I have never ever presented anything from your local rev. as evidence of anything. 

Yes you have ... something that included a statement of Scotland having no share of the UK's debts.

Remember?

(I can always go and find your post, if your memory doesn't recover )

 

14 minutes ago, LJS said:

I take it you are aware that using blatant lies in a debate seriously undermines your credibility.

If it were true you'd have a point.

As it's not, it applies back on yourself.

Oh dear.

 

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, LJS said:

Another lie.

What?

The SNP didn't set their own deadline of (I think it was) 12th February?

Whatever the exact date is, the date passed before Hands went on his hols.

 

13 minutes ago, LJS said:

We only "know' this because UK gov says so. Have we now to believe everything our beloved Tory leaders say? 

We know that the disagreements are about what share of greater spending by rUK due to its growing faster population should be sent to Scotland.

And we know that greater spending by rUK due to that growing population won't see an increase per-head in rUK's spending.

And we know that the SNP's proposals would see the greater spending by rUK increase the per-head spend in Scotland.

But let's pretend we know none of that, so that we can pretend that the SNP are always perfect and that Westminster is always nasty to Scotland. 

And yet  we also know that the UK govt said that the deal they're offering would have seen Scotland receive greater money over the past 18 years - which hasn't been disputed by the SNP, i'll point out (again). That's proper nasty that is.

 

13 minutes ago, LJS said:

You are on good form today Neil. Two blatant lies & not even 10o'clock.

Except they're not lies.

The lie is your accusation of lies.

But let's just pretend only Scots tell the truth.

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Yes you have ... something that included a statement of Scotland having no share of the UK's debts.

Remember?

(I can always go and find your post, if your memory doesn't recover )

 

 

It's alright, I've found it myself. As you will see I have made all my own points here &  simply  ended by observing that the Bish largely agreed with me, When I use external sources to support my case, I supply links. I do not use Wings as such a source because, in case you haven't noticed, he is not entirely impartial

 On this particular occasion I remember reading the ridiculous Severn Carroll column that you had gleefully linked to and immediately spotting that it was a load of tosh. I was a little disappointed later in the day to read that RevStu had formed the same conclusion as I suspected you would accuse me of following the Rev's instructions or some similar nonsense hence the reason for  my observation at the end of my post. 

 

You, of course then proceeded to find the one bit of clear nonsense in The Bishop's piece and accused me of supporting that which was yet another lie.

On 12/15/2015 at 8:05 PM, LJS said:

This article sums up why I and many others no longer read the Guardian.

Starting out with the claim that " Public sector debt in Scotland has mushroomed to record levels after an SNP government spending spree funded by billions of pounds’ worth of borrowing "

In support of this it lists  the " £22bn-worth of historic private finance initiative (PFI) debts" which were nothing to do with the SNP (the SNP scrapped PFI on gaining power) and adds in the  £15Bn that Scottish councils owe. (The SNP have minority control of 3 of Scotland's 32 local authorities & are in power as part of coalitions in several others)

In other words whatever your views on PFI's and the level of local authority debt, a very small part of this could conceivably be put down to an "SNP government spending spree" and they form £37Bn of debt that already exists out of a projected £50Bn that might exist by 2020. 

There are perfectly reasonable questions to ask about whether this level of debt is justified & sustainable  - that is exactly what good journalists should do. 

To blatantly misrepresent this as all being the result of an "an SNP government spending spree" is the sort of trash journalism I'd expect from the Daily Mail at its worst. 

[By the way, feel free to claim that I cribbed all this from the Bishop of Bath. I didn't  - I had already formed my views before I read the bishop. 

He is however largely correct in this instance so I invite you to have a read for a more detailed critique of Mr Carrol's hatchet job.]

 

 

 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, LJS said:

It's alright, I've found it myself.

Yes, I know the only lie here was you accusing me of lying.

[LJS]

  By replying to you whole quote there may have been some confusion as to what I was saying you were lying about.

 

The bit in bold is the lie 

"Meanwhile, it looks like Westminster are playing hardball, and are not prepared to do a deal that's over-generous to Scotland at the expense of others in the UK - which we know that Scotland is demanding."

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

What?

The SNP didn't set their own deadline of (I think it was) 12th February?

Whatever the exact date is, the date passed before Hands went on his hols.

Yes the SNP set a deadline, so I am happy to conform that is not a lie:)

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

We know that the disagreements are about what share of greater spending by rUK due to its growing faster population should be sent to Scotland.

And we know that greater spending by rUK due to that growing population won't see an increase per-head in rUK's spending.

And we know that the SNP's proposals would see the greater spending by rUK increase the per-head spend in Scotland.

How do we know these things, Neil? Is it because the Treasury has said them? 

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

But let's pretend we know none of that, so that we can pretend that the SNP are always perfect and that Westminster is always nasty to Scotland. 

You pretend that if you want. I have said neither ( if you are saying I have, that's another lie to add to the list.)

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

And yet  we also know that the UK govt said that the deal they're offering would have seen Scotland receive greater money over the past 18 years - which hasn't been disputed by the SNP, i'll point out (again). That's proper nasty that is.

Yes its a fact the UK government did say once what you said they did - to the best of my knowledge the SNP have not commented on this perhaps because they are not negotiating for the past 18 years. I have no idea if the claim is true & neither do you.

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

 

Except they're not lies.

The lie is your accusation of lies.

But let's just pretend only Scots tell the truth.

Have I accused anyone in this process of telling the truth?

[eFestivals]

 

39 minutes ago, LJS said:

Yes its a fact the UK government did say once what you said they did - to the best of my knowledge the SNP have not commented on this perhaps because they are not negotiating for the past 18 years. I have no idea if the claim is true & neither do you.

We both know the claim has been made and isn't disputed.

We also both know (if you can do basic maths?)  that any deal which would have given Scotland the same or better revenues over the past years cannot be detrimental to Scotland in the future on a per-head basis. It's mathematically impossible.

It's only able to be 'detrimental' against what would happen if the current funding arrangements continued exactly as they are. Again, anything else would be mathematically impossible.

So actually, we *DO* know what's true, from what the possible mathematical outcomes are against the words being said by BOTH  sides.

Perhaps your own maths isn't up to much, but the maths of many commentators both pro and anti indy have worked it out, as can be seen by every commentary from either side or no side reporting all the same thing around this.

I've not seen a single article which suggests something different is going on, but feel free to show me one if you have one .... or admit that you're working from no basis at all and all the evidence backs what I'm (and everyone else) is saying.

Edited February 17, 2016 by eFestivals