The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

15 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

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.

Which would be true if your "not denied by the SNP" proved the statement to be true - but it doesn't. It is a broad statement unsupported by anything at all. 

So your whole argument resets on a completely unproven statement. Your continued repetition of the "SNP haven't denied it" is an old trick of yours. Are the SNP now required to deny every single word Greg Hands says?

The SNP claim that the Treasury proposals would leave Scotland £3bn worse off - you will notice that I have not claimed this as a fact - because I don't know if it is correct or not. Equally I have not said that what Greg Hands has said is a lie - because I don't know.

The simple truth is you don't know either. You are clearly inclined to believe the UK side because you long ago decided that the SNP are lying scumbags. You are entitled to that view. You are not entitled to present the views of one side in the negotiations as "facts"

 

[eFestivals]

Nope.

Sturgeon advocates 'per capita index deduction'. She's even just written another letter, making that clear.

If you see here:-

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/2015.12.02_David_Eiser.pdf

you can see the Scottish Parliament's (or an independent study hosted on their website? It's not clear) own view on "How would Scottish budget have fared?" over the years since devolution via each of the three suggested methodiologies against the actual block grant.

The UK govt are proposing using 'indexed deduction', in case you didn't know. You know, the line where Scotland does better than it has done and makes it richer .... tho not as richer as Sturgeon wants.

 

[LJS]

47 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Nope.

Sturgeon advocates 'per capita index deduction'. She's even just written another letter, making that clear.

If you see here:-

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/2015.12.02_David_Eiser.pdf

you can see the Scottish Parliament's (or an independent study hosted on their website? It's not clear) own view on "How would Scottish budget have fared?" over the years since devolution via each of the three suggested methodiologies against the actual block grant.

The UK govt are proposing using 'indexed deduction', in case you didn't know. You know, the line where Scotland does better than it has done and makes it richer .... tho not as richer as Sturgeon wants.

 

You are correct that the Scottish Government favours "per capita index deduction" . I have seen different reports as to what the UK Government favours  - 

Quote

 

" It is understood the UK government favours a form of levels adjustment, while the Scottish government prefers per capita indexed deduction. "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35522587

 

 

If that is correct they favour a method that would have left Scotland worse off which might explain why they have felt the need to lob another £4.5bn in

I suspect things are a little more complicated than that. The one thing everyone (apart from you good self) agrees on is that it is very very complicated & reaching an agreement will be very difficult partly because it is pretty much impossible to achieve the "no detriment" principles as outlined by the Smith Comm. 

Is seems reasonable to assume that within the three main proposed systems for coming up with the block grant adjustment , there are further variations and of course both sides have already made concessions as was inevitable. Equally inevitable, seeing as how this is a process of negotiation, neither side will have started out by presenting their final position - in other words the SG will have started out with proposals that are over generous to Scotland & the UKG will have started out with proposals that would leave Scotland worse off. This is not intended as a criticism of either party  - its simply how negotiations work.  

If I see a car I  like & think its worth £3,000, I'll offer the seller perhaps £2,500 & he will no doubt tell me it is worth £3,500 an d in the end I'll probably get it for about £3,000. If I start with an offer of £3,000 I'll probably end up paying a couple of hundred quid over the odds.

It is worth noting that John Swinney doesn't stand alone here - he has the support of Labour & the Libdems in Scotland as well as the Scottish affairs select Comittee & the Scottish TUC. I see Ruth Davidson is now trying to broker a compromise deal. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35594805

[eFestivals]

16 minutes ago, LJS said:

I have seen different reports as to what the UK Government favours  - 

Like you I've seen more than one claim for it.

Did you notice, tho, that that BBC article says "a form of" Levels Adjustment (LA)? So if we take that version as correct, it's fair to conclude it's not standard LA and is something better but probably not as good as Indexed Deduction (ID).

On that graph the Block Grant line is about half way between ID and LA. That's the only line the UK Govt need to hit to meet the 'no detriment' requirement, while what Sturgeon (and other self-interested parties) is wanting is waaaaay up the page.

Given the scope for adjusting LA into "a form of" without getting as good as ID, and the UK Govt's claim that it would have given more than the Block Grant, I'm happy to accept the UK Govt claim as accurate at least until the SNP dispute that claim.

----

Meanwhile, having thought about it for a mo, it's quite possibly the case that the UK Govt will settle at ID if the SNP reduced it's demands to that ... which it can't do now, of course, without losing face, of looking like it's let Scotland down.

Edited February 17, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

20 minutes ago, LJS said:

The one thing everyone (apart from you good self) agrees on is that it is very very complicated & reaching an agreement will be very difficult partly because it is pretty much impossible to achieve the "no detriment" principles as outlined by the Smith Comm. 

it's certainly impossible to achieve the 'no detriment' principle for all the time Sturgeon is asking for PCID. So, no matter whether the UK govt is acting in bad faith or not, we know that the SG is in asking for PCID.

This is why I pointed out yesterday that it's not Scotland vs rUK, but (if a contest) it's Scotland vs England, Scotland, Wales & NI - with the important part to notice there being 'Scotland'.

From the UK's side of things it's not about squeezing extra out of 'the other side', because there is no other side. That's them too.

 

[LJS]

15 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Like you I've seen more than one claim for it.

Did you notice, tho, that that BBC article says "a form of" Levels Adjustment (LA)? So if we take that version as correct, it's fair to conclude it's not standard LA and is something better but probably not as good as Indexed Deduction (ID).

On that graph the Block Grant line is about half way between ID and LA. That's the only line the UK Govt need to hit to meet the 'no detriment' requirement, while what Sturgeon (and other self-interested parties) is wanting is waaaaay up the page.

We don't know this - there cannot possibly be only one form PCID and it has been reported that Swinney has amneded his original proposals which mean

Quote

UK taxpayers would "not lose a single penny" under his plans

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35561614

Please note that I am not saying that because John Swinney says something it is necessarily true. It is no more or less a fact than your  "waaaaay up the page."  claim.

 

Quote

Given the scope for adjusting LA into "a form of" without getting as good as ID, and the UK Govt's claim that it would have given more than the Block Grant, I'm happy to accept the UK Govt claim as accurate at least until the SNP dispute that claim.

We know you are happy to accept uncritically what the UKgov  says. My quote from John Swinney above shows quite clearly that the SNP does dispute what the UKgov says.

Quote

----

Meanwhile, having thought about it for a mo, it's quite possibly the case that the UK Govt will settle at ID if the SNP reduced it's demands to that ... which it can't do now, of course, without losing face, of looking like it's let Scotland down.

It's kind of hard to work out who wants agreement more. I'm surprised you haven't been pushing the SNP don't want agreement so they can pursue their anti Westminster Grievance.

Edited February 17, 2016 by LJS

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, LJS said:

It's kind of hard to work out who wants agreement more.

Well, because UKgov could have made the Bill anything it wanted, you can't really claim they don't want what's on offer to not be accepted.

As far as 'the people' in rUK goes, there's no objections unless Scotland ends up up with a greater £-per-head spend than now where the extra has come from rUK rather than from within Scotland under the devolved powers.

So the UK govt has no need to stitch Scotland up (and anyway the UK govt carries the ultimate cost of a fuck-up), but they'll be in the shit if they give too-good a deal.

While I've already mentioned ....

12 minutes ago, LJS said:

I'm surprised you haven't been pushing the SNP don't want agreement so they can pursue their anti Westminster Grievance.

.... that it's win-win politically for the SNP whatever the outcome (agreement or no agreement), because they'll either be celebrating stitching up rUK or saying Westminster's been nasty again.

And from the self-imposed SNP deadline for an agreement, it's exceedingly clear that milking the situation for all it's worth is what they want most from these negotiations, so they have a clear line to present for the May elections.

After all, while it's always nice to know what the future holds with your incomings, there's no actual need to reach agreement for 6+ months from now as far as govt operations go. It just has to be agreed with time enough for the April 2017 budgeting process.

It might be tho that they have a policy announcement to make as part of their Manifesto which needs the deal in place first so that the policy seems real (cos they do have a bit of a problem with mythical never-happened policies, after all), so are actually desperate to make a deal.

Westminster don't seem in a hurry to make a deal they say is bad, and because their objective is to be fair to all four nations while the SNP's isn't, i'm happy for them to carry on.

 

[Comfy Bean]

12 hours ago, eFestivals said:

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

While your at it, would you mind obliging me with the quote or quotes I requested yesterday? No rush 

( See below )

On 16/02/2016 at 4:54 PM, eFestivals said:

Marvellous words there from one of the "oor oil" brigade who believed the SNP scam of a gloriously rich iScotland.

 

 

On 16/02/2016 at 5:04 PM, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Oh Neil 

Lost count of the number of times I`ve asked this but would you oblige me with 1 ( one ) of my posts where I claim it`s " oor oil " or claim that iScotland will be " gloriously rich". Not sure if you have read any of them  but I`ve made plenty of posts on this subject so when you`ve stopped laughing you could maybe quote me saying anything vaguely similar to what your claiming here.

 

 

[eFestivals]

8 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

While your at it, would you mind obliging me with the quote or quotes I requested yesterday? No rush 

( See below )

Do I need to quote you to prove you're on the side of those who banged on about "oor oil" and how Scotland would be gloriously rich if indy? You didn't claim the oil for Scotland, and didn't reject criticisms of the white paper?

Are you now denying you're an indy supporter?

 

[eFestivals]

16 hours ago, LJS said:

It is worth noting that John Swinney doesn't stand alone here - he has the support of Labour & the Libdems in Scotland as well as the Scottish affairs select Comittee & the Scottish TUC. I see Ruth Davidson is now trying to broker a compromise deal. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35594805

I became aware last night about how this is a lie that's become snipper gospel (nothing like that has happened before, of course ).

What those geezers actually said was that PCID covers the 'no detriment' part for the Scottish side but not the rUK side, and that if PCID is used then there needs to be extra mitigation made towards rUK.

-----

In better news for Scotland, it appears to be the case that Swinney has moved again on the new proposals submitted last Friday, as Greg Hands is now due to meet Swinney in London on Friday according to the Herald.

With what looks like two (but definitely one) new proposals submitted by the SNP after their own self-imposed deadline, it's clear that there's pathetic game playing on at least one side of this, and that's not the UK's side.
(tho the UK might be playing stupid games too, but we don't have the proof of that).

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

I became aware last night about how this is a lie that's become snipper gospel (nothing like that has happened before, of course ).

What those geezers actually said was that PCID covers the 'no detriment' part for the Scottish side but not the rUK side, and that if PCID is used then there needs to be extra mitigation made towards rUK.

They came out of favour of PCID which is the SGov's preferred method. They also said it should be adjusted to ensure to detriment to the UK  - presumably as Swinney has amended his initial proposals the new proposals will containt adjustments to PCID. 

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

-----

In better news for Scotland, it appears to be the case that Swinney has moved again on the new proposals submitted last Friday, as Greg Hands is now due to meet Swinney in London on Friday according to the Herald.

With what looks like two (but definitely one) new proposals submitted by the SNP after their own self-imposed deadline, it's clear that there's pathetic game playing on at least one side of this, and that's not the UK's side.
(tho the UK might be playing stupid games too, but we don't have the proof of that).

You appear to have no understanding of how negotiations work. Or, on second thoughts, I am quite sure you know very well how negotiations work but are choosing to ignore that because it doesn't suit your mission of discrediting the SNP.

Bizarrely when the SGov submits revised proposals it's "pathetic game playing" but not when UKGov does. When the Scottish affairs select committee broadly comes down on the side of ScotGov, you might be forgiven for thinking that UKGov is the party who should be submitting revised proposals.

I've no idea why you keep mentioning the deadline - it is simply a date that SGov wished to have agreement by. Sadly, the two sides have failed to reach agreement so the deadline moves - its a non issue.

Anyway, again this demonstrates the futility of this discussion as your mind is made up.

 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, LJS said:

They came out of favour of PCID which is the SGov's preferred method

Nope, they didn't. They said it satisfied the Scottish end of things, but not the rUK end of things.

If I have time in a bit, I'll try and track down what I read last night.

[LJS]

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Nope, they didn't. They said it satisfied the Scottish end of things, but not the rUK end of things.

If I have time in a bit, I'll try and track down what I read last night.

 

Quote

 

Meanwhile, a House of Commons committee has called on the two governments to explore an adjusted version of the method favoured by the Scottish government in order to find a solution to the apparent deadlock.

The method - known as per capita indexed deduction - would take Scotland's slower population growth into account.

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

 

 

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, LJS said:

You appear to have no understanding of how negotiations work.

You think it's ALWAYS about a battle or a contest.  I know it's not.

One or both sides can go in with a fair and reasonable position, or with an over-stated position that they've already decided they'll move from to somewhere else lesser. (I'm ignoring the 'starting unreasonable and staying unreasonable' option).

There's all sorts of different reasons why any side might chose which they go with, but the pertinent one here is about the gain or loss to either side in the final outcome - where the SG can't lose by starting too high (apart from to their future reputation), but where there's no win or lose to be had by the UK govt because the UK govt has no less of an interest in Scotland than the SG does.

For you to believe that the UK-govt *HAS* to start from an over-stated position is your error here. While it works as a negotiating position for the SG to do that, it doesn't follow that it has to be the same for the UK govt.

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, LJS said:

I've no idea why you keep mentioning the deadline - it is simply a date that SGov wished to have agreement by.

It's the date they stated as the deadline, not the UK govt.

The fact that the SNP submitted a new proposal on that deadline when they could have submitted it earlier but didn't gets to show they're trying to play a game of brinkmanship, by trying to use the deadline they've self-imposed as leverage against the UK govt.

C'mon ... you just claimed that you know how negotiations work.

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

What those geezers actually said was that PCID covers the 'no detriment' part for the Scottish side but not the rUK side, and that if PCID is used then there needs to be extra mitigation made towards rUK.

 

11 minutes ago, LJS said:

Meanwhile, a House of Commons committee has called on the two governments to explore an adjusted version of the method favoured by the Scottish government in order to find a solution to the apparent deadlock.

What have you missed?

PCID by itself isn't considered suitable by that Westminster committee. The words they've used about it in their report go far stronger against PCID than the brief mentions of it in reports like that BBC report cover. They say it 'can' be suitable but only if the overly-large benefits towards Scotland from it are mitigated.

The myth being perpetuated by the snipper side is just that, a myth.

Edited February 18, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

What have you missed?

PCID by itself isn't considered suitable by that Westminster committee. The words they've used about it in their report go far stronger against PCID than the brief mentions of it in reports like that BBC report cover. They say it 'can' be suitable but only if the overly-large benefits towards Scotland from it are mitigated.

The myth being perpetuated by the snipper side is just that, a myth.

They favoured the method preferred by S Gov. They did not favour the method preferred bu UKgov.

It needs adjusted. I guess that's what the negotiations should be about.

[Stash]

17 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

20 minutes ago, LJS said:

They came out of favour of PCID which is the SGov's preferred method

Nope, they didn't. They said it satisfied the Scottish end of things, but not the rUK end of things.

If I have time in a bit, I'll try and track down what I read last night.

 

Morning all, 

The quote from the Scottish Affair committee was: 

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/scottish-affairs-committee/news-parliament-2015/fiscal-framework-report-published-15-16/

Quote

The Scottish Affairs Committee suggests that the 'per capita' indexed deduction approach of adjusting the block grant satisfies the Smith principle of 'no detriment as a result of the decision to devolve'. In conjunction with this approach, the Committee heard that an additional adjustment could be applied to secure the principle of taxpayer fairness for Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. If applied this must ensure that Scotland’s funding per capita is no better or worse relative to the rest of the UK than if the existing arrangements remained in place. We invite the two Governments to explore this solution.

I read that as saying PCID modified, not pure PCID. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also found a couple of interesting things St Nic's new letter to Dishonest Dave: 

https://www.holyrood.com/articles/inside-politics/nicola-sturgeons-letter-david-cameron-fiscal-framework-negotiations

Quote

It is also important to stress that to reach agreement, it will also be necessary for the Treasury to agree a fair and reasonable outcome on other outstanding issues set out in the Deputy First Minister’s proposal of last Friday, where there is still considerable distance between us, including capital and revenue borrowing and the transition costs - set up and administration - associated with the devolution of powers within the bill and specifically welfare powers.

For example, on the last of these issues, based on information provided by DWP and our own analysis of published data from DWP’s Personal Independence Payment and Universal Credit business cases, we estimate ongoing administration costs to be approximately £200m annually, and set up costs to be between £400m-£660m.

I don't remember the total figure, but weren't Salmond, Sturgeon & Swinney bigging up Prof. Dunleavey's figures of total iScotland setup costs of between £200-600m only 2 years ago. Inflation must be out of control!!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, St Nic has a new deadline:

Quote

I must stress that if the Scottish Parliament is to have adequate time to scrutinise any agreement it is possible for us to reach, it is essential that we reach agreement on the key areas of principle by the end of this week

So it's tomorrow or nothing then!

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, LJS said:

They favoured the method preferred by S Gov.

Not true. That's part of the snippers myth.

They said it was a suitable option to use but *ONLY* if money is subtracted from it via some other suitable calculation.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, Stash said:

I read that as saying PCID modified, not pure PCID. 

Thank you Stash, you've saved me searching for it.

And yep, you've read it right. It makes clear that PCID isn't fair to rUK taxpayers and needs modification in some way to be suitable.

5 minutes ago, Stash said:

I don't remember the total figure, but weren't Salmond, Sturgeon & Swinney bigging up Prof. Dunleavey's figures of total iScotland setup costs of between £200-600m only 2 years ago. Inflation must be out of control!!

Well spotted ... and another thing I became aware of in the things I read last night.

It makes a change for the SNP to be saying SNP baaad, but that's just what they've done. They've called themselves liars.

[LJS]

31 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It's the date they stated as the deadline, not the UK govt.

The fact that the SNP submitted a new proposal on that deadline when they could have submitted it earlier but didn't gets to show they're trying to play a game of brinkmanship, by trying to use the deadline they've self-imposed as leverage against the UK govt.

C'mon ... you just claimed that you know how negotiations work.

That would only work if the deadline mattered to UK gov. It didn't.

[LJS]

21 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Not true. That's part of the snippers myth.

They said it was a suitable option to use but *ONLY* if money is subtracted from it via some other suitable calculation.

Both you and Stash have snipped my quotes to remove the part where I acknowledged the need for adjustments to PCID. 

I guess you think that's clever.

 

Edited February 18, 2016 by LJS

[Stash]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

That would only work if the deadline mattered to UK gov. It didn't.

It matters because it gets to show the Scottish electorate (those that feel it as us vs them at least) that;

1. The SNP are setting the agenda
2. The SNP controlling the pace and content of the talks
3. The SNP get to have the final say on what is and isn't acceptable
4. The Tories are nasty and won't engage on our schedule (see hundreds of tweets & posts about Hands' holiday)

Case in point the new deadline of tomorrow, set only yesterday. If the first deadline didn't matter, why set a new one that is almost certain to fail. Or is it because there is expectation in some circles that a referendum on Europe might be called tomorrow, so the hope is that it's another deadline missed by the nasty Tories?

[LJS]

1 minute ago, Stash said:

It matters because it gets to show the Scottish electorate (those that feel it as us vs them at least) that;

1. The SNP are setting the agenda
2. The SNP controlling the pace and content of the talks
3. The SNP get to have the final say on what is and isn't acceptable
4. The Tories are nasty and won't engage on our schedule (see hundreds of tweets & posts about Hands' holiday)

Case in point the new deadline of tomorrow, set only yesterday. If the first deadline didn't matter, why set a new one that is almost certain to fail. Or is it because there is expectation in some circles that a referendum on Europe might be called tomorrow, so the hope is that it's another deadline missed by the nasty Tories?

Christ you are as bad as Neil. The reason for the deadline as I understand it is to ensure there is ample time for the proposals to be discussed at Holyrood before the Scottish election.

[Stash]

4 minutes ago, LJS said:

Both you and Stash have snipped my quotes to remove the part where I acknowledged the need for adjustments to PCID. 

I guess you think that's clever.

Point of order: I snipped nothing - I quoted an entire post with two peoples quotes. 

58 minutes ago, LJS said:

They came out of favour of PCID which is the SGov's preferred method. They also said it should be adjusted to ensure to detriment to the UK  - presumably as Swinney has amended his initial proposals the new proposals will containt adjustments to PCID. 

Although looking at your original post, the second line contracdicts the first and makes Neil's point for him quite nicely. He was trying to show you that they did not come out in favour of PCID. 

What they actually have suggested that both governments look at a modified version of PCID.