The Dirty Independence Question

[Comfy Bean]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

Do you know how arithmetic works?

 

1 hour ago, lost said:

People will generally vote in their own perceived interests as we are seeing in Scotland.

I love it when we come round to talking about the maths.

Generally speaking, England votes for " our " Government. I think the last GE over 50% of England voted Ukip or Tory. Scotland or Wales don`t have the numbers to change this. Our political union is stacked like that. Some think Blair was able to convince a lot of Tories in middle englandshire to vote Labour and in doing so, eventually alienated a lot of their core support in Scotland. These voters are now back on board with Dave ( in England ) while up here the Tories only won a single seat and it doesn`t look to be changing anytime soon.

I still believe that if Scotland had voted to be an independent country a Labour Govt for me in my lifetime would have been more likely than it appears to be at the moment.

A glance at the polls shows that we are living in a period where the Tories will reign over us all for a while yet as this is what alot of people in one country want *  

 

 

 

 

 

* I don`t mean on here. Well apart from Gary.....I think.

[Comfy Bean]

5 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

That isn't what madam Nicola said today...

Did she say that Dave and George are doing a marvellous job and we no longer owe a thin dime ?

Have all the cuts been worth it and are there no more on the way ?

I doubt she said no cuts ever as Neil likes to pretend but perhaps there are other ways. Especially with interest rates as they have been. 

Wonder who will benefit the most when the interest rates start edging up......

 

[LJS]

11 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

That isn't what madam Nicola said today...

She made the general point that an independent Scotland would deal with its deficit just as the UK has - but quite specifically criticised the speed & the measures with which the Tories have tackled the deficit. 

 

Although in fairness, to the Tories, the "speed" with which they have tackled it seems pretty illusory as they keep failing. 

[LJS]

1 hour ago, lost said:

If you could point point out the part I said we'd have a labour government if Scotland returned 59 MP's please or quit with the straw man arguments?

I'd say that would hinder them. Would you be more or less likely to support a party that wanted a coalition with English nationalist party? People will generally vote in their own perceived interests as we are seeing in Scotland.

Hmm, as Straw Men go I think the possibility of an English Nationalist Party forming a coalition with the Labour Party is giant haystacks to my corn dolly!

[lost]

6 hours ago, LJS said:

Hmm, as Straw Men go I think the possibility of an English Nationalist Party forming a coalition with the Labour Party is giant haystacks to my corn dolly!

Because nationalists are generally self serving and use divisive politics. I'd agree. I think you've answered your own statement on the previous page there regarding future coalitions.

[eFestivals]

19 hours ago, Barry Fish said:

Funny bit is where she admits she would do exactly what the Tories have done to deal with the deficit    EXPOSED

Yes, for the anti-austerity party and the party that claims Scotland as one of the richest countries in the world ... to have to admit that she'd have cut like the tories (actually, much much bigger than the tories!!) is a bit of a wake up to anyone whose listening.

So the snippers are all still asleep, cos they had their fingers in their ears going nerr nerr nerr not listening.

When the UK had a 10% deficit it was because tax revenues had temporarily fallen off a cliff. Scotland has a 10% deficit as standard.

And that's because of the 20% extra Scotland needs and gets .. and is demanded as staying forever by the snippers, which locks in Scotland's shit fiscal position.

There's no salvation for iScotland except by cuts - cuts like a tory, just as Nicola said.

(PS: I just love the new myth of "it's just one year's accounts" .... when it's all of them since 1990 as some people have spent 2 years saying. Still, now that Nicola has spelt out the truth, the snippers now have to change what they say or call Nicola the liar )

It's skateboard skills time. 180 degrees.

[eFestivals]

7 hours ago, LJS said:

She made the general point that an independent Scotland would deal with its deficit just as the UK has - but quite specifically criticised the speed & the measures with which the Tories have tackled the deficit. 

 

Although in fairness, to the Tories, the "speed" with which they have tackled it seems pretty illusory as they keep failing. 

but but but .... you've spent the last 2+ years saying cutting to deal with the deficit doesn't work and that George is a failure.

And now you're cheering Nicola saying she'd cut to deal with the deficit.

Shurely some mishtake?  </ Connery >

Edited March 14, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

but but but .... you've spent the last 2+ years saying cutting to deal with the deficit doesn't work and that George is a failure.

And now you're cheering Nicola saying she'd cut to deal with the deficit.

Shurely some mishtake?  </ Connery >

Yup & the mishtake is yoursh.

I've not said no cuts. I've said less cuts, & not aimed at the poorest which as Osborne has proved yet again don't work.

I also said more tax for those who can afford it. (just to make that clear that could include me)

 

And of course Nicola said nothing specific about cuts and certainly said nothing to imply she'd have followed Osbornomics.

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, LJS said:

I've not said no cuts. I've said less cuts, & not aimed at the poorest which as Osborne has proved yet again don't work.

When the deficit - a constant 20+ year deficit (not a deficit caused by a temporary issue, as was the UK in 2009-10) -  is as large as all of the SNHS, what do you think can be cut which would leave the poorest untouched?

Get back to me on that, won't you....?

 

12 minutes ago, LJS said:

I also said more tax for those who can afford it. (just to make that clear that could include me)

When 'more tax' would need to be 16% more tax from every taxable transaction, how do you think your idea of just collecting that extra from the richest might work out?

 

12 minutes ago, LJS said:

And of course Nicola said nothing specific about cuts and certainly said nothing to imply she'd have followed Osbornomics.

She said "I would have had to deal with the deficit as Westminster did in 2010".

(that's as close as I can remember her words ... I've just tried to re-listen, but rather oddly the BBC aren't featuring a BBC produced programme on iPlayer which was available yesterday but isn't today ... I wonder why it might have been removed?)

[LJS]

8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

When the deficit - a constant 20+ year deficit (not a deficit caused by a temporary issue, as was the UK in 2009-10) -  is as large as all of the SNHS, what do you think can be cut which would leave the poorest untouched?

Get back to me on that, won't you....?

the deficit in the UK is not a temporary issue.

8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

When 'more tax' would need to be 16% more tax from every taxable transaction, how do you think your idea of just collecting that extra from the richest might work out?

 

She said "I would have had to deal with the deficit as Westminster did in 2010".

(that's as close as I can remember her words ...

 

which is my recollection to - I read that as saying she would have dealt with it - nowhere does it commit her to following Osbornomics. Indeed she specifically made that point at another stage of the interview.

8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I've just tried to re-listen, but rather oddly the BBC aren't featuring a BBC produced programme on iPlayer which was available yesterday but isn't today ... I wonder why it might have been removed?)

maybe they were embarrassed by one of their journalists using an entire interview to bang on relentlessly on one point & not saying anything about Nic's government or their policies or the forthcoming election.

 

Of course its no surprise to us here when someone called Neil bangs on & on relentlessly about GERS...

[eFestivals]

40 minutes ago, LJS said:

the deficit in the UK is not a temporary issue.

temporary enough to be mostly addressed within 10 years without need of the size of cuts that Scotland would need.

Don't forget, Scotland has had those tory cuts yet is still running an absolutely stonking deficit ... but the UK is not.

 

Quote

which is my recollection to - I read that as saying she would have dealt with it - nowhere does it commit her to following Osbornomics. Indeed she specifically made that point at another stage of the interview.

So please do tell us all ... what will Sturgeon cut so that the poor are unaffected?

Don't go forgetting that the greatest proportion of that public spending is targetted at the poorest anyway.

And don't go forgetting that the SNP could find just £0.5Bn of savings less than 2 years ago.

(and don't go forgetting that it will take 120 years for the economy to - only perhaps - grow by enough to cover the difference. The word of Alex ... unless you're calling the SNP liars...?)

 

Quote

maybe they were embarrassed by one of their journalists using an entire interview to bang on relentlessly on one point & not saying anything about Nic's government or their policies or the forthcoming election.

Perhaps.

Tho the fact that she's given some uncredible (incredible! ) bollocks previously surely has relevance to what she says now?

(oh, and I've noticed still no commitment of tax rises for the richest, and it defo doesn't look like it's coming either. It looks like the new indy campaign for austerity is your carrot, so you'll have to chew on that instead )

 

Quote

Of course its no surprise to us here when someone called Neil bangs on & on relentlessly about GERS...

you mean like the SNP did in the white paper?

Where everyone with a brain said "it's just one good year, an exceptional year never to be repeated", and you and they said 'bluster', bullshit', 'scaremongering' and lots of other empty words to brush away the truth with lies.

 

Edited March 14, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

So, here's my question...

 

If all the figures are correct & Scotland is costing you guys down South an extra £8bn a year  - which you assure us will get worse -  why is no one concerned about this? - is England so rich that it can afford to keep on flinging away £billions every year? 

 

Why has there been no plan top try & make the Scottish economy perform better? Why is no one taking Osborne & Cameron to task on this?

 

Could it be that it suits the Westminster establishment?

 

I mean an economically viable Scotland would surely vote for independence.

 

[eFestivals]

27 minutes ago, LJS said:

So, here's my question...

 

If all the figures are correct & Scotland is costing you guys down South an extra £8bn a year  - which you assure us will get worse -  why is no one concerned about this? - is England so rich that it can afford to keep on flinging away £billions every year? 

It might come as news to you, but the English don't hate Scotland or the Scottish.

All of the claimed basis for indy is based within Scottish myths.

You know that pooling and sharing you like? That you really really REALLY like, that you like so very much you accuse the English of hatred if they think there might be good grounds for minor adjustments to it?  You like it because you recognise that you need it.

Westminster likes it because Westminster recognises that you need it, too. Scotland costs more to run.

Corr, that was complicated.

 

Quote

Why has there been no plan top try & make the Scottish economy perform better? Why is no one taking Osborne & Cameron to task on this?

The Scottish economy performs just fine. Didn't you listen to the words of your glorious leader yesterday?

Scotland has got the lowest unemployment.

Your tax revenues are around the UK average.

Your own govt's website claims Scotland as the richest part of the UK.

Why does Scotland need to perform better?

 

Quote

Could it be that it suits the Westminster establishment?

The only people forcing Scotland to spend the extra money that Westminster sends it is....?

Scotland.

You're quite welcome to send it back if you like, tho the last Scottish govt that did so gets slagged off for doing just that by the likes of you.

So it turns out that it's *YOU* that it suits, not Westminster.

Is the penny dropping yet?

 

Quote

I mean an economically viable Scotland would surely vote for independence.

Scotland is economically viable. YOU have spent the last two years saying so, and I've spent the last two years agreeing with you.

So your own ideas about Scotland's viability if independent don't match up with your claim just there, which means one of those ideas of yours is wrong.

I'll let you decide which one it is.

Edited March 14, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

26 minutes ago, LJS said:

So, here's my question...

If all the figures are correct & Scotland is costing you guys down South an extra £8bn a year  - which you assure us will get worse -  why is no one concerned about this? - is England so rich that it can afford to keep on flinging away £billions every year?

PS:

It might have passed you by - it clearly has done - but England provides 50% of the money that Northern Ireland lives on, and about 25% of the money that Wales lives on.

Now, I know one of the snipper's myths is that "England wouldn't want Scotland if it costs England, so Scotland must be giving England money" and yet I'd like to see you try and suggest how England is making money from N.Ireland and Wales on the same basis ... and so that myth disappears in the puff of fallacy it came from.

Edited March 14, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

PS:

It might have passed you by - it clearly has done - but England provides 50% of the money that Northern Ireland lives on, and about 25% of the money that Wales lives on.

Now, I know one of the snipper's myths is that "England wouldn't want Scotland if it costs England, so Scotland must be giving England money" and yet I'd like to see you try and suggest how England is making money from N.Ireland and Wales on the same basis ... and so that myth disappears in the puff of fallacy it came from.

Of course, if comparable figures were available, they would doubtless show that London & the south east subsidises pretty much all the rest of the UK.

There are of course, lots of anomalies in that.

Like the fact that much of the massive expenditure on London's infrastructure is counted as national expenditure.

Like the fact that for decades London has hoovered up the brightest & best from Scotland, northern Ireland and all other parts of the UK: meaning in effect investment in education in Belfast or Glasgow leads to more wealth for London.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, LJS said:

Like the fact that much of the massive expenditure on London's infrastructure is counted as national expenditure.

Not within GERS, it's not.

If those amounts are included, Scotland is in an even worse state than GERS says.

And it's worth pointing out that London and SE are the only parts of the UK that have LESS spent on it than they raise ... and if they took the snipper's line over things they'd demand it all for themselves and then Scotland would be properly fucked.

Meanwhile, while London (just London) has one of the biggest infrastructure spends, the south east has one of the lowest.

And, it's worth remembering, London and the South East is 5 times more important than Scotland based on the relative populations.

 

3 minutes ago, LJS said:

Like the fact that for decades London has hoovered up the brightest & best from Scotland, northern Ireland and all other parts of the UK: meaning in effect investment in education in Belfast or Glasgow leads to more wealth for London.

Yep, London has too much focus on it, and places like the north west and north east of England, and Wales, suffer badly as a result.

But Scotland doesn't. Scotland has just about the right amount (actually, a bit too much as it can afford things other places can't) of focus on it - hence the Scottish govt claiming Scotland as the richest part of the UK, with the lowest unemployment, and about average tax raising.

It's not Scotland that needs London's money if helping the poor is what you care for.

Scotland only needs London's money if helping yourself and fucking over the poor is what you care for.

(PS: I just loved Swinney on QT last week ... who hopes to change the EU into a socially sound construct but doesn't give a shit about trying to do the same with the UK - when the UK shows far more willingness to be that equal social construct as the money sent to Scotland Wales and N.I. proves.)

[russycarps]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

So, here's my question...

 

If all the figures are correct & Scotland is costing you guys down South an extra £8bn a year  - which you assure us will get worse -  why is no one concerned about this? - is England so rich that it can afford to keep on flinging away £billions every year? 

 

Why has there been no plan top try & make the Scottish economy perform better? Why is no one taking Osborne & Cameron to task on this?

 

Could it be that it suits the Westminster establishment?

 

I mean an economically viable Scotland would surely vote for independence.

 

Because we're not all as selfish as you.

 

[LJS]

28 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

It just boggles my mind that when you have a conversation with the likes of LJS about the pro / cons of the UK staying together and Europe staying together how he comes to two drastically different opinions when the pro's and con's are almost entirely the same.

The only key difference between the Scottish Independence debate and the EU Referendum debate is the size of the chips on certain peoples shoulders it would seem.

Yeah, there is no difference between being in the UK & being in the EU!

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, LJS said:

Yeah, there is no difference between being in the UK & being in the EU!

Oh, there's a big difference.

The UK gives Scotland massive financial support.

The EU will not, and will insist that Scotland runs a deficit of less-than 3%, and will force Greek-style or Ireland-style austerity on a member state running a 10% deficit.

Which one of those do you think Scotland prefers?

Edited March 14, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I don't really want this thread to get into the differences around those two different arguments, tho.

I thought this thread had suddenly got somewhere good in the last 24 hours, with LJS suddenly starting to realise that the claimed Scottish issues are not issues, and that the SNP's suggested resolutions to those non-issues is to do to Scotland something far far worse than the tories.

It's one of those lightbulb moments, when Scotland might hear Sturgeon's words and the snippers realise they've been had.

I've given LJS some fair and reasonable replies above, and I'd like him to address them rather than be allowed the diversion of a different argument.

There's been far too much of aversion to the facts, but Sturgeon has now made clear those facts can't be avoided. I hope LJS has listened.

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

I don't really want this thread to get into the differences around those two different arguments, tho.

I thought this thread had suddenly got somewhere good in the last 24 hours, with LJS suddenly starting to realise that the claimed Scottish issues are not issues, and that the SNP's suggested resolutions to those non-issues is to do to Scotland something far far worse than the tories.

It's one of those lightbulb moments, when Scotland might hear Sturgeon's words and the snippers realise they've been had.

I've given LJS some fair and reasonable replies above, and I'd like him to address them rather than be allowed the diversion of a different argument.

There's been far too much of aversion to the facts, but Sturgeon has now made clear those facts can't be avoided. I hope LJS has listened.

I shall of course respond. However it won't be till much later. In the meantime, I don't want you getting your hopes up for "light bulb moments" 

 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, LJS said:

I shall of course respond. However it won't be till much later. In the meantime, I don't want you getting your hopes up for "light bulb moments" 

I think we've both been here long enough to know that's not going to happen with you.

Instead, there's be some new deflective words, in much the way "it's just one year's figures" has been trotted out so in the last few days but failed to have the right effect.

It's taking a few days for the myth factory to catch up cos it still needs a GERS excuse, so it's going to take you while to get back to me I*m sure.

More seriously, you asked some questions and I gave them what I feel was a fair response, and I'd be genuinely interested to hear your thoughts and perhaps answer any further questions. I don't expect you to abandon indy, but some recognition that at least some of what you've said &/or backed previously has and is being proven wrong would be nice. And reasonable. And true.

I'll remind you that you started off saying that you reluctantly came to support indy because you felt that was the only way to protect Scotland's poor. You're now very close to having to say that you support indy and don't give a fuck about the poor because nothing much else stands up against the facts as they are. I'd like to hope you never take that final step.

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

So, we had carrots for the rabid the other day, with the new independence campaign.

And today we've had carrots for the foreign-holidaying middle classes, with the formal announcement by the SNP of a manifesto pledge to cut ACP.

But still no sign of that 'tax the rich' thing. Are you even sure its coming?

[LJS]

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I think we've both been here long enough to know that's not going to happen with you.

Instead, there's be some new deflective words, in much the way "it's just one year's figures" has been trotted out so in the last few days but failed to have the right effect.

It's taking a few days for the myth factory to catch up cos it still needs a GERS excuse, so it's going to take you while to get back to me I*m sure.

i was at work - I don't wait for any myth factories

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

More seriously, you asked some questions and I gave them what I feel was a fair response, and I'd be genuinely interested to hear your thoughts and perhaps answer any further questions. I don't expect you to abandon indy, but some recognition that at least some of what you've said &/or backed previously has and is being proven wrong would be nice. And reasonable. And true.

I'll remind you that you started off saying that you reluctantly came to support indy because you felt that was the only way to protect Scotland's poor. You're now very close to having to say that you support indy and don't give a fuck about the poor

I am nowhere near that.

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

because nothing much else stands up against the facts as they are. I'd like to hope you never take that final step.

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

So, we had carrots for the rabid the other day, with the new independence campaign.

Well it was pretty tame stuff really & it acknowledged what I have long said that the SNP will have to address the shortcomings in the Yes campaign & come up with a convincing & credible case. You think that is impossible. If you are correct then unless somethgin truly extraordinary, we won't get our indy. 

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

And today we've had carrots for the foreign-holidaying middle classes, with the formal announcement by the SNP of a manifesto pledge to cut ACP.

Well, nothing is as simple as you present it Neil...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35804665

Of course, there is no guarantee that that will happen - but if it does, then that will inevitably boost employment which will benefit ordinalry people as well as the Scottish economy in general. 

 

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

But still no sign of that 'tax the rich' thing. Are you even sure its coming?

I'm sure of nothing - although the council tax tinkering is broadly " taxing the rich"  

 

On broader GERS related issues - I have no time to respond to every individual point or question you have raised so I'll make some general observations  - I'm sure you'll let me know if I've missed anything.

 

You talk about the "one bad year" thing & go on to talk of a " a constant 20+ year deficit " which is misleading and irrelevant as the same applies to the UK and in a number of these year's Scotland's deficit has been smaller than the UK's. 

 

 

Quote

Table 1: Net fiscal balance (% of GDP), UK and Scotland, 2009–10 to 2013–14

Net fiscal balance	2009–10	2010–11	2011–12	2012–13	2013–14
Scotland
Excluding North Sea revenues	-16.8%	-16.0%	-14.5%	-15.1%	-12.2%
Including geographic share	-10.4%	-8.4%	-5.9%	-9.7%	-8.1%
UK
Excluding North Sea revenues	-10.8%	-9.2%	-7.7%	-7.7%	-6.0%
Including North Sea revenues	-10.2%	-8.5%	-6.9%	-7.2%	-5.6%

 

  

GERS is useful as it gives a useful indication of how things are now  - although it uses a crude method for attributing UK wide expenditure so it is at best a very rough snapshot. If you use it to predict how an independent Scotland would perform, you completely ignore the inevitable fact that a Scottish Government would make different choices. It also ignores the fact that much of Scotland's fiscal position will depend on the outcome of pre-indy negotiations.

I made no secret during the Indy campaign that I did not accept the more optimistic financial projections of the SNP and indeed iScotland might face some fairly tough times in the early years of Indy. Nothing that has been said since changes my conviction that , in the long term independence offers the best hope of a "better" future. It won't necessarily be easy or inevitable, and, as you often correctly point out - Scotland would not free itself of the influence of our larger neighbour and, of course, independence is a relative term in our modern interconnected world. 

 

 

[Comfy Bean]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

GERS is useful as it gives a useful indication of how things are now  - although it uses a crude method for attributing UK wide expenditure so it is at best a very rough snapshot. If you use it to predict how an independent Scotland would perform, you completely ignore the inevitable fact that a Scottish Government would make different choices. 

 

This.

The line in bold is spot on but although obvious, it is conveniently ignored by the unionists. No wonder I suppose.

Scotland would not elect a Tory Govt in my lifetime. We would be governed by a new version of the SNP held to account by a Labour party freed up from chasing Tory votes in England or Labour being held to account by the SNP.

[LJS]

58 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Nicola said she would do as Georgie boy has done.  Her own words.  I think its a myth in your heads that she would do anything differently.

I know you're really struggling with the complexity of all this, Barry.

Shwade it Crystal clear that while she would deal with the deficit (as the Tories have done -with mixed success) she would use different methods.

Do keep up!