The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

50 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Seems reasonable mate but hopefully it won`t come to that. I suppose the theory would be that the vast majority of the 45% YES voters ( to Indy ) would still vote YES and some of the NO voters would change from NO to YES if they were pro-Europe.

As I say, just a theory.

tho the latest polls are showing a drop in support for indy (not huge but noticeable all the same), and the hard facts of the £15Bn deficit along with Sturgeon's admission of big cuts would turn a hell of a lot more before voting day. Stuff like "pensions will be protected" and "the poor will be protected" would be laughed out of town.

I agree that more would be likely to vote yes if the UK was dragging Scotland out of the EU than if it wasn't, but I'm confident it would be the same result.

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Agreed ( in bold ). Did you not say the other day, that only an idiot thinks there will be indyref2 in the next decade 

The SNP are making moves for us all to stay in the EU by campaigning loud and clear for a vote to stay in. I sense another of your myths on the horizon 

I'm pointing out that if things don't go the way they hope that no one is ready for an indyref2 ... so claims of an indyref2 if the UK votes out are false.

 

1 hour ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

For SNP bad there is nothing to see here. I will be voting to stay in and I`m glad the SNP are campaigning for this. I respect other peoples choice to vote to leave and accept that some people can`t follow why either me or the SNP want to stay in. There is little I can do about it if they cannot understand why I support the benefits of being in the EU for us all.

I think we will vote to stay ( sorry wrong thread I know ). Perhaps the vote will get a little tighter in England but I don`t think it will come to a brexit.

I reckon the result will be decided by the turn out size rather than by how many might support either side but perhaps can't be bothered to vote. The leavers are more motivated to vote, and a low turnout will give them victory.

[eFestivals]

Blimey ..... wonder how this will go down with the faithful...?

http://rattle.scot/how-to-answer-the-9-billion-question-over-independence

Actually, I know. They'll jump on it and hoover it up, and plenty will be saying it's what they'd always been thinking for all those years they disputed any criticisms of the white paper. :lol:

It's fairly realistic too I'd say - somewhere around the best that might be done - tho it does brush rather lightly over the effects of stuff like income tax rises given how recently some have been saying a measly one percent rise would be unreasonable for the poor to take (and where they'd get extra services back too, rather than nothing from this).

Still, I welcome it. It's the great leap forwards in indy thinking, and if indy is to be a success its what's needed.

[LJS]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Blimey ..... wonder how this will go down with the faithful...?

http://rattle.scot/how-to-answer-the-9-billion-question-over-independence

Actually, I know. They'll jump on it and hoover it up, and plenty will be saying it's what they'd always been thinking for all those years they disputed any criticisms of the white paper.

It's fairly realistic too I'd say - somewhere around the best that might be done - tho it does brush rather lightly over the effects of stuff like income tax rises given how recently some have been saying a measly one percent rise would be unreasonable for the poor to take (and where they'd get extra services back too, rather than nothing from this).

Still, I welcome it. It's the great leap forwards in indy thinking, and if indy is to be a success its what's needed.

It's certainly an improvement on the "choose between shutting your hospitals or putting up tax by 16%" we seem to have heard before.

 

There is lots of detail you can take issue with (from either "side")  but the author seems pretty clear its just one way things might be done. so I am not going to do much of that. 

 

I will limit myself to 2 observations:

 

The level of tax rises & spending cuts pose a serious risk of stifling economic growth (or worse) 

Why so insistent on starting off with a balanced current account budget? The UK has hardly ever done this in my lifetime.

 

Please note that this is not me accepting that £9bn is a "fact" it is merely another estimate.

In the extraordinary event that Osborne's plans success & we don't get a referendum for 10 or 15 years - there might even be no deficit. Who knows?

 

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

I will limit myself to 2 observations:

 

The level of tax rises & spending cuts pose a serious risk of stifling economic growth (or worse) 

Why so insistent on starting off with a balanced current account budget? The UK has hardly ever done this in my lifetime.

 

Please note that this is not me accepting that £9bn is a "fact" it is merely another estimate.

1. no shit sherlock.   ... that's how the 'poorer' that would be an indy Scotland comes about as a certainty.

2. because not all deficits are the same. A small deficit is manageable and sustainable (generally considered to be 3% or less of GDP), and a large deficit is not.

FFS LJS, this is basic stuff.

 

12 hours ago, LJS said:

In the extraordinary event that Osborne's plans success & we don't get a referendum for 10 or 15 years - there might even be no deficit. Who knows?

For the UK, you'd be correct. For Scotland, you wouldn't be.

Scotland will run a 6-ish% deficit greater than the UKs for (essentially) all of the time it is spending more than the UK average via the Barnett supplement.

The only realistic way that Scotland can make that extra Scottish deficit disappear would be by returning the Barnett money to Westminster.

We did this the other day. You said that Westminster was causing Scotland to be in this position, and I agreed that the Barnett money it sends Scotland is the cause .... but I also pointed out that Westminster is not forcing Scotland to accept that money or to spend it. That choice is Scotland's alone.

Do you remember that just a month ago you were banging on about how Osborne was trying to rob Scotlkand with the fiscal settlement, and how you demanded that it didn't happen? That was you demanding that Scotland kept itself in the financial shit for all of the time its part of the UK and so will cause a massive hit by going indy.

If you want the transition to indy to be financially painless, to be no-change from the situation before (and so make it easier for people to support indy), the only way is to take that hit (via returning the Barnett money) a long time before there's a vote on indy.

Via Sturgeon & Swinney stamping their feet and demanding and getting the largest amount possible from Westminster now, they've caused the transition to indy to be a greater financial hit. If they were serious about indy they've have quietly sucked up a loss of money from Westminster to make less lost money in any indy transition.

[LJS]

Your assertion that Scotland's deficit will always be 6% greater than the UK is clearly nonsense as this only takes into account the expenditure side. & even if it was, George is taking to a land of surplus....some day.

Your 4th paragraph is just your usual made up nonsense.

[eFestivals]

 

 

2 hours ago, LJS said:

Your assertion that Scotland's deficit will always be 6% greater than the UK is clearly nonsense as this only takes into account the expenditure side

To grow the tax revenues to meet current expenditure will take 120 years. Salmond said so in the white paper, remember?

And that's only possible *IF* his belief in better growth from a small independent nation actually holds up as true, and there's simply not decent enough data to know whether it is or not, because there's not been 120 years from any developed economy to see how it might hold up against the facts.

(there has been extra growth identified in smaller economies, but the smaller economies developed more recently and consequently had their initial growth later, and that's all it might actually be - and if so, it means there's nothing extra for Scotland via that).

That 6% of extra govt revenues requires a hell of a lot more than a 6% growth* in the economy, just in case you've fallen in to the trap of thinking it works like that.
(* that's 'extra growth' as well, beyond any growth of the UK)

Now, perhaps some great act of God or circumstances might drop something onto Scotland to make up the difference in economies (in much the way the oil did, for a while), but there's absolutely nothing anyone can point at to suggest that might happen. It's just as likely (actually, more likely given the greater diversity and size) the same might happen to England and leave Scotland even further behind.

 

Quote

. & even if it was, George is taking to a land of surplus....some day.

For the UK, not for Scotland.

Nothing of the UK being in surplus is expected to have the same effect with Scotland. For Scotland to hit the average would require Scotland to spend at the average to match its average tax revenues.

 

Quote

Your 4th paragraph is just your usual made up nonsense.

 

what, this one... ?

 

Quote

We did this the other day. You said that Westminster was causing Scotland to be in this position, and I agreed that the Barnett money it sends Scotland is the cause .... but I also pointed out that Westminster is not forcing Scotland to accept that money or to spend it. That choice is Scotland's alone.

 

What's stopping Scotland reducing it's Barnett supplement apart from Scotland?

The only people making Scotland accept and spend that supplement is the Scottish govt.

Once upon a time a Labour Scottish govt sent some of that supplement back. Snippers like you scream how evil it was of them to do that.

Edited March 17, 2016 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

On 15/03/2016 at 9:46 AM, comfortablynumb1910 said:

It`s started although I think we agreed that no-one was celebrating ( as you put it ) and that the steps are small but in the right direction. 

Hunting estates ( lets assume not resided in by people on the bread line ) are no longer exempt from business rates. Folks living in the top 4 bands for council tax purposes will now pay more while the lower bands remain unaffected. Extra provisions introduced for people who are on the bread line - normally elderly who have seen the value of their family home soar and are therefore in the top 4 bands.

Perhaps NS is waiting on George and Dave to introduce their next tax cut for the rich before she plays her next card. Time will tell with elections here just round the corner. 

NS and George clearly have the same people in their sights.....but for different reasons in my opinion.

 

OK.....

Our Westminster overlords made their move on tax yesterday.

Over to you NS ?

[eFestivals]

35 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

OK.....

Our Westminster overlords made their move on tax yesterday.

Over to you NS ?

NS has almost always copied her Westminster overlords.... but she's not a tory, oh no.

Want a charity wager on whether they'll be an announcement of a 50% top rate from 2017 in the SNP manifesto?  I say 'no'.

How much confidence do you have in your not-a-tory-oh-no glorious leader?

[LJS]

8 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

 

To grow the tax revenues to meet current expenditure will take 120 years. Salmond said so in the white paper, remember?

Ach Neil, you know he didn't say that so please stop repeating it.  Any way more relevant I have not said that Scotland will have no deficit - all I have said is the assertion that it will always be 6% more than the UK's is clearly nonsense. It might be 7% it might be 5%.

8 hours ago, eFestivals said:

And that's only possible *IF* his belief in better growth from a small independent nation actually holds up as true, and there's simply not decent enough data to know whether it is or not, because there's not been 120 years from any developed economy to see how it might hold up against the facts.

As pointed out above this realtes to something he didn't say & is entirely irrelevant to my point.

8 hours ago, eFestivals said:

(there has been extra growth identified in smaller economies, but the smaller economies developed more recently and consequently had their initial growth later, and that's all it might actually be - and if so, it means there's nothing extra for Scotland via that).

That 6% of extra govt revenues requires a hell of a lot more than a 6% growth* in the economy, just in case you've fallen in to the trap of thinking it works like that.
(* that's 'extra growth' as well, beyond any growth of the UK)

Now, perhaps some great act of God or circumstances might drop something onto Scotland to make up the difference in economies (in much the way the oil did, for a while), but there's absolutely nothing anyone can point at to suggest that might happen. It's just as likely (actually, more likely given the greater diversity and size) the same might happen to England and leave Scotland even further behind.

Sop why has the alleged Scottish deficit not always been 6% greater than the UK's in the past - what is different?

8 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

For the UK, not for Scotland.

Nothing of the UK being in surplus is expected to have the same effect with Scotland. For Scotland to hit the average would require Scotland to spend at the average to match its average tax revenues.

Yes but according to you  if the Uk is in Surplus then Scotland will at least have a smaller deficit. 

8 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

What's stopping Scotland reducing it's Barnett supplement apart from Scotland?

The only people making Scotland accept and spend that supplement is the Scottish govt.

Once upon a time a Labour Scottish govt sent some of that supplement back. Snippers like you scream how evil it was of them to do that.

I think it was extraordinarily foolish of them to do so. Any administration getting by on a fixed budget that returns money while there are still unaddressed needs in their area needs their heads examined.   Was there nothing they could find to spend it on? 

Local authorities rely largely on money from central government. How would you feel if Avon council or North Somerset or whatever they call your council these days returned money to Westminster? Although up here, we think you in the South are all driving Porsches & spend your time splashing about in your swimming pools with the au pair, I have a feeling that your council has plenty of areas where a wee bit extra money could do a lot of good.

[LJS]

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

NS has almost always copied her Westminster overlords.... but she's not a tory, oh no.

Want a charity wager on whether they'll be an announcement of a 50% top rate from 2017 in the SNP manifesto?  I say 'no'.

How much confidence do you have in your not-a-tory-oh-no glorious leader?

NS has rarely had any other option & claiming she is a Tory just betrays your irrational ignorance.

 

I will not reply on Comfy's behalf It looks as though they will not implement the rise in the rate at which the 40% rate kicks in  - which will of course mean the rich are paying more than they would be in England. Their traditional caution may well mean they view that as enough when couple with the Council Tax tinkering. If they did that & nothing else, i would certainly be disappointed, 

 

For many reasons, they are still likely to get my first vote. Please don't make a twat of yourself again by claiming that this is because I am happy to shaft the poor or am not prepared to pay more tax.

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

Ach Neil, you know he didn't say that so please stop repeating it.  Any way more relevant I have not said that Scotland will have no deficit - all I have said is the assertion that it will always be 6% more than the UK's is clearly nonsense. It might be 7% it might be 5%.

Salmond said 120 years ... I see you love to prove you've never read the white paper.

And rUK has a magick wand too, and it's going to magick itself better growth than iScotland to ensure that iScotland gets poorer and poorer against what it might have been.

What's that? rUK isn't allowed its own magick wand? Why not? If iScotland can fantasise one into existence so can rUK.

oh, except rUK doesn't need to magick itself a magick wand, as it already has that better growth than Scotland .. the only difference is that Scotland is not getting poorer and poorer.

 

Quote

As pointed out above this realtes to something he didn't say & is entirely irrelevant to my point.

he made a statement about the (supposed) better growth of small nations in the white paper. That statement translates as 120 years of a poorer iScotland.

Salmond's own estimate ... was he doing Scotland down, or was your glorious leader telling a porkie?

Answer available from The Myth Factory, Magick Wand Street, somewhere north of Cumbria just east of Bristol.

 

Quote

Sop why has the alleged Scottish deficit not always been 6% greater than the UK's in the past - what is different?

Here's that pretty graph again.

Perhaps take a moment this time to study it a little bit better, to see that Scotland with no oil revenues, which is just like ... erm Scotland ...  is just-about always 6% behind the UK average?

And don't forget, the gap between Scotland and rUK (rather than whole-UK) is an even bigger gap.

 

Quote

Yes but according to you  if the Uk is in Surplus then Scotland will at least have a smaller deficit. 

True.

But that smaller deficit is still double what's sustainable.

And that smaller deficit will be achieved via the austerity you say is just-so-wrong ... or is austerity just-perfect for Scotland now?

 

Quote

I think it was extraordinarily foolish of them to do so. Any administration getting by on a fixed budget that returns money while there are still unaddressed needs in their area needs their heads examined.   Was there nothing they could find to spend it on?

I can only guess what their logic was, but my guess is that they'd succeeded in making Scotland equal with rUK in its public service provision and therefore felt it wasn't bright or proper for Scotland to live a higher lifestyle on other people's money. ... that of course would be proper fair and reasonable social solidarity by people who believe in fairness rather than the me-me-me more-more-more selfishness of the SNP.

 

Quote

Local authorities rely largely on money from central government. How would you feel if Avon council or North Somerset or whatever they call your council these days returned money to Westminster? Although up here, we think you in the South are all driving Porsches & spend your time splashing about in your swimming pools with the au pair, I have a feeling that your council has plenty of areas where a wee bit extra money could do a lot of good.

Your own central govt decided to starve your local authorities of funds, as well as stopping them raising their own funds. Did you miss that part?

Us lot down here feel that we can only drive one Porsche at a time, and the nannies we need for our younger population are a bigger burden too.

Edited March 18, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

NS has rarely had any other option

So Westminster is wasting it's time transferring powers?

You keep telling me Scotland will use its powers to be different, but so far it only uses them to be the same.

 

11 hours ago, LJS said:

& claiming she is a Tory just betrays your irrational ignorance.

and yet almost-always she copies tory policies, which are evil when done by tories but are not-tory when done by a tory-copier.

 

11 hours ago, LJS said:

I will not reply on Comfy's behalf It looks as though they will not implement the rise in the rate at which the 40% rate kicks in  - which will of course mean the rich are paying more than they would be in England. Their traditional caution may well mean they view that as enough when couple with the Council Tax tinkering. If they did that & nothing else, i would certainly be disappointed, 

Ermmm.... I could be wrong, but I thought Scotland didn't have the power to touch the bandings as things stand....? Isn't it in April 2017 when Scotland gets that power? Unless I'm mistaken? (and I might be, I'm really not sure about when this power is transferred).

But if I'm correct, that means Scotland will have to suck it up for a year first, and then - wait for it - raise taxes - to put it back to where it was?.... and aren't you the man who said it would be wrong for people in Scotland to be paying more taxes than people in rUK?

 

11 hours ago, LJS said:

For many reasons, they are still likely to get my first vote. Please don't make a twat of yourself again by claiming that this is because I am happy to shaft the poor or am not prepared to pay more tax.

and yet you could help the poor, but you don't want to.

You started off (2 years ago) saying you reluctantly came to support indy to protect Scotland's poor, and finish here by saying you don't want to do that.

So, what's indy for, LJS? How do you get the better Scotland that you used to say was what you'd be voting for? Poorer, with the poor MUCH poorer (something like a 3% rise in income taxes for the poor without any extra services for the extra money).

What's indy for? Do you even know today?

I can only see "let's show England how much we hate them".

Cos to put upon the poor who you said you wanted to protect has to have something better in return, doesn't it?

[LJS]

34 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

I can only see "let's show England how much we hate them".

 

Please withdraw that unless you can provide 1 shred of evidence that I have said anything like that.

 

Other than that, I sadly have no time this morning to dismantle the rest of your apology for an argument, I do however welcome your acknowledgement that you have been making up the Salmond 120 years thing.

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, LJS said:

Please withdraw that unless you can provide 1 shred of evidence that I have said anything like that.

That wasn't aimed at you personally, but as snippers as a whole. You can dissociate yourself from it if you wish.

But there's nothing remaining of your original stated reasons for supporting indy, and you still support indy ... and yet you're not saying why you still support indy.

Which is why I end up concluding that it's all about the only part that remains.

 

Quote

Other than that, I sadly have no time this morning to dismantle the rest of your apology for an argument, I do however welcome your acknowledgement that you have been making up the Salmond 120 years thing.

Here's Salmond's words for you fro the white paper (page 43)  .... and do please call it lies again.

 

 

Quote

 

If Scotland moved from the rates of growth it has

experienced in the past to instead match the levels of

growth of other small European countries, the benefits for

people in Scotland in terms of prosperity and employment

would be significant. As an illustration, had Scotland’s

growth matched these other independent nations between

1977 and 2007, GDP per head would now be 3.8 per cent

higher, equivalent to an additional £900 per head (see

Chapter 3). We would also enjoy the higher revenues that

accompany greater prosperity

 

 

What does that extra growth  equate to? 120 years to make up the difference.

 

The lies are yours. You'll even reject the lies you once supported from the side you support to keep your fact-free laughable ideas.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 18, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

PS: I've just noticed that Salmond wanted you to believe so-soooo much that the whole para is repeated verbatim on page 88 too

 

[LJS]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

That wasn't aimed at you personally, but as snippers as a whole. You can dissociate yourself from it if you wish.

Sounded very much as if it was aimed directly at me if you include the previous line...

 

"What's indy for? Do you even know today?

I can only see "let's show England how much we hate them". "

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

But there's nothing remaining of your original stated reasons for supporting indy, and you still support indy ... and yet you're not saying why you still support indy.

Which is why I end up concluding that it's all about the only part that remains.

 

Here's Salmond's words for you fro the white paper (page 63)  .... and do please call it lies again.

 

 

 

 

What does that extra growth  equate to? 120 years to make up the difference.

 

The lies are yours. You'll even reject the lies you once supported from the side you support to keep your fact-free laughable ideas.

 

 

 

 

thank you agaibcfor demonstrating that Salmond never said what you claim he said.

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, LJS said:

Sounded very much as if it was aimed directly at me if you include the previous line...

 

"What's indy for? Do you even know today?

I can only see "let's show England how much we hate them". "

That's all I can see.

You're able to make me see other reasons from words you might type, but you seen reluctant - or unable - to give another reason.

You're welcome to change that, else I keep on seeing just one thing.

 

Quote

thank you agaibcfor demonstrating that Salmond never said what you claim he said.

I've shown you where the 120 years comes from - because that's what it equates as being.

Do you think Scotland might grow faster than that? You're welcome to, but if you don't want me to laugh you'll need to tell me how and why.

Tho your normal "because I say so" isn't going to reduce the laughter.

Edited March 18, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

PS: given that at the start of the indy campaign Salmond and plenty of other said "if you say stuff we'll do the opposite" and that was taken as a proud claim, what do you think those who engage their brains end up concluding?

Back then, stuff like "basing your economy on oil will lead to disaster" was brushed off as scaremongering ... yet a disaster it would be with I-Day just 6 days away.

As Nicola said at the weekend, she'd have had to deal with the deficit like Westminster did. Cuts cuts and more cuts - much more vicious than anything tory.... and there was me thinking you hated the much smaller tory cuts.

 

[LJS]

15 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

That's all I can see.

You're able to make me see other reasons from words you might type, but you seen reluctant - or unable - to give another reason.

You're welcome to change that, else I keep on seeing just one thing.

But not from me. 

15 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I've shown you where the 120 years comes from - because that's what it equates as being.

Do you think Scotland might grow faster than that? You're welcome to, but if you don't want me to laugh you'll need to tell me how and why.

Tho your normal "because I say so" isn't going to reduce the laughter.

He didn't say what you said he said. So you made it up.

In other news, the tax band changes announced in the budget take effect in Apr 2017.

[eFestivals]

33 minutes ago, LJS said:

But not from me. 

and yet you seem to have great reluctance to give an alternative reason ....?

You seem to have learnt that an alternative reason that won't wash against the facts is no reason at all, yet you're unable to give any reason at all now.

 

33 minutes ago, LJS said:

He didn't say what you said he said. So you made it up.

In other news, the tax band changes announced in the budget take effect in Apr 2017.

I've simply put some working to what he said, to give full context to that idea for Scotland .. and that context is 120 years of iScpotland being poorer than rUK.

And of course, that 120 years is only correct if Salmond's claim was correct (else it'll be longer, or won't happen at all) ... and how are the other claims of Salmond standing up today?

As claimed, or much much worse than claimed?

It's more Salmond bullshit, like all of his bullshit.

[Comfy Bean]

On 3/15/2016 at 2:27 PM, eFestivals said:

That aside, what exactly do you think you can get out of indy that improves your life?

 

 

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

What's indy for? Do you even know today?

I can only see "let's show England how much we hate them".

 

Oh Neil 

You have clearly invested so much time and energy into the debate around whether Scotland should be an independent country but you have no grasp or feeling for what any of this is actually about. Again were back to you guessing at the cost of everything but being immune to the value. Time and time again you have proved this is alien to you and I think these 2 posts of yours sum up what you think it`s about. We are clearly on different wavelengths here which perhaps explains some of your liar / greedy / Tory / raving / rabid / mental / hate type rants.

I`ve said before that you appear to see our little discussion here as some kind of argument that you think you must or can win. I have no idea why you take this stance. You continually mis-represent stuff that people have been saying consistently for years and have never been able to quote ( even one ) line from anyone from the YES side on here that backs up the nonsense that you claim this is about.

I really like England and London and have never claimed otherwise. I don`t know why you are uncomfortable with that. I have never voted Tory in my life but respect other peoples decision to vote for what they believe in.

I`ll decline your kind offer of a bet. I realise it was for charity but it still seems a bit vulgar. It comes across again as you being desperate to win something ( anything ).

On the tax, I agree with LJS. I don`t expect the tax cuts announced by George to apply to the more well off in Scotland. They will not get that tax break and will see their council tax increase. The higher band may come in ( who knows ) but the numbers affected up here are much less than in England and as you have pointed out, alot of the unionist types could quite easily move South to avoid it.

Oh and can I offer " Scope for Hope " as something I want to see from the manifesto as an alternative to your " carrot for the rabid " 

Vote NO to stay in the EU 

Vote NO to avoid race to the bottom type corp tax cuts 

Vote NO to prevent HMRC jobs moving South 

Vote NO to safeguard £200billion in oil and gas reserves over the next 20 years 

tbc........

 

[eFestivals]

so just like LJS you've told me I'm wrong, but fail to present what you think you'll benefit by.

There's no reason for that, of course.

Is it to "protect the poor"? Nope, it's definitely not, Sturgeon has made that very clear ... cuts worse than tory cuts would the inescapable result of indy, just as was always pointed out to you (which you constantly denied, but now can't).

So....? Do you have a new reason for what makes indy so worthwhile - and worthwhile despite it shitting on the poor?

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I`ll decline your kind offer of a bet. I realise it was for charity but it still seems a bit vulgar. It comes across again as you being desperate to win something ( anything ).

So despite your certainty, you're not certain. I'm glad we've sorted that one out.

 

5 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

On the tax, I agree with LJS. I don`t expect the tax cuts announced by George to apply to the more well off in Scotland.

Scotland doesn't have the power to block it (yet), does it?

I really don't know either way, but I though the power over banding only arrived with the new powers in April 2017?

If that's correct, then the tax cuts announced by Osborne *WOULD* apply to the more well off in Scotland, and would need to be reversed in April 2017 by Scotland imposing a rate rise.

I don't discount the possibility of Scotland making that rise next April, tho I expect it would be at the expense of a 50% top rate if it happens. The SNP are shit scared of making the better off pay more (else they'd have done it 10 years ago via local taxes).

 

5 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

They will not get that tax break and will see their council tax increase.

As I say above, I don't think that tax break can be stopped.

And yes, council taxes are rising ... by a piddly tiny amount, waaaaay waaaay short of what the richer would have have to contribute as extra via an income tax rise.

And while there's now that tiny tiny rise, there's ten years of the SNP protecting the rich from paying more to make up before it's not still actually a loss to Scottish revenue raising.

[Comfy Bean]

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

so just like LJS you've told me I'm wrong, but fail to present what you think you'll benefit by.

There's no reason for that, of course.

Is it to "protect the poor"? Nope, it's definitely not, Sturgeon has made that very clear ... cuts worse than tory cuts would the inescapable result of indy, just as was always pointed out to you (which you constantly denied, but now can't).

So....? Do you have a new reason for what makes indy so worthwhile - and worthwhile despite it shitting on the poor?

No I don`t have a " new " reason. My reasons remain the same as it ever was. I have laid them out over many posts on here. I realise it`s going to be a long long time until Indyref2 but you could always take a quick glance back at what other people have been saying here rather than me post it all again for another decade plus 

You think it`s about my own personal greed and me wishing to shit on the poor. You have no idea, it clearly doesn`t make sense to you but I accept that.