The Dirty Independence Question

[feral chile]

20 hours ago, zahidf said:

sturgeon is bravely and openly pro immigration. for that reason, i have a lot more respect for her than for any of the self serving, pandering politicians from othet parties.

Quite.

[pink_triangle]

20 hours ago, zahidf said:

sturgeon is bravely and openly pro immigration. for that reason, i have a lot more respect for her than for any of the self serving, pandering politicians from othet parties.

Playing devils advocate,  but could it be argued that when she became leader,  she was taking over a country more open to a pro immigration  message  than someone leading or looking to become leader in a UK wide election? 

[LJS]

49 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Playing devils advocate,  but could it be argued that when she became leader,  she was taking over a country more open to a pro immigration  message  than someone leading or looking to become leader in a UK wide election? 

Her constituency, which I lived in for more than half my life, probably has the highest proportion of immigrants in Scotland. I don't think she suddenly became pro-immigration when she became leader.

[pink_triangle]

56 minutes ago, LJS said:

Her constituency, which I lived in for more than half my life, probably has the highest proportion of immigrants in Scotland. I don't think she suddenly became pro-immigration when she became leader.

I think you misunderstood  my point or more likely  I explained it poorly.  My point was meant to be  that the Scottish and uk electorates are different and the same message doesn't resonate  in the same way with both.  

If  labour stood as being as Pro eu  and pro immigration  as the Snp  it would  be political suicide as the voters they are trying to reach  are less open to that message than those in Scotland.  Note  that Corbyn  who you are very positive about doesn't share those views.  In fact  Angela Eagle is far  more in tune with you than jc  on these issues. 

[eFestivals]

On 02/07/2016 at 10:47 AM, comfortablynumb1910 said:

As Neil has correctly pointed out, the UK finances are in a mess so I`m not sure how continuing on the Tory path is good for any of us.

And I've correctly pointed out that Scotland's finances are - due only to Scottish choices made in Scotland by Scottish people - more fucked than anything the tories are doing.

Does that count for anything? Does "the UK is fucked but Scotland is fucked three times worse" mean nothing?

[eFestivals]

On 02/07/2016 at 10:47 AM, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I don`t agree with Neil`s figures as they make no sense to me when we do not have a clue what year or even decade we are talking about. 

So you're calling the Scottish govt liars, as the facts I've given you have come from them.

iScotland would start its indy life wanting to spend £10Bn more than it has. The only option will be massive cuts &/or massive tax increases. There is no way it can be avoided.

On 02/07/2016 at 10:47 AM, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I had thought personally that Indy was unlikely for around a decade. I think the recent eu events may give the SNP an opportunity that they may see as too good to miss.

You could be right, tho they don't seem very keen.

They have a mandate for an indy ref, but aren't calling one right now. Would that be because they think they can win, or think they can't?

At least in 2014 there was a financial plan of good enough lies to mug the stupid. There's no such plan now, there's only cuts for you to agree to if you want your dream. How much do you want poverty? If it's more than your indy dream you'll get your indy dream.

 

 

[eFestivals]

On 02/07/2016 at 11:46 AM, LJS said:

Hmm. I tend to think that , while there has been some negative impacts on Sterling (not sure its had any effect in Stirling!) & the stock markets but there has been no emergency budget, the scale of this impact is nothing like what the remain campaign was predicting, and although it is far too early to know with any degree of certainty, there seems to be a widespread feeling amongst those who only a few days ago were predicting Armageddon, that, surprise surprise, things might not be so bad at all.

My view has always been that the claims of the remain campaign were implausible & ridiculous and that whilst leaving the EU would have negative impacts, they would be nothing like as bad as they had claimed.

Similarly with all the crazy claims made by Better Together last time & no doubt to be repeated again this time - I did not deny that there would be likely to be some short term negative impacts on Scotland from going it alone & I certainly was not one of those who believed we would instantly be better off, but as with the remain campagin these claims were wildly exaggerated.

 

That's me that is

For the UK leaving the EU, there can only be guesses about the economic impact, with those guesses informed by history.

For Scotland leaving the UK, there's no guess that the Scottish economy will lose £10bn per year every year. It's a certain and irrefutable fact.

You view has always been that you wouldn't support indy again unless the SNP have a plan to deal with that missing £10Bn, but you seem to have forgetten that lately ... which only proves you stated bollocks in the past and speak bollocks now. That's the better type of politics from the politically sophisticated in Scotland I presume..?

If Brexit is economic madness, Scottish indy is ten times the madness.

[eFestivals]

On 02/07/2016 at 0:44 PM, zahidf said:

sturgeon is bravely and openly pro immigration. for that reason, i have a lot more respect for her than for any of the self serving, pandering politicians from othet parties.

it's easy to be pro immigration when you don't have any immigration.

And it's easy for Scotland to think immigration has no impact when it has no impact on Scotland. It doesn't even change what the streets look like.

All considerations are relative.

[eFestivals]

21 hours ago, LJS said:

Her constituency, which I lived in for more than half my life, probably has the highest proportion of immigrants in Scotland. I don't think she suddenly became pro-immigration when she became leader.

What proportion would that be, LJS?

Does all of Glasgow get to 40%, like London does, and where most of those are noticibly immigrants, due to skin colour?

Here's betting that "the highest proportion of immigrants in Scotland" in one tiny place isn't even half of the London average.

And might Scotland have just one third of the UK average for different coloured skin, and less than one third of the amount of immigration?

And might the tiny immigration that Scotland has make no impact onto resources because of the number of Scots that leave Scotland?

It's not Scotland that's different about immigration, it's that immigration is different in Scotland.

Edited July 4, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

According to this...
http://www.understandingglasgow.com/assets/0002/1285/Tollcross_and_West_Shettleston.pdf

Sturgeon's "highest proportion of immigrants in Scotland" is just 12%.

There's hundreds of English and towns and cities which surpass that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_districts_and_their_ethnic_composition

All of Glasgow? Just 5%.
http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=17783&p=0

 

 

Table 1 - Distribution of foreign-born population, 2014

 

Region	2014
London	36.9%
South East	13.3%
East	8.2%
West Midlands	7.6%
North West	7.6%
East Midlands	5.8%
Yorkshire & the Humber	5.7%
South West	5.2%
Scotland	4.3%
Wales	2.3%
North East	1.6%
Northern Ireland	1.5%

Source: Labour Force Survey, Q4

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/migrants-uk-overview

 

10 cities and towns with lowest population growth 2004-13

% changePopulation change

Glasgow

-1.40

Sunderland

0.20

Blackpool

0.40

Burnley

0.80

Grimsby

0.90

Middlesbrough

1.70

Birkenhead

1.80

Hull

2.30

Rochdale

2.60

Liverpool

2.70

Glasgow

Source: Centre for Cities/ONS

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/datablog/2015/jan/19/uk-cities-ranked-jobs-migration-house-prices-broadband-speeds-data 

 

Edited July 4, 2016 by eFestivals

[zahidf]

23 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

it's easy to be pro immigration when you don't have any immigration.

And it's easy for Scotland to think immigration has no impact when it has no impact on Scotland. It doesn't even change what the streets look like.

All considerations are relative.

studies have shown that areas with the least immigration are the most virulently anti immigration. high immigration areas are more tolerant. scotlands lack of immigration would not be a factor!

[eFestivals]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Scotland#Ethnicity

 

Ethnicity

The 2001 and 2011 censuses recorded the following ethnic groups:

Ethnic Group	2001[11]		2011[12]
	Number	%	Number	%
White: Scottish	4,459,071	88.09%	4,445,678	83.95%
White: Other British	373,685	7.38%	417,109	7.88%
White: Irish	49,428	0.98%	54,090	1.02%
White: Gypsy/Traveller[note 1]			4,212	0.08%
White: Polish[note 2]			61,201	1.16%
White: Other	78,150	1.54%	102,117	1.93%
White: Total	4,960,334	97.99%	5,084,407	96.02%
Asian, Asian Scottish or Asian British: Indian	15,037	0.30%	32,706	0.62%
Asian, Asian Scottish or Asian British: Pakistani	31,793	0.63%	49,381	0.93%
Asian, Asian Scottish or Asian British: Bangladeshi	1,981	0.04%	3,788	0.07%
Asian, Asian Scottish or Asian British: Chinese	16,310	0.32%	33,706	0.64%
Asian, Asian Scottish or Asian British: Asian Other	6,196	0.12%	21,097	0.40%
Asian, Asian Scottish or Asian British: Total	71,317	1.41%	140,678	2.66%
Black, Black Scottish or Black British[note 3]	6,247	0.12%
African: African, African Scottish or African British			29,186	0.55%
African: Other African			452	0.01%
African: Total			29,638	0.56%
Caribbean			3,430	0.06%
Black			2,380	0.04%
Caribbean or Black: Other			730	0.01%
Caribbean or Black: Total			6,540	0.12%
Mixed or multiple ethnic groups: Total	12,764	0.25%	19,815	0.37%
Other: Arab[note 4]			9,366	0.18%
Other: Any other ethnic group	9,571	0.19%	4,959	0.09%
Other: Total	9,571	0.19%	14,325	0.27%
Total	5,062,011	100.00%	5,295,403	100.00%

[eFestivals]

96% white.

Scotland is nothing like England with immigration, so it's hardly surprising that Scotland has different attitudes towards the effect it has

[LJS]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

According to this...
http://www.understandingglasgow.com/assets/0002/1285/Tollcross_and_West_Shettleston.pdf

Sturgeon's "highest proportion of immigrants in Scotland" is just 12%.

There's hundreds of English and towns and cities which surpass that.

All of Glasgow? Just 5%.
http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=17783&p=0

 

 

Table 1 - Distribution of foreign-born population, 2014

 

Region	2014
London	36.9%
South East	13.3%
East	8.2%
West Midlands	7.6%
North West	7.6%
East Midlands	5.8%
Yorkshire & the Humber	5.7%
South West	5.2%
Scotland	4.3%
Wales	2.3%
North East	1.6%
Northern Ireland	1.5%

Source: Labour Force Survey, Q4

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/migrants-uk-overview

 

10 cities and towns with lowest population growth 2004-13

% changePopulation change

Glasgow

-1.40

Sunderland

0.20

Blackpool

0.40

Burnley

0.80

Grimsby

0.90

Middlesbrough

1.70

Birkenhead

1.80

Hull

2.30

Rochdale

2.60

Liverpool

2.70

Glasgow

Source: Centre for Cities/ONS

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/datablog/2015/jan/19/uk-cities-ranked-jobs-migration-house-prices-broadband-speeds-data 

 

Interesting to see Scotland has a higher proportion of born abroad than the north-east. By your logic they should love immigration then!

Anyway, make your mind up Neil. You regularly tell us we're just as racist up here when it suits you.

And whichever way you look at it, sturgeon's position on immigration is admirable, even  if, as you claim, it's relatively easier to hold. I'm sure you'd agree.

[LJS]

37 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

For the UK leaving the EU, there can only be guesses about the economic impact, with those guesses informed by history.

For Scotland leaving the UK, there's no guess that the Scottish economy will lose £10bn per year every year. It's a certain and irrefutable fact.

No it's not! It's a certain & irrefutable estimate of previous years.

37 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

You view has always been that you wouldn't support indy again unless the SNP have a plan to deal with that missing £10Bn, but you seem to have forgetten that lately ...

 

Wrong on several counts. 

I don't accept the £10bn

I have said the SNP will need to come up with a coherent economic plan in order to win Indy ref 2.

I have not said my support is contingent on that plan.

37 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

which only proves you stated bollocks in the past and speak bollocks now. That's the better type of politics from the politically sophisticated in Scotland I presume..?

If Brexit is economic madness, Scottish indy is ten times the madness.

Thanks. As always, for your opinion.

[eFestivals]

27 minutes ago, LJS said:

Interesting to see Scotland has a higher proportion of born abroad than the north-east. By your logic they should love immigration then!

Nope, my logic is consistent, and your thinking is exceedingly poor.

You do know that Scotland gets 35% more per-person spent on Scotland than the North East has sp4ent on it, don't you?  Do you think circumstances make no difference to anyone's thinking?

Meanwhile, it's your own greed for Scotland that in-part caused the poverty in the likes of Sunderland, and consequently is also part responsible for how they voted.

 

Quote

Anyway, make your mind up Neil. You regularly tell us we're just as racist up here when it suits you.

A new British Attitudes Survey is out today .... we'll both have to have a butchers at it later, to see what it says.

And here's betting it says the same as it always has done, that Scotland is no less racist than the UK as a whole.

 

Quote

And whichever way you look at it, sturgeon's position on immigration is admirable, even  if, as you claim, it's relatively easier to hold. I'm sure you'd agree.

When the buyers are thought-light cultists, everything is an easy sell.

You're the man who said the SNP would need a plan for the missing £10Bn for you to support indy again, but suddenly the SNP are selling again and you're a willing buyer.

Which only goes to prove the point of thought-light and cultists.

Edited July 4, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

26 minutes ago, LJS said:

No it's not! It's a certain & irrefutable estimate of previous years.

It's a certain and irrefutable starting position of an indy Scotland.

You're free to do whatever you wish to from that starting position, apart from wish yourself that missing £10Bn a year back into the Scottish economy.

28 minutes ago, LJS said:

I don't accept the £10bn

then the Scottish Govt are liars in your own opinion.

Or did you miss that the 2014 campaign had the SNP wholely accepting the validity of that £10Bn a year from rUK?

Don't you remember? It was going to be covered by the oil revenues in that Scotland that isn't dependent on oil.

[pink_triangle]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

And whichever way you look at it, sturgeon's position on immigration is admirable, even  if, as you claim, it's relatively easier to hold. I'm sure you'd agree.

I would agree,  however that certainly doesn't make her a more principled politician than her labour or Tory  counterparts.  She knows how to play  political games just as much and certainly would not promote a personal belief if she thought it would be a huge vote loser. 

[Comfy Bean]

12 hours ago, zahidf said:

studies have shown that areas with the least immigration are the most virulently anti immigration. high immigration areas are more tolerant. scotlands lack of immigration would not be a factor!

This is a good point well made Zahidf. It won`t carry much weight with some of the right wing think tankers round here who of course view Scotland through the comments beneath Daily Mail articles as we know. I don`t need maps or graphs to see who lives round my way or walks to school with my kids.

Here`s some words and a tune. The words are from the Times but the rest is behind the pay wall........

 In Scotland’s story I read that they came/The Gael and the Pict, the Angle and Dane/But so did the Irishman, Jew and Ukraine/They’re all Scotland’s Story and they’re all worth the same”. So goes one of the Proclaimers’ finest songs, Scotland’s Story .

It puts to music a truth articulated by the late, lamented William McIlvanney, when speaking at a pro-Scottish parliament demonstration in Edinburgh in 1992. Never forget, he said, that Scotland is a “mongrel nation” — and he meant it as a badge of pride and modernity.

Any examination of Scottish history or our country today bears out…

[Comfy Bean]

24 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I would agree,  however that certainly doesn't make her a more principled politician than her labour or Tory  counterparts.  She knows how to play  political games just as much and certainly would not promote a personal belief if she thought it would be a huge vote loser. 

Or.....it`s not only her life long held views on immigration that make her a more principled politician than many of her Labour or Tory counterparts. Hence her success I reckon 

[Comfy Bean]

13 hours ago, eFestivals said:

it's easy to be pro immigration when you don't have any immigration.

And it's easy for Scotland to think immigration has no impact when it has no impact on Scotland. It doesn't even change what the streets look like.

All considerations are relative.

All considerations are relative where they have some basis in reality.

[Comfy Bean]

13 hours ago, eFestivals said:

For Scotland leaving the UK, there's no guess that the Scottish economy will lose £10bn per year every year. It's a certain and irrefutable fact.

 

Since nobody has the faintest idea what year you are talking about, to say in each and every year is clearly nonsense. The money we receive is being cut today and every day and there is little doubt that this will continue under the Tories. As I`ve said before, the tweaks to the consequentials will be used at every turn. I accept Neil that you actually believe that the £10billion figure is accurate to the penny even though you have no idea what imaginery year in the future ( if ever ) you are basing this on. We live in an ever changing world but I`m impressed that you can see past all this with such certainty.

Since I have made my point loads of times about why I disagree with you and bearing in mind you have also claimed this figure as £15Bn and at one point £8Bn why don`t we turn it round a bit just for fun.

Do you agree that there could be some, any, savings from Scotland not being in the UK that we could factor in ?

To be clear, I`m not saying that the savings would equal £10B as that would just be silly.

Do you think there will be ANY savings and if yes, have you already deducted them when doing the maths that led you to the 10 squillion ?

If you still have the back of the fag packet handy then why not post your workings out to back up your claim. That will help us all to confirm your " certain and irrefutable fact "

  

[Comfy Bean]

Just catching up with the weekend papers and liked this from Saturday`s Herald....

 

" The UK is entering a prolonged period of economic and cultural turbulence and a tiny group of ruthless, self-serving and predatory individuals are leading the way.They will not hesitate to ditch that which they consider to be excess baggage to reach their objectives : the rest of us.

A second independence referendum gives Scotland the ideal chance to ditch them first "

 

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

All considerations are relative where they have some basis in reality.

yep, and that basis and reality is "immigration has no impact on Scotland" as well as "Scotland has the highest funding against the lowest needs".

Meanwhile, the NE has about the lowest funding against need, as do parts of Wales.

Why's that then? It's because of Scottish greed, that demands ever-more for itself without reference to the needs anywhere else, and tries to claim moral superiority for itself via other people's money.

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Since nobody has the faintest idea what year you are talking about

No, that's just you. I guess it's because you're special.

 

Quote

, to say in each and every year is clearly nonsense.

You seem to misunderstand what indy is, comfy.

When you're indy, the UK stops sending you money. Not just for one year but for all years forever.

That's a missing £10bn you might have had in the first year and every year forever.

 

Quote

The money we receive is being cut today and every day and there is little doubt that this will continue under the Tories.

I'm sure it will.

And if/when the tories have finished cutting to their zero deficit target, there's cuts three times as big to come on top of that when you throw away that £10bn.

 

Quote

As I`ve said before, the tweaks to the consequentials will be used at every turn. I accept Neil that you actually believe that the £10billion figure is accurate to the penny even though you have no idea what imaginery year in the future ( if ever ) you are basing this on. We live in an ever changing world but I`m impressed that you can see past all this with such certainty.

It's as accurate as it's possible to be. No one has a better idea.

Certainly not the SNP, who accept that number to the extent that their own formula creates that number, which they then publish.

And then the SNP believe it so very much that they sold its truth to you in the white paper, and you bought it.

 

Quote

Since I have made my point loads of times about why I disagree with you

You disagree with all intelligence, including that of the morally superior Scottish Govt. Yep, I'd already realised.

 

Quote

and bearing in mind you have also claimed this figure as £15Bn and at one point £8Bn why don`t we turn it round a bit just for fun.

Oh. My. Fucking. God.

The £8bn was the Barnett money for 2013-14 (as detailed in GERS), which I was saying in the year following the GERS for that year.

The £10bn is the Barnett money for 2014-15 (as detailed in GERS), which I was saying it would be before that GERS was published, and was confirmed when that GERS was published.
(and you were telling me it was a lie when I was saying it, but GERS proved it wasn't a lie)

The £15bn is the total Scottish deficit 2014-15 (as detailed in GERS), which I was saying it would be before that GERS was published, and was confirmed when that GERS was published.
(and you were telling me it was a lie when I was saying it, but GERS proved it wasn't a lie)

Congratulations comfy. You're the winner of the new annual eFestivals Brain Dead Prize. If y9ou let me know your address I can send it to you.

 

Quote

Do you agree that there could be some, any, savings from Scotland not being in the UK that we could factor in ?

Yes, I agree that Salmond was able to identify a total saving of £0.5Bn

Scotland needs £10bn.

 

 

Quote

Do you think there will be ANY savings and if yes, have you already deducted them when doing the maths that led you to the 10 squillion ?

If your one brain cell requires it to start working, I can start to post £9.5Bn instead of £10bn, if you like....?

 

Quote

If you still have the back of the fag packet handy then why not post your workings out to back up your claim. That will help us all to confirm your " certain and irrefutable fact "

Perhaps put your suggestion to those who do the calculation, so that in future GERS is done on the back of a fag packet.

“I’m glad these organisations aren’t on my side,” Gove said. “I think people in this country have had enough of experts.”

 

Edited July 5, 2016 by eFestivals