The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

28 minutes ago, LJS said:

thanks for your opinion professor Neil. As always, other opinions are available  (even more so than a couple of years ago- something else that has changed)

Even the citizens of Europe want us

https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/8796/poll-europeans-push-eu-governments-accept-independent-scotland

with all due respect, the view of those EU citizens is about as informed as an average Brit with an EU referendum to vote on. It's a "awww, that would be nice, yeah" things, with nothing deeper.

But whatever, you can't go claiming A Bad Thing of something which will affect (just) 13% of your exports without also calling A Much Bigger Bad Thing about the opposite which effects 70% of exports.

(and just before you give today's fast-growing myth, no, that 70% is not hiding stuff that really goes to the EU. Nicola said so in the stats she's provided).

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

But whatever, you can't go claiming A Bad Thing of something which will affect (just) 13% of your exports without also calling A Much Bigger Bad Thing about the opposite which effects 70% of exports.

so, on the basis of these recent posts of yours we can conclude that £10bn worse off is unacceptable (ref 2014), £17bn worse off is unacceptable (LJS today), but £74Bn worse off is a bright future for Scotland (LJS today).

 

Edited July 11, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

with all due respect, the view of those EU citizens is about as informed as an average Brit with an EU referendum to vote on. It's a "awww, that would be nice, yeah" things, with nothing deeper.

But whatever, you can't go claiming A Bad Thing of something which will affect (just) 13% of your exports without also calling A Much Bigger Bad Thing about the opposite which effects 70% of exports.

(and just before you give today's fast-growing myth, no, that 70% is not hiding stuff that really goes to the EU. Nicola said so in the stats she's provided).

If I was arguing for Indy on the basis of exports to the eu, you might have a point. 

I amn't.

You don't.

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, LJS said:

If I was arguing for Indy on the basis of exports to the eu, you might have a point. 

I amn't.

You don't.

You're arguing on the basis of lost investment.

Where do you think most investment in Scotland comes from...?

You only ever want to see the parts that suit your dogma, but dogma won't pay the bills.

[LJS]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

You're arguing on the basis of lost investment.

Where do you think most investment in Scotland comes from...?

You only ever want to see the parts that suit your dogma, but dogma won't pay the bills.

Nope. You got it wrong again.

I was just using a ridiculous made up figure to counter your ridiculous made up figure.

(please note - I am not claiming that GERS figurs are either ridiculous or made up - merely that they do not tell us what the financial position of an independent Scotland would be - & to use them to do so is ridiculous.)

[eFestivals]

23 minutes ago, LJS said:

(please note - I am not claiming that GERS figurs are either ridiculous or made up - merely that they do not tell us what the financial position of an independent Scotland would be - & to use them to do so is ridiculous.)

I love how the myth factory has produceed this meme, as the ultimate get-out of all sense and facts.

We know what the starting position of that independent Scotland would be.

£10Bn poorer than it was the say before.

Changing that will require Chinese-rate growth, which ain't going to happen.

 

[LJS]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I love how the myth factory has produceed this meme, as the ultimate get-out of all sense and facts.

We know what the starting position of that independent Scotland would be.

£10Bn poorer than it was the say before.

no we don't.

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Changing that will require Chinese-rate growth, which ain't going to happen.

 

You are the only person who has ever mentioned Chinese growth. Although you have attributed it to me, Comfy & Alec Salmond.

Funny that.

[eFestivals]

Just now, LJS said:

no we don't.

yes we do.

It's £10Bn that currently flows into Scotland that will no longer flow into Scotland.

1 minute ago, LJS said:

You are the only person who has ever mentioned Chinese growth. Although you have attributed it to me, Comfy & Alec Salmond.

Funny that.

No, what I've attributed to over-optimistic Alex is the 120 years of poverty the figures he presented in the white paper work out as being.

It's you and comfy that are in fantasy land, believing that a loss of £10Bn - 16% of the govt budget - would be inconsequential.

[LJS]

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

yes we do.

It's £10Bn that currently flows into Scotland that will no longer flow into Scotland.

And nothing else would change.

PMSL

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

No, what I've attributed

=made up

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

to over-optimistic Alex is the 120 years of poverty the figures he presented in the white paper work out as being.

It's you and comfy that are in fantasy land, believing that a loss of £10Bn - 16% of the govt budget - would be inconsequential.

Some day we may be able to have a rational discussion about this but sadly it is not possible while you keep screaming £10bn all the time.

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, LJS said:

And nothing else would change.

I'm sure lots would change, with most of it caused by the loss of that £10Bn.

 

12 minutes ago, LJS said:

=made up

No, it's a mathematical calculation. See your mate Chokka for the workings straight from Salmond's own figures.

(is that a bit too expert for you, when you're in the mood to reject the experts just like a kipper? )

 

13 minutes ago, LJS said:

Some day we may be able to have a rational discussion about this but sadly it is not possible while you keep screaming £10bn all the time.

And rational is having no answers for how to make up the missing £10Bn, is it?

Get back to me when you have at least one answer, even tho it's likely to be idiotic. Even the idiotic is better than the vacuous.

[LJS]

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I'm sure lots would change, with most of it caused by the loss of that £10Bn.

 

No, it's a mathematical calculation. See your mate Chokka for the workings straight from Salmond's own figures.

(is that a bit too expert for you, when you're in the mood to reject the experts just like a kipper? )

 

And rational is having no answers for how to make up the missing £10Bn, is it?

Get back to me when you have at least one answer, even tho it's likely to be idiotic. Even the idiotic is better than the vacuous.

let's put it really simply.

the famous £10bn is the estimated deficit Scotland ran in the last financial year while it was within the UK.

If we get independence two very significant things will change

1: we will be in the future. 

2: we will not be in the U.K.

So figures from the past while we were in the U.K. will not be entirely relevant & they certainly won't be facts so please desist from claiming that they are.

[Comfy Bean]

Couple of quick points of order.

Neil, only the other day you accepted there would of course be savings from not paying into the UK.

The Chinese levels of growth thing was a line Neil got from wee Willie the Lib guy.

I think the omni shambles that is Westminster will convert some to consider independence as worth a go. We all know we are capable. Another small step. 

If Boris or was it nigel convinced our biggest country that it would be 350mill better off per day can Neil convince anyone that Scotland will be 10 bill worse off per year at some undetermined point in the future? 

[LJS]

1 hour ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Couple of quick points of order.

Neil, only the other day you accepted there would of course be savings from not paying into the UK.

The Chinese levels of growth thing was a line Neil got from wee Willie the Lib guy.

I think the omni shambles that is Westminster will convert some to consider independence as worth a go. We all know we are capable. Another small step. 

If Boris or was it nigel convinced our biggest country that it would be 350mill better off per day can Neil convince anyone that Scotland will be 10 bill worse off per year at some undetermined point in the future? 

Let's buy Neil a bus.

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

let's put it really simply.

the famous £10bn is the estimated deficit Scotland ran in the last financial year while it was within the UK.

If we get independence two very significant things will change

1: we will be in the future. 

2: we will not be in the U.K.

So figures from the past while we were in the U.K. will not be entirely relevant & they certainly won't be facts so please desist from claiming that they are.

It's the deficit. It's the amount of externally wealth that is sent to Scotland. Go on, tell me how wealth can be removed but a person can stay as rich.

The significant thing that *CANNOT* change is the loss of £10Bn of not-Scottish wealth from Scotland each and every year.

What happened to someone who has wealth removed? They're poorer.

No amount of the most-brain-dead use of words changes that.

Only replacement wealth does.

Where's the replacement wealth?

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Couple of quick points of order.

Neil, only the other day you accepted there would of course be savings from not paying into the UK.

Yep, and how much savings did Mr. Over-Optimistic claim he could make?

Just 5% of the missing £10Bn.

I doubt that saving would be achieved because they rarely come in anywhere near as big as claimed - and we know just how much laughable bollocks Salmond spouted in that white paper - but I'm happy to credit this claim of Salmond's as correct to make you happy and stupid.

So where the missing £9.5Bn?

That's more than the cost of all of Scotland's education system.

 

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

The Chinese levels of growth thing was a line Neil got from wee Willie the Lib guy.

Nope.

It's the laughable idiot crap you claim of Scotland to avoid facts.

 

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I think the omni shambles that is Westminster will convert some to consider independence as worth a go. We all know we are capable. Another small step. 

If Scotland could go indy with no detremental effects I've no doubt Scoltland would go indy.

But Scotland cannot go indy without bring destitution onto itself, and that's a factor that Scots didn't ignore in 2014, and are even less likely to ignore now when there's not even a bullshit plan now to mug the stupid with.

 

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

If Boris or was it nigel convinced our biggest country that it would be 350mill better off per day can Neil convince anyone that Scotland will be 10 bill worse off per year at some undetermined point in the future? 

I don't need to. Scots are already convinced, because luckily they're not as stupid as you.

Meanwhile it's not "some undermined day in the future", it's from Day One of iScotland.

That's a Scotland that would have no money to pay its pension liabilities..

[russycarps]

thank goodness brave ruth davidson is on hand to explain the situation to the raving nationalists today.

 

[eFestivals]

22 minutes ago, russycarps said:

thank goodness brave ruth davidson is on hand to explain the situation to the raving nationalists today.

 

Hmmm ... she's saying an indyref2 is "unjustifiable", which is stupidly wrong and isn't going to help people take her seriously.

Like it or not, the SNP reserved the right to call a 2nd ref if the UK voted out of the EU and Scotland did not. You can't call following thru on an elected mandate "unjustifiable".

However, while it's not 'unjustifiable', it doesn't become 'justifiable' until the SNP have a post-indy plan.

So let's see it Niicolarse, and this time none of the bullshit (or do you still think your supporters are brain dead?). And if she provides that honest plan, the vote is for the UK yet again.

A vote against indy will be a disaster for the SNP and a vote for indy a disaster for Scotland. That's how it is and that ain't gonna change.

 

 

[sjseabass]

I've refrained from posting in this thread, while watching with interest, what with being a filthy Englander and all, and I just wondered - if Scotland managed to find a deal where they could either stay in the EU or be readmitted very quickly after the UK's ejection once they go independent, would there not be a massive influx of young, intelligent, economically useful people which would help to bridge the gap in government funding? In such a situation I would absolutely consider moving from Bristol to Glasgow. I'm sure I'm not alone.

[eFestivals]

6 hours ago, theevilfridge said:

I've refrained from posting in this thread, while watching with interest, what with being a filthy Englander and all, and I just wondered - if Scotland managed to find a deal where they could either stay in the EU or be readmitted very quickly after the UK's ejection once they go independent, would there not be a massive influx of young, intelligent, economically useful people which would help to bridge the gap in government funding? In such a situation I would absolutely consider moving from Bristol to Glasgow. I'm sure I'm not alone.

.

Salmond's own estimate for how long the Scottish economy would take to bridge that funding gap is 120 years - and that's based on an unquantifiable and unattributable idea that small countries out-perform large ones consistently for over a century, and where he'd already factored-in all SNP-claimed better circumstances of an iScotland.

Scotland can import people, but that's a very different thing to being able to import economic growth - tho economic growth doesn't do it by itself anyway, because it's the tax revenues that need the growth (by 16%!, which is absolutely shitloads). The UK economy has (ignoring the crash) grown significantly in the last decade via the importing of people, while the tax revenues have (in comparison) stayed just about static.

And then you have the sort of awkward facts such as the worst performing - least growth - economies of the EU are the countries on the periphery.

At the end of the day, believing in the sorts of economic miracles that snippers have come to believe in without any basis in fact is just simple racism, a claim of exceptionalism "just because we're Scottish".

It's not economic growth Scotland needs, it's tax revenue growth - in the country where the population vote austerity and cuts and very definitely reject paying more in taxes, and where the governing party has locked itself into its unsustainable deficit that makes the economic issues unanswerable.

And where indy will see upwards of 10% of Scotland's economy leave the country anyway, so the starting position of that indy Scotland would be far worse than the current position as laid out in GERS.

(And where the methodology used within GERS is very likely to be warped in Scotland's favour via any fair assessment too [that's not me claiming GERS is badly done, it's done in the best way possible from the available data as far as I'm aware, but that best way possible has clear issues that favour Scotland]).

Meanwhile, the SNP documented in bold in the indie white paper their strong and clearly defined EU-scepticism, where they reject EU law, where they reject central strands of 'the European project', and where they demand an equality to the UK's opt-outs and so a superiority over other member states.... and the EU would just love to take on another country that's (in broad terms) as economically fucked as Greece but with the EU hatred of the county that's just told the EU where to shove it...?

[eFestivals]

PS: and you're suggesting fast and massive immigration to a Scotland which all social attitudes surveying says is no less hostile to the effects of immigration than the rest of the UK is.

How well do you think SNP's claimed Scottish love affair with the EU would hold up when Scots were being pushed out of housing and job opportunities and NHS queues via the extra competition that immigration would bring?

And when those same Scots hate Westminster for sending them £10bn a year to pay for the public services that Scotland loves while having just about sod-all impact on anything else in Scotland, how do you think those Scots would welcome that extra competition for resources from immigrants in a country that had just self-imposed a 16% cut on its own resources, and where those Scots have never really faced competition from others before?

It'll be a car crash, if it ever happened - both economically, and socially.

[LJS]

20 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

.

Salmond's own estimate for how long the Scottish economy would take to bridge that funding gap is 120 years

This is a lie. You have admitted its a lie. Yet, you continue to repeat it. You do realise that resorting to such tactics weakens your case?

20 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

- and that's based on an unquantifiable and unattributable idea that small countries out-perform large ones consistently for over a century, and where he'd already factored-in all SNP-claimed better circumstances of an iScotland.

Since he never made the claim, this is all tosh...apart from the stuff about small countries out-performing large ones.

20 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Scotland can import people, but that's a very different thing to being able to import economic growth - tho economic growth doesn't do it by itself anyway, because it's the tax revenues that need the growth (by 16%!, which is absolutely shitloads). The UK economy has (ignoring the crash) grown significantly in the last decade via the importing of people, while the tax revenues have (in comparison) stayed just about static.

Correct. We would need to be able to provide well paid jobs for these people so they can pay lots of lovely tax.

20 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

And then you have the sort of awkward facts such as the worst performing - least growth - economies of the EU are the countries on the periphery.

Well as you are about to demonstrate, Ireland'a growth hasn't been too shabby & you don't get much more peripheral than them.

20 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

At the end of the day, believing in the sorts of economic miracles that snippers have come to believe in without any basis in fact is just simple racism, a claim of exceptionalism "just because we're Scottish".

Totally groundless accusations of racism really make you look smart, Neil.

20 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It's not economic growth Scotland needs, it's tax revenue growth - in the country where the population vote austerity and cuts and very definitely reject paying more in taxes, and where the governing party has locked itself into its unsustainable deficit that makes the economic issues unanswerable.

And where indy will see upwards of 10% of Scotland's economy leave the country anyway, so the starting position of that indy Scotland would be far worse than the current position as laid out in GERS.

As so often, you are presenting your assertion as if it were fact. In the situation envisaged by Mr Fridge  who knows what the impact on the Scottish economy might be? You think there would be no relative benefit from Scotland being within the EU whist the UK isn't?

20 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

(And where the methodology used within GERS is very likely to be warped in Scotland's favour via any fair assessment too [that's not me claiming GERS is badly done, it's done in the best way possible from the available data as far as I'm aware, but that best way possible has clear issues that favour Scotland]).

Really? 

20 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Meanwhile, the SNP documented in bold in the indie white paper their strong and clearly defined EU-scepticism, where they reject EU law, where they reject central strands of 'the European project', and where they demand an equality to the UK's opt-outs and so a superiority over other member states.... and the EU would just love to take on another country that's (in broad terms) as economically fucked as Greece but with the EU hatred of the county that's just told the EU where to shove it...?

 Rather than get into points we have previously debated at length, I will simply point out that the white paper is history & of no relevance to now.

As to Europe's enthusiasm for Scotland remaining in the EU, there have certainly been some encouraging noises from various sources. However, neither you nor I have any idea how things will pan out. The difference is, I don't mind admitting that.

 

 

[eFestivals]

39 minutes ago, LJS said:

This is a lie. You have admitted its a lie. Yet, you continue to repeat it. You do realise that resorting to such tactics weakens your case?

It's not a lie.

Salmond gave an estimate of how much faster he believed Scotland's economy might grow if indy compared to not-indy.

Lie, or no lie?
(clue: I can direct you to the page in the white paper where he said it, if you need to pummel into your head the most basic of truths...?)

 

His estimate says (for those who can take their heads out of their arse and face the facts of maths) it would take 120 years to make up that lost-barnett-money funding difference.

That's 120 years where Salmond estimates that Scotland cannot afford to have public services at today's level.

There's no fact you won't dismiss as lie, that either exposes your own lying or that your brain is dead. Take you pick.

 

[eFestivals]

44 minutes ago, LJS said:

Correct. We would need to be able to provide well paid jobs for these people so they can pay lots of lovely tax.

How's the SNP attempts at proviuding jobs going so far?

What's that? It's going great to the glory of Scotland when jobs increase, but it's all Westminster's fault if there's fewer?

[eFestivals]

46 minutes ago, LJS said:

Well as you are about to demonstrate, Ireland'a growth hasn't been too shabby & you don't get much more peripheral than them.

What bit are you calling "not too shabby"?

Where Ireland has never reached UK levels of prosperity, and consequently isn't able to match Scottish levels of public spending or public services?

(we'll ignore the part where Ireland has nicked all of the EU's business that wants English language but not the UK, leaving naff all room for Scotland to attempt the same in a moronic race to the bottom )

[eFestivals]

50 minutes ago, LJS said:

Totally groundless accusations of racism really make you look smart, Neil.

What's groundless are your claims of Scotland being able to have economic growth of levels never seen in developed economies.

Given that they're groundless claims, it only leaves Scottish exceptionalism as the reason why this might happen.

What don't you understand about your own claims, LJS?

If you can't give a reason for why they'll be the growth you claim - and you can't (I've been asking for 2 years with no answer) - the only reason remaining  is that Scots are intrinsically better than others.

Which is racism.

If you want to put that away, you'll have to give a fact-based reason for why Scotland will be exceptional.