The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

Really? 

Really.

I won't bother you with an explanation tho, as your false claims about Salmond shows that simple mathematical concepts are beyond you, so it would be daft for me to stress you with more complex mathematical ideas.

But I guarantee that the guy who puts the numbers together for GERS would have to concede the weakness I can outline.

The UK is not economically homogeneous, and Scotland is on the less-than-average side of things, while much of GERS only has the average to work from.

Edited July 15, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

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.

Except it's not.

It outlines what the proponents of indy believe are the terms of EU membership that would be acceptable to Scotland's population.

Those terms are an equivalent outline of the UK's EU-scepticism, a scepticism that has just caused the UK to vote to leave and cause damage to the EU. The EU is not looking to further weaken itself but the opposite.

 

1 hour ago, LJS said:

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.

various sources who aren't the ones even on the sides of those who'll make a decision about Scotland, but you somehow missed out that part of it, I wonder why.

Will the EU weaken itself (the EU in 2016) by accepting a non-Euro (currency) member? Nope.
Will the EU weaken itself by giving a new member better terms than current members? Nope.
Will the EU weaken itself by admitting an economy with a bigger deficit than Greece? Nope.
Will the EU weaken itself by risking member referendums at this time? Nope.

There's 4 solid red lines there, which the EU will cross for no one.

When Scotland is indy and its economy is within the Copenhagen criteria - via massive massive cuts (three times as big as tory cuts ON TOP of tory cuts) - it might (perhaps) be more obvious that Scotland is accepting of the Euro (which it isn't now), and the rest-of-world situation might (just might) be stable enough for the EU to risk losing the member referendums that would be required for Scotland's EU entry.

What have the EU *really* told Sturgeon? "Get back to use when you meet the entry criteria". That and only that.

 

[LJS]

I don't really have the time or inclination to argue over the rights & wrongs of Indy in 2014 which is what is essentially going on here. As I have said before, if we are to have another referendum, the SNP will have to make an economic case for independence which will not be a matter of re-printing the White Paper. Like you, I shall examine their proposals and, I should imagine, we'll have a wee chat about them on here.

In the meantime a wee tip: it is fine for you to take something out of the white paper, combine it with a figure from elsewhere suggest that the combination means it will take Scotland 120 years or whatever to close the alleged gap caused by Indy. Claiming that this is Alec Salmond's view (or anyone on here's view) undermines your argument as it is not true and no amount of obfuscation form yourself alters this fact.

Equally your assertion that i claim "Scotland being able to have economic growth of levels never seen in developed economies" is false. I have never made any such claim. Perhaps you should pay more attention.

As for your Scottish Exceptionalism stuff  - again no one arguing for Indy on here has ever claimed any such thing. Your claim to the contrary & your ridiculous ramping up of the claim to racism is laughable and reeks of desperation. 

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, LJS said:

I don't really have the time or inclination to argue over the rights & wrongs of Indy

but you do have the time to call me liar with your own lies, and then to make a long post where you only post more lies and idiocy as avoidance.

Why not actually address the facts with facts and not lies?

[eFestivals]

17 minutes ago, LJS said:

In the meantime a wee tip: it is fine for you to take something out of the white paper, combine it with a figure from elsewhere

What figure from elsewhere do you think I've combined with Salmond's claim?

Here's Salmond's own words....

"The average rate among small European countries was 2.61%, a gap of 0.12% each year. Over a 30 year period the compounded effect of this gap totals 3.8% of GDP"

(note: those figures provided by Salmond were made against the *EXTREMELY* favourable numbers in GERS 2011-12 which were used for all the white paper claims, when the 2011-12 fiscal position was a massive anomaly and nothing typical of Scotland's position. So Salmond's claim is hugely on the over-optimistic side. If the calc is worked on more realistic numbers - like GERS 2012-13 or GERS 2013-14 - then it actually takes far longer than 120 years)

 

 

 

[eFestivals]

41 minutes ago, LJS said:

Equally your assertion that i claim "Scotland being able to have economic growth of levels never seen in developed economies" is false. I have never made any such claim. Perhaps you should pay more attention.

In one breath you say Scotland can make up that £10Bn shortfall with economic growth in double-quick time.

And in the next you claim you've never claimed Scotland would have superfast growth.

Pick one and stick with LJS, and stop posting brain-dead fact-free post-truth kipper-world contradictory nonsense.

 

Edited July 15, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

What figure from elsewhere do you think I've combined with Salmond's claim?

The figure from GERS which you are about to point out yourself

 

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Here's Salmond's own words....

"The average rate among small European countries was 2.61%, a gap of 0.12% each year. Over a 30 year period the compounded effect of this gap totals 3.8% of GDP"

(note: those figures provided by Salmond were made against the *EXTREMELY* favourable numbers in GERS 2011-12 which were used for all the white paper claims, when the 2011-12 fiscal position was a massive anomaly and nothing typical of Scotland's position. So Salmond's claim is hugely on the over-optimistic side. If the calc is worked on more realistic numbers - like GERS 2012-13 or GERS 2013-14 - then it actually takes far longer than 120 years)

 

 

I think you have pointed out elsewhere that GDP & deficit are different things. Please be consistent.

[eFestivals]

42 minutes ago, LJS said:

As for your Scottish Exceptionalism stuff  - again no one arguing for Indy on here has ever claimed any such thing. Your claim to the contrary & your ridiculous ramping up of the claim to racism is laughable and reeks of desperation. 

So Scotland won't have exceptional growth?

What are you saying LJS? That Scotland can make up the £10Bn shortfall quickly, or that it can't?

Pick one and stick with it, instead of thinking bollocks are brains.

[LJS]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

In one breath you say Scotland can make up that £10Bn shortfall with economic growth in double-quick time.

No I don't. I don't accept the £10bn shortfall. You know i don't. You don't like it but you know it. For some reason you keep pretending I do.

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

And in the next you claim you've never claimed Scotland would have superfast growth.

Superfast? define superfast  - I certainly have never used the word. 

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Pick one and stick with LJS, and stop post6ing bead-dead fact-free post-truth kipper-world contradictory nonsense.

 

You are asking me to pick between 2 things I've never said. Tough decision, Neil. You sure know how to confuse a guy.

[LJS]

30 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

but you do have the time to call me liar with your own lies, and then to make a long post where you only post more lies and idiocy as avoidance.

Why not actually address the facts with facts and not lies?

Here's a great example of no 43 in Neil's debating tips for dummmies:

 

Don't like what your opponent says? Easy solution: mess with his/her quotes. Here's a great example... your opponent says

"I don't really have the time or inclination to argue over the rights & wrongs of Indy in 2014" 

When replying, one little snip & you have. 

"I don't really have the time or inclination to argue over the rights & wrongs of Indy"

which of course changes the meaning entirely. 

Job done.

 

[eFestivals]

31 minutes ago, LJS said:

I don't accept the £10bn shortfall.

ahh, OK ... so the SNP are the liars now. Fair enough, shame it's take you so long to realise tho..

Meanwhile, care to give a sound economic basis for why you believe Salmond and Sturgeon have been lying within GERS to Scotland for the last 10 years, and why you know better than peer-reviewed economic theory and practice?

 

[eFestivals]

30 minutes ago, LJS said:

Here's a great example of no 43 in Neil's debating tips for dummmies:

 

Don't like what your opponent says? Easy solution: mess with his/her quotes. Here's a great example... your opponent says

"I don't really have the time or inclination to argue over the rights & wrongs of Indy in 2014" 

When replying, one little snip & you have. 

"I don't really have the time or inclination to argue over the rights & wrongs of Indy"

which of course changes the meaning entirely. 

Job done.

 

endless squirels, no brains.

That's you that is.

Now, back to what Salmond said that you claim he never did....

[eFestivals]

38 minutes ago, LJS said:

The figure from GERS which you are about to point out yourself

So your proof that I'm a liar is to call the SNP forever-liars ...,  and that puts SNP-supporting you in the better place...?

40 minutes ago, LJS said:

I think you have pointed out elsewhere that GDP & deficit are different things. Please be consistent.

I'm consistent, and unlike you I actually understand what these two things are.

There is no fixed or direct relationship between GDP and deficit. Germany has high GDP and no deficit; Estonia has low GDP and no deficit. Scotland has high GDP and the biggest deficit in the developed world.

If GDP grows, tax revenues don't necessarily ... and what is needed to cover a deficit...?

What you definitely cannot do is grow tax revenues without any growth in the economy, unless people - you and your kids and their kids - become poorer.

FFS.

[LJS]

28 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

endless squirels, no brains.

That's you that is.

Now, back to what Salmond said that you claim he never did....

Well, you've already amended your claim from 

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

to

"Salmond never said it would take 30 years to make up less than 1/3rd of the funding gap that exists in Scotland today? "

However, as you well know & have admitted in the past Salmond made neither claim. he made a claim about economic growth which you have extrapolated to be something totally different. You have previously admitted that you made this up & Salmond said no such thing. I am genuinely perplexed why you think repeating a lie that you have previously admitted was a lie is going to do your case any good? 

[LJS]

24 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

So your proof that I'm a liar is to call the SNP forever-liars ...,  and that puts SNP-supporting you in the better place...?

I'm consistent, and unlike you I actually understand what these two things are.

There is no fixed or direct relationship between GDP and deficit. Germany has high GDP and no deficit; Estonia has low GDP and no deficit. Scotland has high GDP and the biggest deficit in the developed world.

If GDP grows, tax revenues don't necessarily ... and what is needed to cover a deficit...?

tax revenues.

24 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

What you definitely cannot do is grow tax revenues without any growth in the economy, unless people - you and your kids and their kids - become poorer.

FFS.

So why are you using figures about the growth in GDP to give an estimate for the time taken to eliminate a projected & estimated deficit when you have clearly stated there is not a proportional link between the two?

[micawber]

What is the feeling in Scotland? Do folks want indyref2 to operate under the proposed conditions mentioned in that referendum petition? 

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

Well, you've already amended your claim from 

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

to

"Salmond never said it would take 30 years to make up less than 1/3rd of the funding gap that exists in Scotland today? "

that was simply asking a question of daft you.

A question to which the answer is yes, he said that..

1 hour ago, LJS said:

However, as you well know & have admitted in the past Salmond made neither claim. he made a claim about economic growth which you have extrapolated to be something totally different. You have previously admitted that you made this up & Salmond said no such thing. I am genuinely perplexed why you think repeating a lie that you have previously admitted was a lie is going to do your case any good? 

He made a claim of economic growth over 30 years.

He made that claim in relation to Scotland, which is why it was included in the document he projected about an indy Scotland. His very intention was for the idea of that level of growth to be applied to an indy Scotland.

His 30 years claim extrapolates to being 120 years to bridge the deficit gap that is currently exists (and which is currently covered by Barnett money).

That's not extrapolating it to be anything different, that's simply applying the benefits of that growth against the deficit gap.

How the fuck is it a lie, to apply intelligent thinking to something Salmond said and to fully credit the benefit to Scotland of the growth he suggested?

(the lie would be what he said, given with no references or why Scotland is more like far-away than it is close-to-home, but that's a different argument ... to expose the growth required to cover the gap, I'm happy to accept his claim even tho the claim is probably bull because his oil revenues numbers were his own invention)

 

 

Edited July 15, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

57 minutes ago, LJS said:

tax revenues.

Correct.

Where is the extra £10bn of tax revenues needed coming from?

[eFestivals]

58 minutes ago, LJS said:

So why are you using figures about the growth in GDP to give an estimate for the time taken to eliminate a projected & estimated deficit when you have clearly stated there is not a proportional link between the two?

If they're good enough to support the case for indy - and you refused to criticise any of the white paper claims, remember - then they're good enough for you.

Meanwhile, back to the missing £10bn.

Without it appearing from somewhere, you'll be significantly poorer.

For you to perhaps grasp the size of the task: that's most of the money to run the SNHS.

[eFestivals]

46 minutes ago, micawber said:

What is the feeling in Scotland? Do folks want indyref2 to operate under the proposed conditions mentioned in that referendum petition? 

 

which ref petition?

 

[micawber]

42 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

which ref petition?

 

The EU one talking about 60% of 75% of the electorate - the one backed by 1000 popes and some NorthKoreans

Edited July 15, 2016 by micawber

[LJS]

1 hour ago, micawber said:

What is the feeling in Scotland? Do folks want indyref2 to operate under the proposed conditions mentioned in that referendum petition? 

Like Neil, I am not sure what you mean about the petition bit and whilst I can't pretend to speak for the people of Scotland , I am happy to share my view of where we stand at present.

There is no doubt that the result of the EU referendum had changed the nature of the independence debate in Scotland. Opinion polls are showing a consistent lead for independence although not by a massive margin. It is by no means clear how much if any of this swing is a short term reaction to Brexit.

Perhaps more significantly, a number of commentators & politicians who were previously implacably opposed to independence have shifted their position significantly. They recognise that the argument Is no longer about leaving 2 unions (which is how the no campaign clearly portrayed a yes vote) it is about choosing between 2 unions which is clearly a very different proposition.

Despite this, Nicola Sturgeon remains cautious as ever. You can speculate on the reasons for this, but it doesn't matter greatly. In the end, it is unlikely that she will be able to achieve strong enough links with the EU to avoid a second Indy ref.

Will the result be different this time?

In my view it depends on 3 things...

Having some realistic prospect of early EU membership.

Having a credible economic plan.

Resolving the currency question.

Edited July 15, 2016 by LJS

[LJS]

8 minutes ago, micawber said:

The EU one talking about 60% of 75% of the electorate - the one backed by 1000 popes and some NorthKoreans

1000 popes? 

[eFestivals]

Just now, micawber said:

The EU one talking about 60% of 75% of the electorate

so using a super-majority rule instead of a simple one-more-vote majority to decide the winner?

My own guess would be that Scotland will want to keep following the view they've held since 1979, after they felt screwed over in a referendum by the effect of super-majority rules.

Personally I support the idea of super-majority rules for constitutional issues, and yet at the same time I don't really feel it's wrong to go with the one-more-vote majority providing everything around the vote is properly represented. I'm exceedingly uncomfortable with it when you have someone like Salmond using lies to try and take it over the line, knowing that a small majority would soon be reversed from the resulting destitution and buyers regret.

Which is much how the EU ref went seems to played out, as it happens ... tho with that, despite the lies [and the result going against my view] I still think the result should stand. I wouldn't dream of telling Scotland that they couldn't have indy because they'd only won by (say) one vote, even with Salmond's lies. It's one of those suck-it-up moments for democrats, where the time to query the rules was before the contest started.

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, LJS said:

Will the result be different this time?

In my view it depends on 3 things...

Having some realistic prospect of early EU membership.

Having a credible economic plan.

Resolving the currency question.

The prospect of a promise of early EU membership looks very unlikely, I'd say.

If they were to say they'd do it, I suspect they wouldn't say it until day one of indy, so you'll probably need to take a leap of faith.

(if you remember I've always said I wouldn't be surprised if a fudge of some kind was worked, but do also note how the EU made no positive noises before a vote last time despite much of the same 'we love the EU' trying to tempt them)

From one angle that leap of faith doesn't seem to be a big leap. You're in the EU already, right?

Except you're not, and you don't possess the very many national institutions via which the EU exerts their influence, so it's not something that can simply be switched over to Scotland's control on day one of indy.  And EU entry requirements say that the national institutions have to be able to show a good operating history, which they don't have.

The EU is not going to be unfriendly towards any country that makes the right noises towards them, but that doesn't mean they'd torture themselves for Scotland either.

The currency question can be handled, tho it means you're heading for the Euro. Will the scottish population buy into it, when they wouldn't last time? Yep, I reckon they might. I don't see currency as a particularly hard sell, tho the costs of establishing a Scottish currency will have to appear within....

The credible economic plan...?

And May has just told you to fuck off, anyway.