The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, LJS said:

says it all

says the man defending the indefensible.

The mad professor recommended that Scotland could financially survive with the support of oil revenues, without having the first feckin' idea what those revenues actually were. No wonder he was recommending such an insane idea.

And you bought it, so now you have to defend him to defend your own (lack of) intelligence.  Give it up, you're trying to defend a moron by being a moron.

[LJS]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

says the man defending the indefensible.

what's indefensible? what's indefensible is maybe you admitting that you apply different standards to people who support indy?

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The mad professor recommended that Scotland could financially survive with the support of oil revenues, without having the first feckin' idea what those revenues actually were. No wonder he was recommending such an insane idea.

And you bought it, so now you have to defend him to defend your own (lack of) intelligence. 

I'm not defending him

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Give it up, you're trying to defend a moron by being a moron.

 Where have I defended him?

This is all just deflection from the fact that you cannot find one shred of evidence to support your blood & soil nonsense.

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

what's indefensible? what's indefensible is maybe you admitting that you apply different standards to people who support indy?

Oh, FFS, is that all you've got?

His truly-massive intellectual failing is due to his own support of indy.

That intellectual failing would be minor without his involvement in indy. It's his involvement that makes it so very laughable, and his own factually-wrong public criticisms are what stands him up for my own criticisms.

 

Quote

I'm not defending him

you'll be able to say he wrote to the FT talking an embarrassingly large profession-damaging crock of shite, then...?

 

Quote

 Where have I defended him?

When you played down his truly huge error like it was a spelling mistake.

Matey's error is nothing of the normal arguments of economists. It's the most basic factual error in his understanding of the source data from which he might work his economic theories. With such a huge flaw nothing else he says can ever be right.

If Gidiot is a "failure" (in your own words) for the working of his deficit reduction plan being the smallest percentage out, this geezer is more than 40 times as great a failure - tho only with a theory, unlike Gidiot who actually had to take responsibility for doing something.
 

Quote

This is all just deflection from the fact that you cannot find one shred of evidence to support your blood & soil nonsense.

Nope.

My criticisms of matey stand up all by themselves.

Meanwhile, while i might have failed to word the best of arguments about the blood and soil thing, I didn't need to because you kept on proving it with your responses.

 

Edited September 13, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

44 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Oh, FFS, is that all you've got?

His truly-massive intellectual failing is due to his own support of indy.

That intellectual failing would be minor without his involvement in indy. It's his involvement that makes it so very laughable, and his own factually-wrong public criticisms are what stands him up for my own criticisms.

 

you'll be able to say he wrote to the FT talking an embarrassingly large profession-damaging crock of shite, then...?

 

When you played down his truly huge error like it was a spelling mistake.

Matey's error is nothing of the normal arguments of economists. It's the most basic factual error in his understanding of the source data from which he might work his economic theories. With such a huge flaw nothing else he says can ever be right.

If Gidiot is a "failure" (in your own words) for the working of his deficit reduction plan being the smallest percentage out, this geezer is more than 40 times as great a failure - tho only with a theory, unlike Gidiot who actually had to take responsibility for doing something.

One man made  a mistake, whether they destroys his professional reputation, I'll happily let others judge. What it doesn't do is undermine one jot or tittle of the case for Indy, hence I'm not too fussed.

Quote

 

Nope.

My criticisms of matey stand up all by themselves.

Meanwhile, while i might have failed to word the best of arguments about the blood and soil thing, I didn't need to because you kept on proving it with your responses.

My comment had nothing to do with matey ...it was in response to your video demonstrating that sturgeon says "Scotland" apparently in support of you b&s BS.

And funnily enough you can't find any of my "responses" which prove your point.

 

Edited September 13, 2016 by LJS

[retromoz]

jeez.....this discussion is STILL happening?!? Its like a Richard Herring podcast about snooker. The first frame was funny! Frame 10 was mildly diverting. By frame 40 you are wondering why you are still listening. Frame 55 it gets funny again. But, now? By frame 79? You are just listening out of habit....

This thread is the forum version of my relationship with this podcast. 

https://www.comedy.co.uk/podcasts/richard_herring_snooker/

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

One man made  a mistake, whether they destroys his professional reputation, I'll happily let others judge. What it doesn't do is undermine one jot or tittle of the case for Indy, hence I'm not too fussed.

except it does.

That man's massive error is now being repeated by big numbers of non-thinking indynuts, who are stupid enough to believe his error makes the economic case for indy a strong one.

In just the same way you now say "GERS says nothing about about an indy Scotland" after you'd previous claimed that one year's GERS numbers proved just how certain economic success would be.

What undermines indy more than any other factor is the aversion of its supporters to the facts. It makes the whole thing untrustworthy in the eyes of those who haven't swallowed idiot dogma.

1 hour ago, LJS said:

My comment had nothing to do with matey ...it was in response to your video demonstrating that sturgeon says "Scotland" apparently in support of you b&s BS.

That again just shows how thick you are about this.

I posted that vid because it's funny as fuck, and for no other reason.

It wasn't even for the squirrel reason that you alwasys post vids when intelligent comment is beyond you.

 

1 hour ago, LJS said:

And funnily enough you can't find any of my "responses" which prove your point.

apart from where you claim Scotland as different to all of the rest of the world, of course.

 

[eFestivals]

47 minutes ago, retromoz said:

this discussion is STILL happening?!? I

yep, for as long as an aversion to the facts by snippers is happening, people will be able to easily take the piss out of the lack of intelligence they apply to the issues.

The best one lately is LJS's "a few years" for Scotland to remove its deficit, when even the (uncertain, in the longer term) evidence he points to says it's 70 years.

[Comfy Bean]

Neil, I'm almost certain that you realise the video of NS you find so hilarious has been very heavily edited. Unfortunately I clicked on it as you posted it up in such a way that I wrongly assumed it was evidence of your blinded by hatred, blood, soil stuff. I didnt find it funny at all :-(

I'm glad you found it funny though. Haters gonna hate etc.

 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Neil, I'm almost certain that you realise the video of NS you find so hilarious has been very heavily edited. Unfortunately I clicked on it as you posted it up in such a way that I wrongly assumed it was evidence of your blinded by hatred, blood, soil stuff. I didnt find it funny at all :-(

I'm glad you found it funny though. Haters gonna hate etc.

 

"Haters gonna hate"

Scottish indy is so perfect that it's impossible to laugh at it? It must be that exceptionalism, again.

You're being as moronic about that as LJS has just been at me highlighting just how absent the intellectual case for indy is via that nutty professor - where it can never be justified to pooint out just how big his error is, it can only ever be "SNP baaad".

Well guess what? People can point out the very valid 'bad' in the SNP when it's as bad as the ignorance that professor has shown, that you adhere to.

 

 

[Comfy Bean]

53 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

"Haters gonna hate"

Scottish indy is so perfect that it's impossible to laugh at it? It must be that exceptionalism, again.

 

 

Not at all. I wasn`t commenting on how funny you find the idea that Scotland could be independent.

I was specifically commenting on the video which you found " funny as f*** ". It`s all about opinions but I didn`t find it even slightly funny. It suggests NS has nothing else to say and is capable of nothing else. I could point to the record breaking 3 term thing and the numbers who vote for her as evidence that this is not the case but I realise there is no point.

I have no problem with you dismissing her, you`ve done it countless times.

I see this video plus that poll you were banging on and on about last week as suggesting you are running on empty. You used to claim continuously that indy was all about greed and oil. the oil price went down the stank and indy is still on the cards. You have now switched to claims that it is all about hate fuelled racism and flags which is as accurate as your greed claims.

[eFestivals]

22 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

It suggests NS has nothing else to say and is capable of nothing else.

which is exactly the point.

Remind me what it is that Sturgeon says that is your own personal mantra too. Might it be "all off Scotland's problems are caused by Westminster, and every positive thing in Scotland is a purely Scottish success"?

Scotland, Scotland, Scotland, independence, Scotland, Scotland, Scotland, independence - Ad infinitum.

How's about something else she might say?

You don't like the other stuff, such as "Scotland is more expensive to run and that's why it has a deficit" (so not Westminster's fault after all) and "we'd have to make huge cuts just like Westminster did".

You pretend she never says those awkward things, and instead prefer to stick to the brainless "Scotland, Scotland, Scotland, independence, Scotland, Scotland, Scotland, independence" instead.

Edited September 13, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

23 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I have no problem with you dismissing her, you`ve done it countless times.

if I were dismissing her, why would I be commenting?

The very point that you hate is that I don't dismiss her, and instead hold her to account and point out that she's often talking billy-big-bollocks that you then take stratospheric. You personally are much much worse than her.

[eFestivals]

32 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

You used to claim continuously that indy was all about greed and oil. t

Your very actions show that's the case.

If the indy thing isn't about greed, why do you need to lie about Scotland's dire financial position, and put forwards utterly laughable ideas about how it might be corrected?

If it weren't about greed, you'd happily campaign on the honest basis of "vote indy, be much poorer  ... but it'll be worth it". But you don't, you have to lie about the wealth consequences to satisfy greed.

LJS too - where the latest GERS says (when extrapolated) it'll take 70 years to cover the deficit gap (not even the full deficit) if the last year's improvement were maintained constantly, which he said was "just a few years".

And if it's wasn't about oil in 2014, how come Salmond's plan had 16% of Scottish govt expenditure absolutely dependant on oil?

A campaign that wasn't based on greed wouldn't have to lie about the finances to satisfy greed.

Edited September 13, 2016 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

You don't like the other stuff, such as "Scotland is more expensive to run and that's why it has a deficit" (so not Westminster's fault after all) and "we'd have to make huge cuts just like Westminster did".

You pretend she never says those awkward things, and instead prefer to stick to the brainless "Scotland, Scotland, Scotland, independence, Scotland, Scotland, Scotland, independence" instead.

I don`t pretend that she never says those things and in fact have made those points myself. You are choosing to ignore me saying them ( lots of times over the years ) as it doesn`t suit the argument that you are trying to make.

We both know you will drop this one ( temporarily ) just like you did with the oil, greed angle when I quote myself saying that Scotland is more expensive to run ( mostly around it`s geography ) and also that cuts will be required and that difficult times will lie ahead. You have of course tweaked what NS and I ( amongst others ) have said about the cuts as I recall mentioning a different approach to cuts that didn`t see the burden fall on those who can least afford it.

On that point, I`ve just been reading about the increasing gap in the UK between rich and poor. Maybe I should ignore it and attack the author. Remember like you did with the group who looked at the eu referendum and highlighted the differences between the eu one and the Scottish one 

[eFestivals]

37 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

You have now switched to claims that it is all about hate fuelled racism and flags which is as accurate as your greed claims.

and you wouldn't need to post lies like this either.

I pointed out the indisputable blood and soil attitude from that poll towards Scottishness. I pointed out the violent effect of a victory for political nationalism in all countries in the world, and suggested - based on the brexit experience - why Scotland needs to act against it in advance.

To which the answer from both you and LJS was "it can't happen in Scotland" - which makes (IYO) Scotland exceptional in world terms, and proves the blood and soil.

Edited September 13, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Your very actions show that's the case.

If the indy thing isn't about greed, why do you need to lie about Scotland's dire financial position, and put forwards utterly laughable ideas about how it might be corrected?

If it weren't about greed, you'd happily campaign on the honest basis of "vote indy, be much poorer  ... but it'll be worth it". But you don't, you have to lie about the wealth consequences to satisfy greed.

LJS too - where the latest GERS says (when extrapolated) it'll take 70 years to cover the deficit gap (not even the full deficit) if the last year's improvement were maintained constantly, which he said was "just a few years".

 

Let's look at what an expert says...

"My apologies - I've mis-read GERS - but it still doesn't say what you think it does.

2014-15: Excluding North Sea revenue, was a deficit of £13.7 billion (9.8 per cent of GDP).
2015-16: Excluding North Sea revenue, was a deficit of £12.7 billion (8.6 per cent of GDP)    "

So about 12 or 13 years to eliminate the deficit at that rate.

And of course Scotland doesn't need to entirely eliminate the deficit to be viable.

 

 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

Let's look at what an expert says...

I'm not an expert.

Tho I am indisputably better informed than the people the SNP employ as their experts.

After all, I pointed out 3 years ago what Stiglitz has only just realised, and I certainly understand potential Scottish Govt revenues better than an economics Professor at Scotland's best university.

Never mind, eh?

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

and you wouldn't need to post lies like this either.

I pointed out the indisputable blood and soil attitude from that poll towards Scottishness.

You pointed out something that wasn't there.

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

I pointed out the violent effect of a victory for political nationalism in all countries in the world,

Baltic states?

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

 and suggested - based on the brexit experience - why Scotland needs to act against it in advance.

We have acted against it by having an inclusive civic pro Indy movement.

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

To which the answer from both you and LJS was "it can't happen in Scotland" - which makes (IYO) Scotland exceptional in world terms, and proves the blood and soil.

I didn't say it can't happen. I did say there is no reason to believe it would happen. Nationalist movements that are nasty and racist don't generally wait for victory to demonstrate their nastiness & racism. For whatever reason, the Scottish independence movement has contained neither of these tendencies. 

You have still failed to produce any evidence to the contrary...apart from a hilarious video of Nicola Sturgeon saying Scotland.

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

I'm not an expert.

Tho I am indisputably better informed than the people the SNP employ as their experts.

After all, I pointed out 3 years ago what Stiglitz has only just realised, and I certainly understand potential Scottish Govt revenues better than an economics Professor at Scotland's best university.

Never mind, eh?

I see you dodged the bit about the falling deficit. 

[Comfy Bean]

18 minutes ago, LJS said:

I see you dodged the bit about the falling deficit. 

He`s got that hilarious video though 

I had a quick look back at my early contributions to our blether on indy here. I made it quite clear it was not about flags or national anthems from very early on and mentioned patrick harvie and jim sillars as much as salmond or sturgeon. You have made the same point countless times but it never seems to register. It`s the same as all this exceptionalism guff.

We also mused about the most likely way we would see a Labour govt would be with our independence. That was over 2 years ago when you and I were being told Milliband would be the next pm. We now of course know that we were right and we also have those think tank bods speaking to 1000 folk a month since feb and drawing their conclusions on how the eu ref was " fought " so differently to our other ref. Clearly that is a credit to both sides. As we know we have nutters attached to flags be they union jack or st andrews but there are very few folk on either side even considering blood and soil that Neil obsesses over.

It`s funny to imagine all these violent sorts waiting in the wings on a referendum vote in however many years before they release their violent hell on us all. They must be so very civilised whoever or wherever they are. I`ll of course be safely tucked up in my cave by then trying to fashion a living from the land.

[eFestivals]

41 minutes ago, LJS said:

You pointed out something that wasn't there.

It very literally was. It was a poll that referenced people's attitudes to their bloodlines and the soil they were born on.

FFS.

 

[eFestivals]

41 minutes ago, LJS said:

I see you dodged the bit about the falling deficit. 

the bit where Scotland's falling deficit is a Westminster 'success', you mean?

I'm very happy to talk about it, nothing of it scares me.

Perhaps this time we can have a sensible conversation, where you have mathematics skills and admit your claim of "a few years" is actually 70 years?

[eFestivals]

43 minutes ago, LJS said:

Baltic states?

Huge violence in Lithuania and Latvia, more-than-brexit violence in Estonia (tho hugely less than in L & L).

Next?

[eFestivals]

44 minutes ago, LJS said:

We have acted against it by having an inclusive civic pro Indy movement.

With plenty* of racist nutters that you like to pretend aren't there.

(* more than enough for me to have met them on my few and short visits to Scotland, more than enough to see them commenting under many newspaper stories.)

[eFestivals]

46 minutes ago, LJS said:

I didn't say it can't happen. I did say there is no reason to believe it would happen.

Except all of the other victories for nationalism, that sees them come out of the woodwork.

That is a good reason.

It's certainly not 'no reason'.

So rather than try and have a reasonable discussion, you resort to denials and lies. It's pathetic.

 

46 minutes ago, LJS said:

Nationalist movements that are nasty and racist don't generally wait for victory to demonstrate their nastiness & racism. For whatever reason, the Scottish independence movement has contained neither of these tendencies. 

Many of the more-recent nationalist movements have been absent of 'nasty', apart from the nasty attitudes those people held towards those they regard as their oppressors.

You might wish to say that you personally regard no one as your oppressor and i'm quite happy to believe you, but you personally are not all of those supporting indy.

But for an easy place to see the oppressed the world has given us w*nks Over Bath.

 

46 minutes ago, LJS said:

You have still failed to produce any evidence to the contrary...apart from a hilarious video of Nicola Sturgeon saying Scotland.

A poll that finds blood and soil attitudes is proof of blood and soil attitudes.