The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

I wonder how this will go down...?

the Scottish Labour party will become ‘fully autonomous’, with control over the selection of all its Parliamentary candidates and management of all the constituency Labour parties north of the border.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/labours-nec-jeremy-corbyn-tom-watson-shadow-cabinet-election-scotland-wales_uk_57e18640e4b0e81629a821a3

It'#s a done deal The 'leftists' in Scotland have got the very thing they said they wanted before the labour Party could be redeemed.

So, let's see how 'leftist' Scotland really is.

(not very much at all is the real answer. It's no more left than the UK as a whole, it just has many more grudges and parochial leanings to its vote)

[LJS]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

She's said one is "highly likely" but has since back-tracked.

She announced with confidence legislation for the scottish Parliament, but has backtracked to a consultation doc.

If you think that's full-team ahead, you're mad.

But even so, she's still clearly testing the waters, with her comment about how indy transcends the poverty that comes with it, to see if people will still bite when she offers no economic solution apart from cuts in spending and tax rises. From what i've seen around that, a few smarter minds have woken up, while the dullards continue with the same patently false ideas that you give, immune to even words of sense by your glorious leader.

Make your mind up.

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

Yep - but too minor to be meaningful.

Don't forget, Scotland will be a country with zero credit record, and a currency to establish - and establishing that currency will cost far more than any debt reduction in the indy deal.

And don't forget, just to remain as you are - with no boost to the economy via borrowings - will cost more than your borrowing capacity.

Interest rates are at record lows. 

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Yet you and comfy have quoted the first sentence of the paragraph on a number of occasions, but have never mentioned the 2nd sentence.

You really need to stop making stuff up. This is the second time today you have blatantly made up stuff that I am supposed to have said (or not said)

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

But anyway, that there is a a definitive statement.

Which is no different to what I've said before.

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

it's not un-doable, but it's only doable with cuts or similar poverty-inducing methods.

I disagree.

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Big billy bullshit.

 

 

You are beyond parody.

[eFestivals]

31 minutes ago, LJS said:

Make your mind up.

She's dug a hole for herself and she's trying to find the best way out of it. It's quite obvious if you're paying attention.

All options are still possible, but that's a different thing to what she might choose to do if she didn't have to keep people lie you dangling on her string.

Her past history VERY strongly suggests she wouldn't want another indyref in the circumstances that exist now. You've been the one banging on about the 60% thing.

But she bigged up the possibility before the brexit vote - because she expected (like everyone else) it to go the other way - and then got over-excited immediately after the result was announced, instead of taking a more-considered approach. The upshot is that she's left the impression of an imminent ref2, and if she doesn't follow thru she'll be called a bottler, etc.

So whichever way she goes, she's likely to end up with egg on her face - and she knows it. So she's currently dithering and testing the waters with different ideas, to try and find the right path from here.

31 minutes ago, LJS said:

Interest rates are at record lows. 

Yep, but there's a big problem with that: in 5 years they might not be. As a new borrower, Scotland is only likely to get 5 year deals; the norm is ten, tho the norm for the super-reliable UK is 15.

And anyway, that ignores the fact that Scotland would still pay a premium on new borrowings, tho it might get lucky on the indy-split-deal, and have the BoE give those at same rate as rUK gets (I actually think that's likely). That would still mean that within 15 years (note: within, not after) for the vast majority of that transferred debt it would roll-over and need to be refinanced, with the BoE not likely to roll it over itself.

So while it's (comparatively) cheap to borrow now, there's no guarantee of it staying that way, and anyway any borrowings have to give at-least an equal return (plus debt-serving), else it still makes you poorer.

And you'll be already spending £15Bn a year you don't have the means to pay for.

I think you might have swallowed the Jezza pills a bit too much over the new borrowing thing. Jezza talks about all of the wonderful things he'd spend money on, but not a jot of who is paying and how - because even with printing new money it's not a free lunch.

31 minutes ago, LJS said:

You really need to stop making stuff up. This is the second time today you have blatantly made up stuff that I am supposed to have said (or not said)

OK, to make you happy, I'll withdraw it against you and keep it just for comfy - because I'm 100% certain he's said it more than once.

Whether it's you or him or both, the indy side has a big problem with the sort of half truth I'm referring to there, cos it doesn't go unnoticed by the non-faith groups.

31 minutes ago, LJS said:

I disagree.

So you keep saying, but you have no plan you approve for how it might be done, and you can give no plan you do approve of for how it might be done

Unless you're a newly converted tory, all up for the cuts?

Edited September 21, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

She's dug a hole for herself and she's trying to find the best way out of it. It's quite obvious if you're paying attention.

Its not the way I see it, Neil. I think she's playing a pretty canny game. Being seen to explore every option before going for a referendum as a last result is a good strategy to counter the independence at any cost argument. Which is why her opponents ar the ones always banging on about indyref2 because they want her to be portayed as on a "headlong rush" to independence.

She also has to balance keeping her own support on board whilst appealing to the 5% of the electorate she needs to persuade to change their minds.

In addition, she has forced the opposition parties to offer her at least some sort of support in her attempts to broker a deal for Scotland which further strengthens her hand.

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

All options are still possible, but that's a different thing to what she might choose to do if she didn't have to keep people lie you dangling on her string.

Her past history VERY strongly suggests she wouldn't want another indyref in the circumstances that exist now. You've been the one banging on about the 60% thing.

I think that is broadly correct but you will find a lot less mention of the 60% thing now and much more talk of a starting point of between 46-48% being a position they could win from (which it clearly is) Incidentally my "banging on" about the 60% was merely me reporting that it was being said.

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

But she bigged up the possibility before the brexit vote - because she expected (like everyone else) it to go the other way - and then got over-excited immediately after the result was announced, instead of taking a more-considered approach. The upshot is that she's left the impression of an imminent ref2, and if she doesn't follow thru she'll be called a bottler, etc.

I don't think this is true. It's inevitable, whatever the circumstances,  that some folk will call her a bottler if she doesn't call an indyref soon. But equally it is inevitable that she'll get called much worse from the other sided if she does. That is just the nature of Scottish politics. Its a balancing act and I reckon she's performing it pretty well so far.

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

So whichever way she goes, she's likely to end up with egg on her face - and she knows it. So she's currently dithering and testing the waters with different ideas, to try and find the right path from here.

NOt my view but the truth is neither of us know what is in her mind. What I think is true is that she genuinely did not want this because her ideal scenario is an independent Scotland in the EU along with rUK.

 

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Yep, but there's a big problem with that: in 5 years they might not be. As a new borrower, Scotland is only likely to get 5 year deals; the norm is ten, tho the norm for the super-reliable UK is 15.
 

will post Brexit UK be as super reliable? who knows?

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

And anyway, that ignores the fact that Scotland would still pay a premium on new borrowings, tho it might get lucky on the indy-split-deal, and have the BoE give those at same rate as rUK gets (I actually think that's likely). That would still mean that within 15 years (note: within, not after) for the vast majority of that transferred debt it would roll-over and need to be refinanced, with the BoE not likely to roll it over itself.

So while it's (comparatively) cheap to borrow now, there's no guarantee of it staying that way, and anyway any borrowings have to give at-least an equal return (plus debt-serving), else it still makes you poorer.

And you'll be already spending £15Bn a year you don't have the means to pay for.

NO we won't and you've already accepted that.

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I think you might have swallowed the Jezza pills a bit too much over the new borrowing thing. Jezza talks about all of the wonderful things he'd spend money on, but not a jot of who is paying and how - because even with printing new money it's not a free lunch.

And you are swallowing the Tory household budget myth and ignoring the fact that the UK has hardly ever has anything other than a deficit.

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

OK, to make you happy, I'll withdraw it against you and keep it just for comfy - because I'm 100% certain he's said it more than once.

I'll leave Comfy to answer for himself. Your problem is that you attribute the views of the BTL numpties you seem to enjoy hanging out with to me & comfy.

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Whether it's you or him or both, the indy side has a big problem with the sort of half truth I'm referring to there, cos it doesn't go unnoticed by the non-faith groups.

So you keep saying, but you have no plan you approve for how it might be done, and you can give no plan you do approve of for how it might be done.

Yes i admit it, I have no detailed plan for an event which might not happen, and if it does happen we don't know when, and if & when it does happen we don't know the financial position that either the UK or Scotland will be in.

I have however demonstrated that the (onshore) deficit is steadily diminishing which, if this can be sustained, points to a sustainable future for an Independent Scotland.

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Unless you're a newly converted tory, all up for the cuts?

You're the man who lives a bit of cutting.

 

[LJS]

8 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I wonder how this will go down...?

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/labours-nec-jeremy-corbyn-tom-watson-shadow-cabinet-election-scotland-wales_uk_57e18640e4b0e81629a821a3

It'#s a done deal The 'leftists' in Scotland have got the very thing they said they wanted before the labour Party could be redeemed.

So, let's see how 'leftist' Scotland really is.

(not very much at all is the real answer. It's no more left than the UK as a whole, it just has many more grudges and parochial leanings to its vote)

I think the significance of this is a little unclear. The following article examines it in a wee bit more detail..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37429104

At present the Scottish party (or at least its leadership) is to the right of UK Labour (assuming Jezza wins) Using the fortunes of a party currently supported by about a sixth of the Scottish electorate as an indicator of how left-wing Scotland is seems a tad ambitious.

 

[Comfy Bean]

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

OK, to make you happy, I'll withdraw it against you and keep it just for comfy - because I'm 100% certain he's said it more than once.

 

Evening Neil,

You`ve been struggling a bit today and I note that you still haven`t explained why you might be " scared " of any successful political news coming from up here in the North. Don`t be afraid of what might happen when we are allowed to forge our own, different , path. It may end up being an example of what is possible away from Tory rule 

I`d like to respond to this but can I ask that you be very specific and explain what exactly I said that you are referring to here ?

 

[LJS]

16 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Evening Neil,

You`ve been struggling a bit today and I note that you still haven`t explained why you might be " scared " of any successful political news coming from up here in the North. Don`t be afraid of what might happen when we are allowed to forge our own, different , path. It may end up being an example of what is possible away from Tory rule 

I`d like to respond to this but can I ask that you be very specific and explain what exactly I said that you are referring to here ?

 

I'll help Neil

 

Neil said: " Or are you still believing that the UK is responsible (as in "paying for") for every penny of the current-UK's debts, just because you can read just the first sentence but not the whole paragraph of a UK govt statement? "

I said:  "Legally the UK is responsible. However, I have never disputed that iS would take on a share of it."

Neil said: " Yet you and comfy have quoted the first sentence of the paragraph on a number of occasions, but have never mentioned the 2nd sentence. "

I said " You really need to stop making stuff up. This is the second time today you have blatantly made up stuff that I am supposed to have said (or not said) "

Neil said: " OK, to make you happy, I'll withdraw it against you and keep it just for comfy - because I'm 100% certain he's said it more than once. "

[Comfy Bean]

56 minutes ago, LJS said:

I'll help Neil

 

Neil said: " Or are you still believing that the UK is responsible (as in "paying for") for every penny of the current-UK's debts, just because you can read just the first sentence but not the whole paragraph of a UK govt statement? "

I said:  "Legally the UK is responsible. However, I have never disputed that iS would take on a share of it."

Neil said: " Yet you and comfy have quoted the first sentence of the paragraph on a number of occasions, but have never mentioned the 2nd sentence. "

I said " You really need to stop making stuff up. This is the second time today you have blatantly made up stuff that I am supposed to have said (or not said) "

Neil said: " OK, to make you happy, I'll withdraw it against you and keep it just for comfy - because I'm 100% certain he's said it more than once. "

Thank you sir. I realise that Neil is 100% certain so I`m sure he will be right but just to clarify, is he certain that I have said on more than one occasion that  iScotland should walk away from current UK debt ? 

Is this what he`s 100% certain I have said on more than one occasion ? Apologies if I`ve got the wrong end of the stick.

Edited September 21, 2016 by comfortablynumb1910

[LJS]

8 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Thank you sir. I realise that Neil is 100% certain so I`m sure he will be right but just to clarify, is he certain that I have said on more than one occasion that  iScotland should walk away from current UK debt ? 

Is this what he`s 100% certain I have said on more than one occasion ? Apologies if I`ve got the wrong end of the stick.

I would hate to put words in Neil's mouth (I'd hate to put anything in his mouth to be truthful) And I know he would never put words in anyone else's mouth but I think he means that you have said on more than one occasion that the responsibility for paying the UK's debt lies with the UK - a statement that is technically & legally correct.

I'm not entirely clear if he "is 100% certain" that you have said Scotland shouldn't pay anything towards this debt. 

Knowing that he has completely misrepresented what I have said on 2 separate issues today, I "am 100% certain" that he may well have misrepresented what you said too.

But don't worry because some nutter below the line somewhere will have said it so what's the difference?

[Comfy Bean]

Probably best....and fair that Neil confirms what he is 100% sure I said more than once. 

Happy to pick this up in the morning. 

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, LJS said:

I think the significance of this is a little unclear. The following article examines it in a wee bit more detail..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37429104

At present the Scottish party (or at least its leadership) is to the right of UK Labour (assuming Jezza wins) Using the fortunes of a party currently supported by about a sixth of the Scottish electorate as an indicator of how left-wing Scotland is seems a tad ambitious.

 

and the SNP are to the right of Scottish Labour.

If Scotland is truly the left-thinking place you like to claim it is, why are those self-proclaimed leftists so wedded to something more of the right?

The 'wedded' bit, btw,  is not about how you choose to vote in light of perceived competences, but how you brush off the possibility that Labour would ever be voteable because "they're to the right of UK Labour" (a UK Labour you don't support either!!!!).

You'd only consider voting Labour if they backed indy - and it matters not a fuck how left or right wing Labour really is. The ultimate me-me-me policy over-rides any left-ism.

[eFestivals]

8 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Probably best....and fair that Neil confirms what he is 100% sure I said more than once. 

Happy to pick this up in the morning. 

Oh FFS, really?

You endless dropped in that one sentence (or your own version of it) of the whole paragraph, to say 'the UK govt has confirmed all the debt is theirs" when the UK govt did no such thing. They said all their debt is theirs but Scotland held moral ownership of its share - and therefore actual ownership if indy were to happen.

If you've suddenly got a 'blank spot' I suggest you look under your bed for your brain, cos you must have left it somewhere.

[eFestivals]

8 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Thank you sir. I realise that Neil is 100% certain so I`m sure he will be right but just to clarify, is he certain that I have said on more than one occasion that  iScotland should walk away from current UK debt ? 

Oh FFS, I say one thing and you invent something entirely different in your head.

No wonder you're so hooked on indy, you can't understand a word you agree with.

8 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Apologies if I`ve got the wrong end of the stick.

your life in a sentence.

[LJS]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

and the SNP are to the right of Scottish Labour.

That's debatable.

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

If Scotland is truly the left-thinking place you like to claim it is, why are those self-proclaimed leftists so wedded to something more of the right?

People can only choose from the options available to them. Whether they are lefter or righter than labour, a vote for the SNP improves the chances of Scotland becoming independent which increases the chances of our government on average being further to the left than if we remain in the UK.

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The 'wedded' bit, btw,  is not about how you choose to vote in light of perceived competences, but how you brush off the possibility that Labour would ever be voteable because "they're to the right of UK Labour" (a UK Labour you don't support either!!!!).

I didn't. There are many reasons for labour's nosedive in Scotland. Being perceived as being  too far to the right may have played it's part although I suspect that's more to do with the new labour project than the current leadership. I've said before that I would probably have voted labour at the last GE if I lived in Englandshire.

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

You'd only consider voting Labour if they backed indy - and it matters not a fuck how left or right wing Labour really is. The ultimate me-me-me policy over-rides any left-ism.

I've explained why I currently vote SNP. I do hope to feel able to vote labour again  in the future.

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Evening Neil,

You`ve been struggling a bit today and I note that you still haven`t explained why you might be " scared " of any successful political news coming from up here in the North. Don`t be afraid of what might happen when we are allowed to forge our own, different , path. It may end up being an example of what is possible away from Tory rule 

I`d like to respond to this but can I ask that you be very specific and explain what exactly I said that you are referring to here ?

 

Why do you think I'm scared? It's not me that suffers the result of the economic stupidity you subscribe to if you ever get your way.

"When you're allowed"? You're allowed now. FFS.

You seem to have missed the part when your fellow Scots rejected your thinking as dumb.

Anyway, to answer the last bit....

The UK treasury issued a statement before the indyref,.stating it's ownership of the debt but also that Scotland would take its share on independence.

You have, on numerous occasions (tho mostly, if not totally, before the indyref) guffed out the first half of that statement as tho that was all their was, and that nothing of the debt was Scotland's.

You perhaps weren't going as far as saying "so Scotland will have nothing of it", tho the clear implication of mentioning it at all was to imply Scotland had no moral obligation to take it.

Cos if it's as the treasury says, you'd have no need to mention it at all, you'd simply accept that a fair share was Scotland's and there'd be no need to mention the debts in this discussion (outside of the future burden its share would place on indy Scotland).

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, LJS said:

Its not the way I see it, Neil. I think she's playing a pretty canny game. Being seen to explore every option before going for a referendum as a last result is a good strategy to counter the independence at any cost argument. Which is why her opponents ar the ones always banging on about indyref2 because they want her to be portayed as on a "headlong rush" to independence.

We can at least agree she's playing a game.

And in a game, not everything she says is serious, and so shouldn't be taken as face value.

The only difference that seems to exist between us is about which parts of what she says are the not-serious bits, but there's a few clues for those who pay attention. I've already mentioned them. And these are...

She said indyref2 is "highly likely" but since backtracked.

She announced legislation for indyref2 but since backtracked to a consultation doc.

So you see, she's already made clear she was not-serious when she said indyref2 was "highly likely" and when she announced that legislation.- cos otherwise she'd seriously be pursuing what she announced rather than backtracking from those announcements.

 

10 hours ago, LJS said:

She also has to balance keeping her own support on board whilst appealing to the 5% of the electorate she needs to persuade to change their minds.

No shit sherlock.

Which is why she's dangling you on her string, making you think indyref2 is imminent when it's not. She needs to let you down gently.

She's smart enough to know that people like you don't listen to her anyway, but make it up for yourself, and claim her words meant for the ears of others are saying something special (that's like 'special school', rather than 'important') rather than what she's actually saying,.

 

10 hours ago, LJS said:

In addition, she has forced the opposition parties to offer her at least some sort of support in her attempts to broker a deal for Scotland which further strengthens her hand.

Sturgeon wants to exp[lore the options, May wants to expolore the options. Steurgeon has "forced" the opposition parties to offer her some support in her attempts to get the best deal available, and so has May.

In fact, if we want to go with your version, then more than Sturgeon has "forced" anyone, she's been "forced" by May.

And all the while Sturgeon is examining what's best for Scotland outside of indy, she's implicitly admitting that indy us not the best for Scotland.

So much so, she's now had to clarify that, by saying indy is always a better thing than the shittest economic position, even if that shittest economic position is indy.

She doesn't know if she's coming or going - her words are clear - but you believe it's a certainty.

I guarantee they'll either be no indyref2 or if there is it's a loser - cos Sturgeon is telling me just that.

 

10 hours ago, LJS said:

I think that is broadly correct but you will find a lot less mention of the 60% thing now and much more talk of a starting point of between 46-48% being a position they could win from (which it clearly is) Incidentally my "banging on" about the 60% was merely me reporting that it was being said.

The thing ids, for each one percent that is convinced towards indy, another 1% steps back from it. You're going nowhere, and the polls are clear on that.

Remember, indy is not opinion-polling as high now as it did when only 45% indisputably supported it.

 

10 hours ago, LJS said:

I don't think this is true. It's inevitable, whatever the circumstances,  that some folk will call her a bottler if she doesn't call an indyref soon. But equally it is inevitable that she'll get called much worse from the other sided if she does. That is just the nature of Scottish politics. Its a balancing act and I reckon she's performing it pretty well so far.

I agree, she'll be called much worse if she doesn't bottle it.

And if she doesn't bottle it, not only will she be called worse, and she'll fatally damage all chances of indy by another loss. You only have one more chance.

And so she'll only go for that vote in 2 specific circumstances.

1. if all indicators show that indy would win

2. if it's the only way to try to sustain support for the SNP if support for the SNP was starting to slip.

Neither of those are in sight. She'll bottle it.

Unfortunately for her, bottling it damages her both in Scotland but more importantly at a UK level. She's cried wolf for the last time, and any leverage she might have got from the threat up-til-now will not happen in the future.

 

10 hours ago, LJS said:

NOt my view but the truth is neither of us know what is in her mind. What I think is true is that she genuinely did not want this because her ideal scenario is an independent Scotland in the EU along with rUK.

No shit sherlock, but perhaps try thinking it thru a bit?

You can't sell the idea that breaking ties with the market for 13% of exports is a worse thing than breaking ties with the market for 70% of exports

She knows it. How about you?

 

10 hours ago, LJS said:

will post Brexit UK be as super reliable? who knows?

With regard to paying its debts, yes it will.

Just because you think defaulting is always an option doesn't mean the sensible brains think the same. There's a reason why the likes of Greece thinks the harsh EU terms for a bail-out are a better thing than defaulting.

Meanwhile, the Scottish-indy take towards defaulting hasn't gone unnoticed by the very people you'll need to loan Scotland money, and those lax attitudes are costing any future indy Scotland extra to the extent of hundreds of millions a year.

 

10 hours ago, LJS said:

NO we won't and you've already accepted that.

Scotland isn't spending £15Bn a year of money it doesn't have...?

It only changes *IF* it changes, but even if it gets to 6% (the best you can hope for) that'll be £9Bn you don't have, which is still around three times what is affordable, and when iScotland would already be considered about maxed-out for loans.

There's no room for borrowing to try to expand the economy. The only options are huge cuts or huge tax rises.

 

10 hours ago, LJS said:

And you are swallowing the Tory household budget myth and ignoring the fact that the UK has hardly ever has anything other than a deficit.

Oh FFS.

What don't you understand about the difference between a loan that can be afforded and a loan that can't be afforded?

 

10 hours ago, LJS said:

I have however demonstrated that the (onshore) deficit is steadily diminishing which, if this can be sustained, points to a sustainable future for an Independent Scotland.

You're the man who lives a bit of cutting.

Not me. It's you that's cheering on tory cuts as great for Scotland.

Whatever happened to the geezer I once knew who wanted better for Scotland? He's become an embracer of tory policy, and cheers the poor in Scotland being made poorer, and wants even more of it than the tories will do.

That's you, that is.

[Comfy Bean]

On 27/08/2014 at 3:21 PM, comfortablynumb1910 said:

 I agree that Scotland should be paying its share of the debt mountain. Any uncertainty over this will not be good for anyone was the point I was trying to make. I`m sure we are all agreed that Scotland will not grind to a halt nor will the sky fall in over currency.

 

On 15/09/2014 at 5:23 PM, comfortablynumb1910 said:

 

 Scotland should of course take its fair share of the debt and this could be used by both sides to justify the CU ( again in my opinion ).

 

On 17/09/2014 at 7:45 PM, comfortablynumb1910 said:

You know....I know...that the bills still have to be paid. I know...you know what the current state of our Debt is. We are already a " financial basket case ". I have said we should take our share of the debt. Westminster have got us into a total mess and change could give Scotland and England a shake. I honestly think that we have already given the country a shake and hope it works out well for us all. Thursday we have the power to change everything.....that is the key for me.

 

 

On 19/09/2015 at 4:11 PM, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Just as I think that " we " should take our share of our debts. I think it would be right that the good folks in the 70+ demographic that we were talking about who will have paid in there fair share to the " state " over the years....Lets say for 5 decades...then YES it seems likely to me that they would continue to collect their pension from the " state " or pot if you prefer until their dying day.

 

 

[eFestivals]

yep, and you've also said the debt is the UKs whilst referring to that treasury statement.

Saying conflicting things to maintain position is the only way you can maintain position - just like how LJS is now welcoming tory cuts because they make indy that bit closer, after starting off saying he was for indy because he was against cuts.

It's not passing me by you know, but more importantly it's not passing by the people in Scotland who you need to convince to your side, and instead on convincing them the standard snipper duplicitousness repels them.

Edited September 22, 2016 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

Can you please show me once where I've said the debt is ruks alone. Your 100% sure I've said it numerous times so once should be straight forward enough. 

I've quoted a small sample of the numerous times I've said the opposite. 

I liked the brain under the bed insult. A new one on me :-)

[eFestivals]

30 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Can you please show me once where I've said the debt is ruks alone. Your 100% sure I've said it numerous times so once should be straight forward enough. 

I've quoted a small sample of the numerous times I've said the opposite. 

I liked the brain under the bed insult. A new one on me :-)

this is a thread that's 444 pages long. If you think I'm trawling back thru it to prove I know you said what you've said, you're even madder than I was thinking, particularly when the specific words you might have used could be anything and those 'anything' words will crop up in this thread constantly.

(I have done a simple search, and did find someone who interacted with this thread for a short while repeat it just about verbatim before they, presumably, wandered off deep into the centre of that dundee cake).

[eFestivals]

But anyway, as you're now taking on the debt that's morally yours, it's a non-issue ... tho your constant similar fantasies remain the issue that stops your dream from ever reaching reality.

One day you might wise up to that. We both know that people in Scotland are smart, so why might you think they'll majority-follow the indy bullshitters?

[eFestivals]

oh, BTW, that new Scottish tidal generating scheme, that you (LJS) think is Scotland's salvation....

The cost of (actual) generation is just over £150 per MWh - about the same price as off-shore wind generation -  while the "bad deal" that is Hinckley C comes in at less than £90.

So much for salvation.

[LJS]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

oh, BTW, that new Scottish tidal generating scheme, that you (LJS) think is Scotland's salvation....

Fux ache Neil, do you never learn? Whilst I am strongly in favour of renewabes and consider Scotland's abundant supply of wind & tides & stuff to be a good thing, I have never said anything that even the most deluded fool could interpret as me claiming they are Scotland's salvation.

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

The cost of (actual) generation is just over £150 per MWh - about the same price as off-shore wind generation -  while the "bad deal" that is Hinckley C comes in at less than £90.

I haven't seen this. Do you have a link?

I presume it takes into account that this is a technology in its infancy so is likely to get cheaper over time?

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

So much for salvation.

Classic.

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, LJS said:

Fux ache Neil, do you never learn? Whilst I am strongly in favour of renewabes and consider Scotland's abundant supply of wind & tides & stuff to be a good thing, I have never said anything that even the most deluded fool could interpret as me claiming they are Scotland's salvation.

Really? then what did you think you'd snookered me by....?

When you snooker someone, you're trying to obstruct them from scoring points, when in fact your 'snooker' just added to the points against what you say - because that 'snooker' (snigger) only outlines further Scotland's dependence on the whole-UK for its successes.

Oh dear.

Tomorrow, LJS will tell us all how black is really white, how the SNP are left of Labour, and how he wants to help Scotland's poorest by making them poorer-still.

 

On 13/09/2016 at 6:08 PM, LJS said:

Keeping watching .. i'm about to snooker him behind the (Gordon) Brown

[LJS]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Really? then what did you think you'd snookered me by....?

When you snooker someone, you're trying to obstruct them from scoring points, when in fact your 'snooker' just added to the points against what you say - because that 'snooker' (snigger) only outlines further Scotland's dependence on the whole-UK for its successes.

Oh dear.

Tomorrow, LJS will tell us all how black is really white, how the SNP are left of Labour, and how he wants to help Scotland's poorest by making them poorer-still.

 

 

My snooker comment had f all to do with tidal power. In fact it had nothing to with anything other than my fairly poor attempt at a snooker related joke.

Now back to tidal power...