The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

I know. That's why I said it.

 

Neil misses the point

& dodges the uncomfortable truth that Comfy has yet again exposed his mendacity. 

 

 

[Comfy Bean]

On 10/16/2016 at 10:00 AM, eFestivals said:

The SNP haven't taken money from Heathrow Airport, to back England at the expense of Scotland?

 

Here`s another article with a quote from a Labour fella. This time in 2015.

Highland Labour MSP and shadow transport spokesman David Stewart also welcomed the news.

He said the new runway could be open by 2025 if the government gives its approval.

David Stewart: New slots

He said: "We could connect the whole of the UK to global growth, creating up to 190,000 new jobs and £147bn of economic growth across the country – 60 per cent of which is forecast to take place outside of London and the southeast. It also confirms that Heathrow expansion would create new slots for Scottish services.”

http://www.ross-shirejournal.co.uk/News/Third-runaway-at-Heathrow-good-news-for-the-Highlands-says-airports-chief-01072015.htm

[LJS]

33 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Here`s another article with a quote from a Labour fella. This time in 2015.

Highland Labour MSP and shadow transport spokesman David Stewart also welcomed the news.

He said the new runway could be open by 2025 if the government gives its approval.

David Stewart: New slots

He said: "We could connect the whole of the UK to global growth, creating up to 190,000 new jobs and £147bn of economic growth across the country – 60 per cent of which is forecast to take place outside of London and the southeast. It also confirms that Heathrow expansion would create new slots for Scottish services.”

http://www.ross-shirejournal.co.uk/News/Third-runaway-at-Heathrow-good-news-for-the-Highlands-says-airports-chief-01072015.htm

Few things concern me less than where London decides to build a new runway but it does appear that Heathrow is making a fairly attractive offer to Scotland which goes well beyond a few quid inches snp's back pocket.

 

https://your.heathrow.com/takingbritainfurther/scotland-lands-first-heathrows-supply-chain-hubs-part-expansion-plans/

For the record, I have no idea what gatwick has offered us nor, for that matter, what goodies Boris island would provide.

Edited October 17, 2016 by LJS
Missing link

[eFestivals]

On 17/10/2016 at 6:43 PM, LJS said:

In all your chat about surgeon's dilemma, you fail to mention the possibility that she comes up with some sort of  scheme that offers Scotland some form of greater engagement with the single market than the rest of the UK. I know this seems improbable but I would argue it is not impossible.

 

and I'd argue it is impossible in all practical terms, and in EU treaty terms.

In practical terms that's a customs and people border between Scotland and rUK. You'd have to be mad to think any UK govt is going to permit that while Scotland remains part of the UK.

(I'd say it's slightly more possible that could happen between NI and rUK in order to keep NI/Ireland border-free, as the sea acts as a physical border already - tho I still don't see that as anywhere near likely).

And for the EU, it's a body of sovereign member states. All of the EU treaties would need to be ripped up and new ones signed (including refs about the new ones in many countries).

And anyway, if the EU had even mildly encourraged Sturgeon of that possibility, she'd be screaming it from the rooftops.

Her absolute silence about offers from the EU is clear demonstration she was told to naff off and come back if/when Scotland is independent, and that no encouragement beyond that was offered.

The desperate will cling to any hope, and you've just shown how desperate you are for indy rather than how desperate you are to remain in the EU.

[eFestivals]

On 17/10/2016 at 6:43 PM, LJS said:

Unlike comfy I think the most likely outcome is an indyref sometime before we actually quit the EU.

Whether Nic wants it or not, it's hard to see how she can get out of it.

If you find it hard to see how she can get out of indyref2, you've noticing how she's boxed herself into a corner, as I've been saying.

What you're failing to consider, tho, is what happens if she has a 2nd ref. Either she loses and indy is essentially over forever (two tries is all you'll get in a at-least 50 year period), or she wins - and then has to turn round and tell you either that getting into the EU quickly was a lie, or that she lied and tory austerity was a spending party. Either way, she personally is destroyed politically.

And so she'll much prefer to have all of England laughing at her forever as the woman who cried wolf too many times, because for people like you there's absolutely no way you're giving up on her, bar her getting you indy via a lie.

When you consider all angles it's exceedingly clear which way she'd prefer to go.... but I do recognise that her big gob has given her the problem of the expectations of people like you.

Edited October 19, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

If you find it hard to see how she can get out of indyref2, you'd noticing how she's boxed herself into a corner, as I've been saying.

What you're failing to consider, tho, is what happens if she has a 2nd ref. Either she loses and indy is essentially over forever (two tries is all you'll get in a at-least 50 year period), or she wins - and then has to turn round and tell you either that getting into the EU quickly was a lie, or that she lied and tory austerity was a spending party. Either way, she personally is destroyed politically.

And so she'll much prefer to have all of England laughing at her forever as the woman who cried wolf too many times, because for people like you there's absolutely no way you're giving up on her, bar her getting you indy via a lie.

When you consider all angles it's exceedingly clear which way she'd prefer to go.... but I do recognise that her big gob has given her the problem of the expectations of people like you.

We'll see.

[eFestivals]

On 17/10/2016 at 7:54 PM, LJS said:

I think that is the potential game changer - with some sort of guaranteed membership of the EU I think Yes are odds on to win.

And how do you think such a guarantee can be made? It can't.

The EU is a treaty organisation. You have to meet the terms, apply, and be accepted by the other members.

Put very simply, Scotland doesn't meet the terms. There's the finances, there's the currency, there's the sovereign structures - all things where Scotland falls VERY short, and where others of those members had their applications blocked or delayed until they did.

(currently one of the 'M' ex-Yugo states is having its application blocked on the currency issue).

None of the current members are going to bend over backwards to give a tiny tiny state with nothing of particular value to the EU a free pass over terms, particularly when Scotland has already and recently shown itself to be no less Eurosceptic as the UK - it was all laid out in the white paper, remember? I said at the time that would come back and bite Scotamd on the arse.

An iScotland that is not fully-wedded to everything of 'the European project' is not going to be welcomed in easily, and it's just not possible for Scotland to demonstrate in quick time that it is. Those eurosceptic parts of the white paper weren't in that paper by accidence, they were in there because Scotland won't accept the Euro, won't accept Schengen, won't accept no rebate, etc, etc, etc. Schengen is the only one of those the EU will bend over for a new applicant.

[eFestivals]

On 17/10/2016 at 7:54 PM, LJS said:

The other side of this coin with one in fifty of the Scottish population being SNP members, this is a massive pool of potential campaigners which could have a massive impact in a new indy ref. Its hard to see who will provide the "boots on the ground for the No side next time. 

One fifth? The SNP has a million members...?

Campaigners only change rational minds that are willing to be changed by rational ideas. The SNP has no rational ideas to campaign with.

After all, "the UK is shit so it'll be better to make Scotland even shitter than the UK" is not going to be a big seller to anyone with a working brain.

[eFestivals]

On 17/10/2016 at 8:02 PM, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Now we have established that the SNP did not in fact instruct the delegates to not support Oxfam

in the effect of their their instruction, they very definitely did. If politicians are not allowed to go and voice their support for oxfam, they're not being allowed to support Oxfam.

Yes, that actually happened. Warping the words doesn't change that that actually happened.

There's no truth that can't be stretched into a lie for indy. 

[eFestivals]

18 minutes ago, LJS said:

We'll see.

We will.

Notice I've been saying what she'd prefer, and not necessarily what she'll do.

I certainly don't discount the stupids of indy forcing Sturgeon to commit indy suicide, or her going along with it in the hope that there might be greater personal political salvation than the abyss she might be facing to not do it.

But ultimately I reckon the simple fact that a win looks hugely unlikely will sharpen up even the most stupid brains, so Sturgeon will settle for living to fight another day over certain death, even with that huge English laughter. After all, it's only when you're smart enough to laugh at her that her game is over.

[eFestivals]

On 17/10/2016 at 8:37 PM, LJS said:

Few things concern me less than where London decides to build a new runway but it does appear that Heathrow is making a fairly attractive offer to Scotland which goes well beyond a few quid inches snp's back pocket.

and yet it can never be as beneficial to Scotland as Scotland directly serving the traffic that might instead come thru Heathrow.

That's Scottish money primarily for English benefit, and not Scottish money for Scottish benefit. How is that "putting Scotland first"?

[Comfy Bean]

On 17/10/2016 at 8:02 PM, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Now we have established that the SNP did not in fact instruct the delegates to not support Oxfam.

 

27 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

in the effect of their their instruction, they very definitely did. If politicians are not allowed to go and voice their support for oxfam, they're not being allowed to support Oxfam.

Yes, that actually happened. Warping the words doesn't change that that actually happened.

There's no truth that can't be stretched into a lie for indy. 

Warping words like delegates and politicians do you mean 

Not allowed to voice their support for Oxfam  Brilliant !

Atleast you`ve dropped that other rubbish about the SNP taking money from Heathrow at the "expense" of Scotland 

Hopefully this is because you have now realised the opportunities for trade, for example with our EU partners, are boosted by more slots from Scotland into the hub that is Heathrow. A fact outlined by Labour and SNP types waaaaay before last weekends conference ( see links provided the other day ).

It`s not always SNP bad you know and it`s not always about indy with the Scottish Government.

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

 

Warping words like delegates and politicians do you mean 

Not allowed to voice their support for Oxfam  Brilliant !

delegates were told they were not to go to where Oxfam were. FACT!

What don't you understand about the effect of that is that they were told they couldn't support Oxfam?

 

7 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Atleast you`ve dropped that other rubbish about the SNP taking money from Heathrow at the "expense" of Scotland 

If Heathrow expansion benefits Scotland - which the SNP accepts - then Scottish airport expansion in Heathrow's place would support Scotland a whole lot more.

It's VERY DEFINITELY "at the expense of Scotland" when England gets something with Scottish money that Scotland might have instead.

[Comfy Bean]

17 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

delegates were told they were not to go to where Oxfam were. FACT!

What don't you understand about the effect of that is that they were told they couldn't support Oxfam?

 

If Heathrow expansion benefits Scotland - which the SNP accepts - then Scottish airport expansion in Heathrow's place would support Scotland a whole lot more.

It's VERY DEFINITELY "at the expense of Scotland" when England gets something with Scottish money that Scotland might have instead.

Back to delegates now I see. I have nothing more to say on this as I have already posted what was emailed out and it`s crystal clear what was said, who it was directed at and the reasons for it. You seem to be struggling with the difference between delegates and " elected SNP representatives ".

I agree with you that Scottish airport expansion could support Scotland a whole lot more but extra slots to Heathrow is a no brainer for Scottish business looking to trade. Have you now changed your view on Prestwick Airport which you may recall was kept open by the Scottish Govt. We have previously discussed this in some detail and you appear to now hold a different view.

[gary1979666]

I wonder how much impact Project Fear will have in a second indy ref, following a lot of the claims from the Brexit vote's Proj Fear coming true.

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, gary1979666 said:

I wonder how much impact Project Fear will have in a second indy ref, following a lot of the claims from the Brexit vote's Proj Fear coming true.

the current view of a big proportion of indy supporters is: anything stupid England can do, Scots can do even-more stupidly.

Meanwhile, with those engaging their brains, they're looking and seeing it';s true, and thinking "nope, I don't fancy even more than that".

There's a reason why support for indy today is lower than it's been since the indyref.

(Unless you listen to Salmond on the John Pienaar show, where he also claims £29.5Bn more in public spending savings than he was  able to find just two years ago ).

[eFestivals]

32 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Back to delegates now I see.

It's always been delegates.

Any thinking different to that is all your own doing.

And I see you're not claiming it's wrong this time. Might that be because you know it's true?

 

Quote

I have nothing more to say on this as I have already posted what was emailed out and it`s crystal clear what was said, who it was directed at and the reasons for it. You seem to be struggling with the difference between delegates and " elected SNP representatives ".

And it's effect was....?

SNP supporters - you know, delegates at conference and including "elected SNP representatives" - were told they were not allowed to demonstrate support for Oxfam.

It's 100% true.

 

Quote

I agree with you that Scottish airport expansion could support Scotland a whole lot more but extra slots to Heathrow is a no brainer for Scottish business looking to trade. Have you now changed your view on Prestwick Airport which you may recall was kept open by the Scottish Govt. We have previously discussed this in some detail and you appear to now hold a different view.

extra slots in Scotland for Scottish businesses looking to trade would be even better and far cheaper.

Because you don't need to spend a penny to get those extra slots, you have a whole 'country' (region ) full of under-utilised airports, Prestwick included.

Perhaps that's because there's not actually any Scottish businesses looking to trade who need extra slots....?

Oh, yes, that's actually IS the case.

So in the end it's the SNP selling their Westminster votes and nothing more. There's fuck all in Heathrow's expansion that's of benefit to Scotland.

Next up, will we have the myth that the slots are needed at Heathrow because England doesn't really take 4 times as many Scottish goods as the EU, and really it's just that they're all being transported thru England on-route to elsewhere...? And that's why Heathrow expansion if good for Scotland...?

If that myth were true, it only demonstrates that the SNP can't find a single person in Scotland who knows about exports, which means the SNP are unable to make an accurate statement about anything of the Scottish economy.

Oh dear. PMSL

Edited October 19, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

and I'd argue it is impossible in all practical terms, and in EU treaty terms.

In practical terms that's a customs and people border between Scotland and rUK. You'd have to be mad to think any UK govt is going to permit that while Scotland remains part of the UK.

(I'd say it's slightly more possible that could happen between NI and rUK in order to keep NI/Ireland border-free, as the sea acts as a physical border already - tho I still don't see that as anywhere near likely).

And for the EU, it's a body of sovereign member states. All of the EU treaties would need to be ripped up and new ones signed (including refs about the new ones in many countries).

And anyway, if the EU had even mildly encourraged Sturgeon of that possibility, she'd be screaming it from the rooftops.

Her absolute silence about offers from the EU is clear demonstration she was told to naff off and come back if/when Scotland is independent, and that no encouragement beyond that was offered.

The desperate will cling to any hope, and you've just shown how desperate you are for indy rather than how desperate you are to remain in the EU.

I'm keen on both, desperate for neither. You will note that, unlike you  I don't claim to deal in certainties on this issue. There is no precedent for the situation we are in just now. I am open-minded enough to wait and see what develops. I've already stated my view that the most likely outcome is no workaround will be found but I would think it foolish (yeah that's you) to rule it out.

[LJS]

2 hours ago, gary1979666 said:

I wonder how much impact Project Fear will have in a second indy ref, following a lot of the claims from the Brexit vote's Proj Fear coming true.

Considering it managed to add about 10-15% to the support for Indy last time, I'd settle for half that this time.

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, LJS said:

I'm keen on both, desperate for neither. You will note that, unlike you  I don't claim to deal in certainties on this issue. There is no precedent for the situation we are in just now. I am open-minded enough to wait and see what develops. I've already stated my view that the most likely outcome is no workaround will be found but I would think it foolish (yeah that's you) to rule it out.

There is the precedent of what treaties mean, tho.

While there's always a bit of room for 'interpretation', there's no interpretation which can allow for membership of non-sovereign states, nor for member states (the UK) to be half in and half out.

For thinking in VERY realistic terms about how far the EU will bend, think about how far they DIDN'T go in order to try and keep the UK inside. If the UK merits so little effort, why would the (comparatively) insignificant Scotland merit much much more? Cos everyone loves Scotland? Pleeeaaase!

There's fudges, and then there's fudges too far, like what you're dreaming of ... and anyway, it's a solution which cures nothing for the EU but does open a huge can of worms towards regions of member states wanting similar direct representation.

It doesn't take a closed mind to concluded it's somewhere the EU will never ever go. It only takes thinking it thru without having pre-decided your conclusion.

 

[LJS]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

If you find it hard to see how she can get out of indyref2, you've noticing how she's boxed herself into a corner, as I've been saying.

I disagree as I have been saying. Her strategy since the eu ref has been superb.

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

What you're failing to consider, tho, is what happens if she has a 2nd ref. Either she loses and indy is essentially over forever (two tries is all you'll get in a at-least 50 year period),

Unusually, I tend to agree with you here although, being certain about anything on Scottish politics at present is somewhat rash.

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

or she wins - and then has to turn round and tell you either that getting into the EU quickly was a lie, or that she lied and tory austerity was a spending party. Either way, she personally is destroyed politically.

Based entirely on your assumptions.

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

And so she'll much prefer to have all of England laughing at her forever as the woman who cried wolf too many times, because for people like you there's absolutely no way you're giving up on her, bar her getting you indy via a lie.

When you consider all angles it's exceedingly clear which way she'd prefer to go.... but I do recognise that her big gob has given her the problem of the expectations of people like you.

I think her gob has remained quite small.

[Comfy Bean]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

So in the end it's the SNP selling their Westminster votes and nothing more. There's fuck all in Heathrow's expansion that's of benefit to Scotland.

 

Or...........

Heathrow also supported the recent Labour, Tory and Libs conferences ?

It`s easy to find quotes from various Scottish airport managers backing the plans and the extra slots / opportunities they will bring to Scotland. Not to mention quotes from politicians from all parties ( apart from the greens ) representing Scottish constituents - I already provided one from the Labour dude the other day - stating the benefits to Scotland. Perhaps they are all wrong 

I accept that you cannot understand how Heathrow`s expansion will bring benefits to Scotland.

Fortunately you are neither a politician representing Scotland and responsible for trade, jobs, investment etc or an Airport manager. We already know your views on the Scottish Govt supporting the survival of Prestwick Airport and the jobs therein.

Is this an issue because all these folk are working with an Airport in London ? Would you be taking the same position if the airport was another european hub eg Amsterdam ?

Does this working together in partnership with our friends in England to benefit both Countries not fit with your own narrative or personal view 

[LJS]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

delegates were told they were not to go to where Oxfam were. FACT!

They were asked & oxfam weren't mentioned which means you were lying.

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

What don't you understand about the effect of that is that they were told they couldn't support Oxfam?

I understand that all SNP members are totally free to support oxfam.

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

If Heathrow expansion benefits Scotland - which the SNP accepts - then Scottish airport expansion in Heathrow's place would support Scotland a whole lot more.

It's VERY DEFINITELY "at the expense of Scotland" when England gets something with Scottish money that Scotland might have instead.

In the real world, there are some destinations that Scotland will never have direct flights to.

[LJS]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

We will.

Notice I've been saying what she'd prefer, and not necessarily what she'll do.

Which is fine, except....you don't actually know what she'd prefer, you only think you know.

Quote

I certainly don't discount the stupids of indy forcing Sturgeon to commit indy suicide, or her going along with it in the hope that there might be greater personal political salvation than the abyss she might be facing to not do it.

What's the difference between an abyss & a cave.

Quote

But ultimately I reckon the simple fact that a win looks hugely unlikely will sharpen up even the most stupid brains, so Sturgeon will settle for living to fight another day over certain death, even with that huge English laughter. After all, it's only when you're smart enough to laugh at her that her game is over.

Every poll since the referendum has shown yes support higher than it was in the referendum. Support for Indy rose during the last campaign. 

That being the case, I admire your certainty.

Edited October 19, 2016 by LJS

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, LJS said:

I disagree as I have been saying. Her strategy since the eu ref has been superb.

Nope.

Her strategy as a politician if her strategy saw the support for indy hugely increased.

It's because her strategy hasn't been very good that she's in a place where she'll look foolish if she doesn't follow thru with a ref, but where she's unlikely to win that ref.

I'll quite happily credit her with following a path that she might have expected to work out for her, but the simple fact is that it doesn't look like it's going to work out, and some for her fault of letting herself get carried away.

 

18 minutes ago, LJS said:

Based entirely on your assumptions.

Assumptions perhaps, but assumptions on,y worth refuting if you can make some different assumptions stand up better as an idea.

So let's hear what you've got to back up your assumption that the EU would allow Scotland to run a massive deficit unless fully committed to immediate spending cuts of massive magnitude.

I have Greece & Spain & France & Italy and Cyprus and others as examples behind my assumption. What do you have for yours? Fuck all.

23 minutes ago, LJS said:

I think her gob has remained quite small.

Whatever it's been the other times, on the morning after the vote it was bigger than (her perspective) it should have been. I'm 100% sure she regrets it.