Jump to content
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

The Dirty Independence Question


Kyelo

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Same question: what are you claiming as that hyperbole?

Do be aware that I'll be off checking the real context of any words said, sob you won't get away with twisting. :)

"rUK might have to bomb Scottish airports" is about the most outrageous anyone can come up with, but within the context of how it wqas said it wasn't an unreasonable thing to say. If the island is being invaded thru a folded Scotland, what the feck do you think rUK is going do?

I love it when you do my work for me.

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

It's going to bomb Scotland. Indy doesn't even make a difference with that.

So, can I please have a list of supposed hyperbole please, just to prove the hyperbole is not your own...? Thank you. :)

No need your example is perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Correct. 

Genuinely surprised that Gaz brought this up earlier and that he doesn`t follow how it can be logical to wish to be independent politically from rUK while wishing to remain part of the european union.

It's an easy idea to fall into if you're not Scottish and so have missed the arguments and equate 'independence' to be full sovereignty. It's something that can be seen below the line at newspapers all the time from non-Scots who are new to the debate so don't know where it's at.

While Gaz got it a bit wrong, it's still a demonstrably important part of the debate - because the main driver for dislike of Westminster in Scotland is cuts.

Cuts that an iScotlland's membership of the EU will make look like a spending spree.

And cuts that Scotland has the powers to negate but doesn't wish to spend its own money on for its own benefit.

So saying "Westminster cuts are bad, I want out" is reasonable enough up until you say "... to join the EU instead", because it removes all manoeuvring room from how the deficit issue might be addressed.

Then of course the parts of the EU that most in Scotland wants to truck with, but will have to accept as the consequences of leaving the UK for the EU. While Scottish minds might be changed, I can see no change right now in what Scots are saying in 2014.

Personally I think the EU want Scotland less than it wants the UK, and will bend even less to have them inside . There's too much baggage but all of the same Euroscepticism as caused the UK to just vote out, even from a huge chunk of indy supporters - cos you can still see th3ewm all saying "we won't have to join the Euro" and other fantasies, while the SNP laid out their own scepticism as well as Scotland's in the white paper in easy to read words for the EU.

17 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Should probably have highlighted the Irish in the South that last post.............

The Irish in the North don't want to join the South, and the Irish in the South know they can't afford the North. Have you missed those important parts, I wonder?

And with it just having been confirmed in court that there's nothing in the inter-nation agreements that stop brexit, it's full-brexit-ahead in N.Ireland.

The UK doesn't want to create a border with Ireland. If one appears there it'll be the doing of the Ireland or more likely the EU (without Ireland having a meaningful say) and not the UK.

Meanwhile, perhaps just dwell on that legal victory for the UK govt for a moment, cos I keep on hearing false claims of legalese around Scotland favouring the SNP's position, too. Nicola knows what's what, she's just admitted Scotland's legal subservience to the UK in the draft bill she published.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, LJS said:

I love it when you do my work for me.

No need your example is perfect.

My example is perfect for showing that a nation state will claim to defend itself, yep - no matter what the constitutional status of Scotland might be. So not what you claimed.

And your own reply is perfect for showing yet again you have grand claims but no actual facts to back them up with.

This week you've claimed both experts and hyperbole on your side, when you can show no experts but do show your own hyperbole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Correct. 

Genuinely surprised that Gaz brought this up earlier and that he doesn`t follow how it can be logical to wish to be independent politically from rUK while wishing to remain part of the european union.

Of course plenty of folk want to remain rule brittania while turning away from europe. Takes all sorts I suppose :)

II think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make - I can see why you might want to be independent from Westminster and then have a seat at the EU table to do things directly.

My point was more around a lot of the arguments are very similar, but seen as very different.

e.g.

Kipper - I want to freedom from an EU govt that I didn't vote for.

Snipper's view of Kipper - you idiot

Snipper - I want freedom for the Tory gov't I didn't vote for.

 

Better Togetherer - If we leave the UK there'll be a disastrous ecomonic consequences

Snipper view of BTerer - och, Project Fear!

Snipper - If we leave the EU there'll be a disastrous ecomonic consequences, we're better together in the EU

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article here
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/28/scotland-nhs-crisis-snp-brexit-nicola-sturgeon

For Gaz, it's written by Alex Bell. Known as a turncoat by snippers nowadays, he used to work for Uncle Alex as head of policy but nowadays feels free to voice fair criticism/comment while still being a supporter of indy in principle.

It outlines just how many twists and u-turns St Nicola is doing around the NHS in Scotland, where the only place she's actually done anything is to mirror the tories and he's suggesting she's about to go all out tory-type-solution.
(and when Nicola twists and u-turns her fanclub twist and u-turn with her)

He's also saying she doesn't want a referendum if she can help it, and I agree with that take. All the indicators are that it'll be another loss.

It's one thing grandstanding right now, but a real campaign will have the real issues dragged out again - and there's simply no way to rebut the "vote indy, vote yourself poorer" idea now that Sturgeon has tried running the "there's more to indy than the economics" line without the idea being taken up.

I said the last indyref was all about the money, and the next one will be too - because that part will need to be lied about by the indy side as the only way they hope to take it over the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, eFestivals said:

It's an easy idea to fall into if you're not Scottish and so have missed the arguments and equate 'independence' to be full sovereignty. It's something that can be seen below the line at newspapers all the time from non-Scots who are new to the debate so don't know where it's at.

While Gaz got it a bit wrong, it's still a demonstrably important part of the debate - because the main driver for dislike of Westminster in Scotland is cuts.

is it? on what do you base this claim. I thought it was all flags & hatred of the English? Do make your mind up.

20 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Cuts that an iScotlland's membership of the EU will make look like a spending spree.

we don't know on what terms or when Scotland would join the EU. You used to say it was all but impossible. Do make your mind up.

20 hours ago, eFestivals said:

And cuts that Scotland has the powers to negate but doesn't wish to spend its own money on for its own benefit.

Whilst this is partially true it is not entirely true, Scotland has SOME powers to negate SOME of the cuts. Our governemnt uses SOME of its powers to negate SOME of these cuts. Could it do more? Yes. Should it do more? I believe it should. 

20 hours ago, eFestivals said:

So saying "Westminster cuts are bad, I want out" is reasonable enough up until you say "... to join the EU instead", because it removes all manoeuvring room from how the deficit issue might be addressed.

I repeat we do not know the terms on which Scotland would join the EU. It is certainly possible there would be some sort of phased arrangement.

20 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Then of course the parts of the EU that most in Scotland wants to truck with, but will have to accept as the consequences of leaving the UK for the EU. While Scottish minds might be changed, I can see no change right now in what Scots are saying in 2014.

I take it that should be "no truck with?"  if so , it makes a certain amount of sense (but not much) The 62% of us who voted to remain were presumably aware of our relationship with these parts when they cast their votes & took the view that it was still better to vote remain.

20 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Personally I think the EU want Scotland less than it wants the UK, and will bend even less to have them inside . There's too much baggage but all of the same Euroscepticism as caused the UK to just vote out, even from a huge chunk of indy supporters - cos you can still see th3ewm all saying "we won't have to join the Euro" and other fantasies, while the SNP laid out their own scepticism as well as Scotland's in the white paper in easy to read words for the EU.

I know you love the white paper - I picture a well thumbed copy at your bedside - but whatever it said or didn't say is entirely irrelevant in 2016. As far as the Euro is concerned, If Scotland's economy is as fucked as you claim, I would imagine the EU will hardly be whipping us to join the Euro in the foreseeable future. We may have to sign up to some commitment to adopt it at some time in the future & who knows what the future will be like - the Euro may well be a better option than the pound.

20 hours ago, eFestivals said:

The Irish in the North don't want to join the South, and the Irish in the South know they can't afford the North. Have you missed those important parts, I wonder?

I agree with you on this one ( although there certainly are significant minorities on both sides of the border who would love a United Ireland. However, it is politically just about impossible and woudl probably result in bloodshed.

20 hours ago, eFestivals said:

And with it just having been confirmed in court that there's nothing in the inter-nation agreements that stop brexit, it's full-brexit-ahead in N.Ireland.

Subject to appeal & no doubt further legal challenges.. but in the end you are probably right.

20 hours ago, eFestivals said:

The UK doesn't want to create a border with Ireland. If one appears there it'll be the doing of the Ireland or more likely the EU (without Ireland having a meaningful say) and not the UK.

So why does the UK want to create a border with Scotland? 

20 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Meanwhile, perhaps just dwell on that legal victory for the UK govt for a moment, cos I keep on hearing false claims of legalese around Scotland favouring the SNP's position, too. Nicola knows what's what, she's just admitted Scotland's legal subservience to the UK in the draft bill she published.

You are comparing apples with turnips here. The fact that Scotland's needs Westminster's permission to have an Indyref has no bearing on whether we have some sort of veto of Brexit.  As it happens I agree with you that Scotland has little ability to oppose brexit on legal grounds. This is a good article on the subject (it was written before the Northern Ireland court decision so the writer's prediction that it will fail lends some credence to his views)

http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/?m=1

he concludes:

"Legally, however, Holyrood can really only stage a weak, rear-guard action on the Brexit fallout. So long as we remain tethered to the UK government, we're tethered to its fate, outside of the European Union."  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, eFestivals said:

My example is perfect for showing that a nation state will claim to defend itself, yep - no matter what the constitutional status of Scotland might be. So not what you claimed.

And your own reply is perfect for showing yet again you have grand claims but no actual facts to back them up with.

This week you've claimed both experts and hyperbole on your side, when you can show no experts but do show your own hyperbole.

I have claimed (correctly ) to have quoted experts in the past every one of which you have dismissed. As I have not kept a box file with all my experts in it & have no interest in trawling through old posts to find them just so you can call the "matey" & rubbish them again, we will just have to leave this one for now. I am very confident that I will give you plenty of opportunity to demonstrate your intellectual superiority to "my experts" in the coming months. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Interesting article here
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/28/scotland-nhs-crisis-snp-brexit-nicola-sturgeon

For Gaz, it's written by Alex Bell. Known as a turncoat by snippers nowadays, he used to work for Uncle Alex as head of policy but nowadays feels free to voice fair criticism/comment while still being a supporter of indy in principle.

I wouldn't call him a turncoat. I woudl say he is clearly a man bearing a grudge.

18 hours ago, eFestivals said:

It outlines just how many twists and u-turns St Nicola is doing around the NHS in Scotland, where the only place she's actually done anything is to mirror the tories and he's suggesting she's about to go all out tory-type-solution.
(and when Nicola twists and u-turns her fanclub twist and u-turn with her)

Perhaps it would be better to read the Audit Scotland report rather than the interpretations of one man?

http://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/report/nhs-in-scotland-2016

This report is certainly critical of some areas of NHS Scotland's performance but it seems to me to show a Service that is experiencing broadly the same problems as the NHS in the rest of the UK and is certainly performing no worse (& in some areas significantly better) than its sister services in other parts of the Kingdom. Were your claims of the SNP callously starving the NHS of cash true, we woudl surely be performing much worse than the rest of the UK.

The truth is no major party in the UK is prepared to address the central problem of inflation in the health service being much higher than headline inflation. Coupled with an ageing population and a public expectation that every treatment devised by man should be provided by the NHS, all our Health Services have been in or close to financial crisis for pretty much all my life & will continue to be for the foreseeable future.

 

18 hours ago, eFestivals said:

He's also saying she doesn't want a referendum if she can help it, and I agree with that take. All the indicators are that it'll be another loss.

Or to rephrase it, well done Nicoal for respecting the result of the 2014 referendum.

18 hours ago, eFestivals said:

It's one thing grandstanding right now, but a real campaign will have the real issues dragged out again - and there's simply no way to rebut the "vote indy, vote yourself poorer" idea now that Sturgeon has tried running the "there's more to indy than the economics" line without the idea being taken up.

I said the last indyref was all about the money, and the next one will be too - because that part will need to be lied about by the indy side as the only way they hope to take it over the line.

Money money money. And all based on your "fact" of a £15bn (or whatever) Scottish deficit  which is a hypothetical, estimated figure based on the past and bears little relation to whatever deficit an Independent Scotland would have.

Quote

Doubts were cast over the financial prospects of an independent Scotland this summer, when Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) figures showed that Scotland’s deficit – the difference between public spending and income – is double the UK’s overall deficit when measured as a share of GDP. That has been caused by the global slump in oil prices, which mean Scotland’s share of north sea oil revenues has plummeted from £9.6 billion in 2011-12 to just £60 million in 2015-16. Commentators suggested that, under these conditions, Scotland would struggle to operate as an independent country. However, GERS data is produced for Scotland as part of the UK – it does not model scenarios for an independent Scotland in which the Scottish Government would be enabled to make its own fiscal choices.

 https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/uk/Documents/public-sector/deloitte-uk-sots-devolved-governments-2016.pdf

It seems to me that if and when we get our second Indyref, Nicola understands clearly that she will have to make a better economic case than Alex made last time. I am sure, if we are given the opportunity, we shall have some lively discussions on that case.I look forward to it. Perhaps then, you will finally throw out your old white paper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, LJS said:

is it? on what do you base this claim. I thought it was all flags & hatred of the English? Do make your mind up.

I base this claim on you. :)

You started off being all about the nasty cuts from Westminster, but following your emotional commitment to indy you've since become all about wrapping yourself in a flag and just hating the English/Westminster on any basis you think worthwhile*, even when it contradicts what you've said 5 minutes before.

* the 'worthwhile' is anything which you think might show Scotland in a positive light and England/Westminster as not, and where consistency & logic & facts & rational thinking are thrown out of the window to try and make it stand up.

You're doing it this way and I'm just pointing out that you have. And I remain consistent in doing so. Never mind, eh? :)

20 hours ago, LJS said:

we don't know on what terms or when Scotland would join the EU. You used to say it was all but impossible. Do make your mind up.

We know what the EU treaties say that Scotland would be signing up to if it joined the EU. :rolleyes:

And i've never said it would be impossible for Scotland to join, I've only said it would be impossible for Scotland to join in the terms the SNP have laughably said the EU would give Scotland. - with all of the UK's opt-outs, plus some extra opt-outs, giving Scotland the best deal of all EU countries.

Given that the only EU countries with opt-outs are the ones that were members prior to the new rules they've got opt-outs from, there is not a single thing to suggest Scotland would get more opt-outs than all other members.

 

20 hours ago, LJS said:

I repeat we do not know the terms on which Scotland would join the EU. It is certainly possible there would be some sort of phased arrangement.

There might be a phased arrangement.

There will not be an exemption from the requirement to run a 3% or less deficit. The best you can hope for is the EU accepting Scotland's planned cuts over a short time in order to comply with that requirement of a less-than 3% deficit.

After all, if every other country has to work to that 3% - and they do - then those other countries are not going to allow Scotland something different.

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why Ireland had to make some absolutely fucking humongous cuts in their public spending just after 2008?

FFS. :lol:

 

20 hours ago, LJS said:

I take it that should be "no truck with?"  if so , it makes a certain amount of sense (but not much) The 62% of us who voted to remain were presumably aware of our relationship with these parts when they cast their votes & took the view that it was still better to vote remain.

Yep, that should have been "no truck with".

I was referring to the no-greater-than 3% deficit rule, and the absolute requirement to join the Euro, and the absolute requirement to have a sovereign currency before EU entry.

Unless you've just become a fan of the much-more-than-tory-cuts that would be required for Scotland to enter the EU yourself, you're one of those who will have no truck with EU rules.

FFS. :lol:

 

20 hours ago, LJS said:

I know you love the white paper - I picture a well thumbed copy at your bedside - but whatever it said or didn't say is entirely irrelevant in 2016. As far as the Euro is concerned, If Scotland's economy is as fucked as you claim, I would imagine the EU will hardly be whipping us to join the Euro in the foreseeable future. We may have to sign up to some commitment to adopt it at some time in the future & who knows what the future will be like - the Euro may well be a better option than the pound.

The euro is the better option then the pound.

Scotland's problem from your point of view is that Scotland don't think so, meaning that having to give up the pound - an absolute requirement of EU entry since before 2000 - is going to cost indy some votes.

And worse than that, Scotland doesn't get to jump from the pound to the Euro without first having to establish its own sovereign currency. Just ask Motenegro or Macedonia (I forget which) about that one, which is currently not being admitted to the EU for just that reason.

And then ask the esteemed Prof Ronald McDonald about the costs of the currency issues.

And then ask yourself why poor old Ronald is currently being shunning from the SNP's latest economic whitewash committee that's stuffed full of SNP nodding-dogs (including the prof who doesn't know what the oil revenues are :lol:)

 

20 hours ago, LJS said:

So why does the UK want to create a border with Scotland? 

It doesn't. :rolleyes:

It's not the UK who are considering creating one, is it? FFS. :lol:

That doesn't mean the UK won't feel the need to create one in particular circumstances, tho - iScotland's immigration plans being one possible good reason.

Meanwhile, it's the SNP who actively want to create that border, because it's 100% clear from Sturgeon's words. She's said if the UK does a hard brexit she'll attempt to keep Scotland within the single market - which would require SCOTLAND (not England) to create a customs border as a requirement of EU single market rules for a border state.

That's exactly the same as looks like (possibly) happening in Ireland. The UK wants to keep the existing open arrangement but Ireland might be forced to create a border (even if it doesn't want to) by EU rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, LJS said:

I have claimed (correctly ) to have quoted experts in the past every one of which you have dismissed. As I have not kept a box file with all my experts in it & have no interest in trawling through old posts to find them just so you can call the "matey" & rubbish them again, we will just have to leave this one for now. I am very confident that I will give you plenty of opportunity to demonstrate your intellectual superiority to "my experts" in the coming months. 

 

PMSL. :lol:

You don't have any experts for me to dismiss.

Even those who might be viewed as real experts aren't that. Joe Stiglitz has said he talked crap for the SNP, and another member of that lauded fiscal commission - a Professor of economics no less - doesn't even understand the very basics of GERS and rejects it as valid on the basis of his displayed (in a letter to the FT) ignorance.

The only "experts" you have are Wings over Scotland and the Cuthberts, both of whom can be proven as not experts in what they're saying, with many of their 'expert' views able to be clearly demonsrated as false.

We can pick this up again if you ever supply another expert, but we both know they're exceedingly slim on the ground in support of indy, which is why the latest and new panel of 'experts' the SNP have just assembled is a laughable sham of SNP supporters, even rejecting the likes of the indy-friendly Prof Ronald MacDonald because he can't be trusted to lie for the SNP.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, LJS said:

wouldn't call him a turncoat. I woudl say he is clearly a man bearing a grudge.

says the man bearing a grudge at the man who's dared to go off message by pointing out the lies and flaws of the SNP. :lol:

20 hours ago, LJS said:

Perhaps it would be better to read the Audit Scotland report rather than the interpretations of one man?

http://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/report/nhs-in-scotland-2016

This report is certainly critical of some areas of NHS Scotland's performance but it seems to me to show a Service that is experiencing broadly the same problems as the NHS in the rest of the UK and is certainly performing no worse (& in some areas significantly better) than its sister services in other parts of the Kingdom. Were your claims of the SNP callously starving the NHS of cash true, we woudl surely be performing much worse than the rest of the UK.

The truth is no major party in the UK is prepared to address the central problem of inflation in the health service being much higher than headline inflation. Coupled with an ageing population and a public expectation that every treatment devised by man should be provided by the NHS, all our Health Services have been in or close to financial crisis for pretty much all my life & will continue to be for the foreseeable future.

Scottish solutions to Scottish problems, as outlined by Scottish Govt measures of Scottish good (or bad) service?

Nope, just "we're not as bad as you". :lol:

Obsessed with the English much? :lol:

And there was you decrying me having mentioned how hating England is about all there is to the indy campaign, and then you go and prove me right just as I knew you would, :P

I do love that the indepentantmentalists have to measure their own failures against someone else's while strutting about muttering sovereignty and the like. :lol:

If you care to look again at what i posted, I didn't even make any criticism of the state of Scotland's health service, I instead pointed out that "different" Scotland does the same as the tories (tho more-so, because Scotland has cut its NHS more than the tories have in England).

I guess that means that Scottish solutions to Scottish problems are the Scottish going the full tory and then some more. :P

 

 

20 hours ago, LJS said:

Or to rephrase it, well done Nicoal for respecting the result of the 2014 referendum.

That just shows how mindnumbingly biased you are. :lol:

We both know what she'd do if victory was assured in another indyref. :rolleyes:

 

20 hours ago, LJS said:

Money money money. And all based on your "fact" of a £15bn (or whatever) Scottish deficit  which is a hypothetical, estimated figure based on the past and bears little relation to whatever deficit an Independent Scotland would have.

PMSL. You say you have experts on your side and then guff out the most stupid thing you possibly can - without any expert back-up.

Even Sturgeon and Salmond say you're wrong. :lol:

The only way that deficit changes is with cuts in spending, in the UK or out of it. :rolleyes:

(OK, growth at a faster rate than the UK is another possible way, tho not when it would take over 100 years to bridge the gap in Salmond's own estimate ... meanwhile, the reality is that things are going the opposite way, and Scottish growth is lower).

 

20 hours ago, LJS said:

It seems to me that if and when we get our second Indyref, Nicola understands clearly that she will have to make a better economic case than Alex made last time. I am sure, if we are given the opportunity, we shall have some lively discussions on that case.I look forward to it. Perhaps then, you will finally throw out your old white paper.

If Nicola understands she needs to make a better economic case, Nicola also knows the game is over.

Cos it's just not possible to make a better economic case than the massive lie Salmond made last time when the economic were MUCH more in indy's favour (tho only via one good year; one good year won't fool people again, because they've had the proof of it being a lie).

It's no coincidence that Nicola recently tried out the line "there's more to indy than the economics". She tried it out, and she also noticed that it didn't fly.

So it's also no coincidence that Nicola is bottling what she'd threatened, and trying to step back from the revised-downwards thing she later threatened.

Why not ask Nicola how come she's not every keen for that 2nd ref? You'll learn something useful. :)

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

It's been a while, so i thought it's time for a quick catch-up.

Firstly we have the party who could deliver indy in 18 months saying they need 3+ years to handle just a teeny-weeny bit of welfare. For people so keen on independence, they're mighty shy of having any independence.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/15/devolution-scottish-welfare-being-used-political-football

More amusing is all the snippers in the comments below defending them to the hilt. :lol:

------

Next up we have a Putting Scotland First victory in the USA, but Scotland doesn't seem keen to congratulate a fellow Scottish nationalist, and when the USA has been promised as such a good future partner too. :P

-----

And then it's back to the EU, where those staunch unionists (snigger) - so it must be a lie, right? = The Cuthberts* have inadvertently pointed out a bit of flaw in the SNP's EU dream and the importance of the EU to Scotland.

(* who are quoted far and wide by snippers as the only economists sucker enough to risk their rep [tho retirement might be why they don't care] on a false case for indy)

Cos it's a little inconvenient that, according to The Cuthberts, Scottish exports to the EU (excluding rUK) have fallen by 26% (by value) in real terms between 2002 and 2014, while Scottish exports to non-EU (excluding rUK) have grown by 23% in the same period.

https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/9162/margaret-cuthbert-what-gers-and-brexit-reports-tell-us-about-scotlands-economy

-----

And just to round things off, we now have snippers claiming that Gibraltar is more important to Spain than Catalonia, because while Spain wouldn't and couldn't possibly penalise a desired iScotland entry into the EU that would set a precedent for a future independent Catalonia, it's now a certainty that Spain will penalise the UK around the Gibraltar/EU issue. :lol:

----

So now we're sat here waiting for the promised SNP alternative to Scottish brexit, the plan that's taking so long to deliver because of all the time spent saying others don't have a plan.

I wonder what it's going to say? :D

 

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/30/2016 at 8:23 AM, eFestivals said:

The only "experts" you have are Wings over Scotland and the Cuthberts, both of whom can be proven as not experts in what they're saying.........

 

 

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Cos it's a little inconvenient that, according to The Cuthberts, Scottish exports to the EU (excluding rUK) have fallen by 26% (by value) in real terms between 2002 and 2014, while Scottish exports to non-EU (excluding rUK) have grown by 23% in the same period.

 

 

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 10/27/2016 at 6:23 PM, eFestivals said:

Yup, back in yer box, or fuck off. That's it in a nutshell.

 

 

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

It's been a while, so i thought it's time for a quick catch-up.

 

 

Didn`t see much point in your "catch-up" post this afternoon. It contained all the same rhetoric as your post from last month which had captured your long held personal views in a " nutshell ".

 

Edited by comfortablynumb1910
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

It's been a while, so i thought it's time for a quick catch-up.

Firstly we have the party who could deliver indy in 18 months saying they need 3+ years to handle just a teeny-weeny bit of welfare. For people so keen on independence, they're mighty shy of having any independence.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/15/devolution-scottish-welfare-being-used-political-football

More amusing is all the snippers in the comments below defending them to the hilt. :lol:

As usual BTL shows neither "side" in their best light.

Funnily enough, all sides seem fairly happy with the way the negotiations are going if you can drag yourself away from the Guardian's normal SNP baad coverage - ( remember the snp debt mountain?) Let's try the good old Beeb 

 

 

Quote

 

The "split competency" plans were revealed in the minutes of a joint ministerial working group meeting in October, which was attended by Ms Constance, Scottish Secretary David Mundell, UK Work and Pensions Secretary Damian Green and Scottish Employability and Training Minister Jamie Hepburn.

Mr Green notes that the UK was "willing to commit to try the untested method of splitting competence", agreeing to transfer legislative power by June 2017 but retaining "executive competence" for several more years "to minimise risk and complexity".

Mr Mundell agreed this was a "pragmatic and novel approach", although the group did note that there was a "significant and untested legal process" involved.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37976223

 

I shall admit to knowing close to naff all about the details, nut it is clearly plausible that transfering bits of welfare provision whilst the majority stays with Westminster is in some ways more complicated than tranferring the whole lot.

 

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

------

Next up we have a Putting Scotland First victory in the USA, but Scotland doesn't seem keen to congratulate a fellow Scottish nationalist, and when the USA has been promised as such a good future partner too. :P

What on earth are you on about? Please please tell me you are not trying to draw parallels between the SNP & the indy movement & the Trump phenomenon. Is that because of the stuff Nicola says about grabbing men's cocks? 

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

-----

And then it's back to the EU, where those staunch unionists (snigger) - so it must be a lie, right? = The Cuthberts* have inadvertently pointed out a bit of flaw in the SNP's EU dream and the importance of the EU to Scotland.

(* who are quoted far and wide by snippers as the only economists sucker enough to risk their rep [tho retirement might be why they don't care] on a false case for indy)

Cos it's a little inconvenient that, according to The Cuthberts, Scottish exports to the EU (excluding rUK) have fallen by 26% (by value) in real terms between 2002 and 2014, while Scottish exports to non-EU (excluding rUK) have grown by 23% in the same period.

https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/9162/margaret-cuthbert-what-gers-and-brexit-reports-tell-us-about-scotlands-economy

I think this is the first time you have ever referred to them as the Cuthberts - it' usually the "Cuthberks" (ha ha, how witty) but of course now you are agreeing with them ... except, it's not them  - it's only Margaret, Jim must have been down the pub. Anyway your grasp of number is clearly poor as you overestimated the number of Cuthberks by 100%. Dearie me. 

Also the notion that she "inadvertently" pointed out a flaw in the SNP euro dream is just nonsense - The article is clearly critical of the SNp in a number of areas  - there is nothing inadvertent about it. It occurs to me that if the figures haven't taken into account inflation- have they taken into account currency fluctuations? Who knows? 

But let's assume the figures quoted are right - the growth in exports to non EU countries has been about the same as the reduction in imports to EU countries  - whilst we are in the single market - the Scottish Government's aim is to remain in the single market - and if (big if) they succeed there is nothing to suggest that would change. In other word's it's a broadly neutral thing.

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

-----

And just to round things off, we now have snippers claiming that Gibraltar is more important to Spain than Catalonia, because while Spain wouldn't and couldn't possibly penalise a desired iScotland entry into the EU that would set a precedent for a future independent Catalonia, it's now a certainty that Spain will penalise the UK around the Gibraltar/EU issue. :lol:

Do we? I haven't read that.

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

----

So now we're sat here waiting for the promised SNP alternative to Scottish brexit, the plan that's taking so long to deliver because of all the time spent saying others don't have a plan.

I wonder what it's going to say? :D

We've been promised the proposals by the end of the year. 6 months doesn't seem an unreasonable length of time for somethign which we are all agreed is quite challenging especially considering, as you accurately pointed out, the UK government doesn't appear to be anywhere near to having a plan.

I am more patient than you, clearly - I am happy to wait for the plan. I am sure we will have a wee chat about it when it arrives. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

 

 

:lol:

What don't you understand?

Your own side is saying that you're own side's EU dream is a crock of shit.

So who are the SNP going to use to "prove" that an independent Scotland in the EU is a better thing than a brexit Scotland as part of the UK?

No one at all, because there's now no one at all on the SNP's side.

Oh dear. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Didn`t see much point in your "catch-up" post this afternoon. It contained all the same rhetoric as your post from last month which had captured your long held personal views in a " nutshell ".

because we've previously talked here about The Cuthbert's saying the EU dream is a crock of shit?

I must have missed it when you posted about that. :P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, LJS said:

As usual BTL shows neither "side" in their best light.

Funnily enough, all sides seem fairly happy with the way the negotiations are going if you can drag yourself away from the Guardian's normal SNP baad coverage - ( remember the snp debt mountain?) Let's try the good old Beeb 

Yeah, I know the SNP are happy with Westminster holding power over Scotland. That's how much they love to be independent.

What part was too difficult for you?

The SNP would rather be involved in an untested process - that might fuck up badly onto Scottish people (I suspect that's what they're hoping, while claiming to do the best for Scotland) - to keep these powers with Westminster as long as possible, because their interest is not about working for Scotland themselves. 

 

Quote

I shall admit to knowing close to naff all about the details, nut it is clearly plausible that transfering bits of welfare provision whilst the majority stays with Westminster is in some ways more complicated than tranferring the whole lot.

No shit sherlock. :lol:

so ask yourself: why have the SNP asked for it to be done in that way?

Is it because they're keen to hold the responsibility themselves, or because they're not?

 

Quote

What on earth are you on about? Please please tell me you are not trying to draw parallels between the SNP & the indy movement & the Trump phenomenon. Is that because of the stuff Nicola says about grabbing men's cocks? 

Nicola has you by the balls. She definitely doesn't have you by the brain.

What have you missed about both 'nations' putting themselves first and not giving a shit about the effect on those outside of the border - or within them, too?

Power before sense.

 

Quote

I think this is the first time you have ever referred to them as the Cuthberts - it' usually the "Cuthberks" (ha ha, how witty) but of course now you are agreeing with them ... except, it's not them  - it's only Margaret, Jim must have been down the pub. Anyway your grasp of number is clearly poor as you overestimated the number of Cuthberks by 100%. Dearie me. 

One typo. Yes, a typo.. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, shoot the messenger. :lol:

 

Quote

Also the notion that she "inadvertently" pointed out a flaw in the SNP euro dream is just nonsense - The article is clearly critical of the SNp in a number of areas  - there is nothing inadvertent about it. It occurs to me that if the figures haven't taken into account inflation- have they taken into account currency fluctuations? Who knows? 

Now you're shooting the Cuthberts. :lol:

The figures HAVE taken into account inflation, which is why the percentages I quoted to you are the difference "in real terms",

FFS. :lol:

 

Quote

But let's assume the figures quoted are right - the growth in exports to non EU countries has been about the same as the reduction in imports to EU countries  - whilst we are in the single market - the Scottish Government's aim is to remain in the single market - and if (big if) they succeed there is nothing to suggest that would change. In other word's it's a broadly neutral thing.

The change of place of exports is a neutral thing, yep. 

The change of place of importance for exports is what it's flagging up. :rolleyes:

The SNP wish to tie Scotland to a place of decreasing importance (for Scottish exports) - an increasing (over time) disadvantage to Scotland -  while pretending there's couldn't be benefits via the alternative. For the economic case, it's damning.

Yep, there's similar happened for whole-UK, but to a significantly lesser extent. Economically, Scotland is moving away from the benefits of the EU far faster than the UK as a whole is doing.

 

Quote

Do we? I haven't read that.

I didn't say it was you, but surely you've noticed the sudden 'concern' in Scotland for Gibraltar? When talking about brexit, snippers like to also mention Gib and NI.

Some are going further, and delving into the thing I've highlighted, and showing how little of their thinking is joined up. If Spain would penalise for its own benefit over tiny Gibraltar, then it's 100% guaranteed they'd do the same around the Catalonia issue.

(feel free to take your pick on whether Spain would penalise or not, but they defo wouldn't penalise for Gib and not for Cat).

 

Quote

We've been promised the proposals by the end of the year. 6 months doesn't seem an unreasonable length of time for somethign which we are all agreed is quite challenging especially considering, as you accurately pointed out, the UK government doesn't appear to be anywhere near to having a plan.

If 6 months isn't an unreasonable timescale for the SNP, then it's also not an unreasonable time for Westminster - so (by your own logic) Sturgeon has no sound rationale for her criticisms of Westminster for not having a plan.

But the double standards go even further, cos Sturgeon didn't even start working on the Scottish plan till October.

 

Quote

I am more patient than you, clearly - I am happy to wait for the plan. I am sure we will have a wee chat about it when it arrives. 

I'm happy to wait, tho I am impatient for some big comedy. :)

Trump, UKIP, brexit, the SNP - all destructive shit stirrers, where the want is to destroy and not to build ... which funnily enough brings us full circle back to the SNP not wanting to be responsible for welfare.

No plans at all, or only plans of the Boris - say something, anything, and hope the morons will lap it up. It doesn't have to make sense as proven by the deliberate lies of the white paper.

Salmond was Farage's inspiration, Salmond showed how big the lies to the stupid can be.

 

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, LJS said:

A few lines in, and I immediately see that it's recommending Scotland isn't part of NATO.  iScotland couldn't be a member of NATO when that report recommending that iScotland doesn't meet the NATO spending requirements as stipulated in the NATO treaties.

(Yes, you might point out that some other member countries don't meet the spending requirements, but the screw is being turned on that in the last few years, and welcoming a new member who is stipulating that it won't meet that requirement isn't going to happen ... or are we going to get the same old bollocks of the world bending to the will of Scotland?).

So anyway, that's £1Bn of the missing £15bn claimed back. Only £14Bn to go. :P

I'll carry on reading, and see what other big changes to Scottish society it's recommending. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see iScotland won't take a share of its rightful debt, and reckons that rUK will happy spend £5Bn a year to pay Scotland's share.

I see that Common Weal refuses to recognise that Scotland already has an over-bloated number of public sector employees, and feels there's space to increase the number while making things cheaper when Scotland currently doesn't carry the full cost of that current over-bloating.

And I see they started with the answer of zero, and then decided who other than Scotland will make Scotland have a deficit of zero.

It's laughable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...