The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

Good to see your famous open mind in full flow this morning.

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, LJS said:

Good to see your famous open mind in full flow this morning.

What's closed-mind in what I've replied? 

I've pointed out what the article itself is claiming. FFS.

 

[russycarps]

Did anyone see that nice lady from MoneyWeek magazine on question time last night completely dismantle the case for independence in a couple of sentences?  

And who was the tit from the radical independence campaign (lol) who thought she could lecture people about the brexit vote,  but confessed she couldnt actually be bothered to turn out and vote herself? Is she one of those exceptional scots you raving nationalists like to crow about?  Embarrassing stuff.

Also, I swear peter dow was in the audience. Some middle aged whopper sat there in a homemade military costume. Sadly his raised hand was ignored.

QT is always highly amusing when it's set in scotland, and last night didnt disappoint.

 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, russycarps said:

Did anyone see that nice lady from MoneyWeek magazine on question time last night completely dismantle the case for independence in a couple of sentences?  

It's easy to completely dismantle the economic case for independence, but...

MoneyWeek? Really?

C'mon Russy, there's plenty of credible sources to dismantle it with. Why reference an arse-wipe?

 

1 minute ago, russycarps said:

And who was the tit from the radical independence campaign (lol) who thought she could lecture people about the brexit vote,  but confessed she couldnt actually be bothered to turn out and vote herself? Is she one of those exceptional scots you raving nationalists like to crow about?  Embarrassing stuff.

Also, I swear peter dow was in the audience. Some middle aged whopper sat there in a homemade military costume. Sadly his raised hand was ignored.

QT is always highly amusing when it's set in scotland, and last night didnt disappoint.

 

I didn't see it, but it sounds like great comedy. I'll take a look on iPlayer.

 

[russycarps]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

It's easy to completely dismantle the economic case for independence, but...

MoneyWeek? Really?

C'mon Russy, there's plenty of credible sources to dismantle it with. Why reference an arse-wipe?

 

I didn't see it, but it sounds like great comedy. I'll take a look on iPlayer.

 

she couldnt have been more perfectly picked. A horrible condescending right-wing englishwoman. The raving nationalists in the audience were fuming.

 

[eFestivals]

I've just wet myself at Scot claiming that Farage and Trump are the ones who invented post-truth.

[eFestivals]

and now I'm wetting myself at RIC woman saying Clinton won because she won the popular vote.

Here's betting she rejects the popular vote for brexit.

[eFestivals]

and now i'm wetting myself at RIC woman saying the EU ref was "foisted" onto us by tory party splits, completely ignoring that for a long time a majority wanted a vote. Is she also saying that the wants of people in Scotland for an indyref should always be ignored? :

She's just done her "I didn't vote" bit. Funny as fuck.

And now a woman suggesting special status and special rights over others for Scotland is being cheered by indy supporters. 

Anyone want to tell me again that Scottish indy is fuck all like Trump?

Edited November 18, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

What's closed-mind in what I've replied? 

I've pointed out what the article itself is claiming. FFS.

 

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

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, LJS said:

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

The suggested cut in defence spending in that article is £1bn.. There's a deficit of £15Bn, which that article recognises.

I posted that comment when saying I was only a few lines in, and finished off by saying I was off to read some more of the article (so making clear that wasn't a comment on the whoole article but just the first part).

What don't you understand?

FFS.

What I understand is that you're now faking a row about something entirely different to distract from the very poor ideas laid out in that article you recommended. It's what you so often do.

Why no intelligent comment, referencing reality?

[LJS]

9 hours ago, russycarps said:

Did anyone see that nice lady from MoneyWeek magazine on question time last night completely dismantle the case for independence in a couple of sentences?  

no, I missed that - I did see question time though!! 

9 hours ago, russycarps said:

And who was the tit from the radical independence campaign (lol) who thought she could lecture people about the brexit vote,

Cat Boyd. I quite like her - she is a bit radical though. Not popular with large bits of the indy movement - particularly the Bishop of Bath's congregation

9 hours ago, russycarps said:

 but confessed she couldnt actually be bothered to turn out and vote herself?

You know what? I'm a great proponent of voting & believe everyone should vote. But, I quite admired her honesty. Pretty much anyone else would have lied. Maybe she is starting post - post -truth politics 

9 hours ago, russycarps said:

 Is she one of those exceptional scots you raving nationalists like to crow about?

No. We don't have any more exceptional Scots than you have exceptional Brits - which is why we don't crow about them

9 hours ago, russycarps said:

 Embarrassing stuff.

I wasn't embarrassed, were you?

9 hours ago, russycarps said:

Also, I swear peter dow was in the audience. Some middle aged whopper sat there in a homemade military costume. Sadly his raised hand was ignored.

QT is always highly amusing when it's set in scotland, and last night didnt disappoint.

Glad we didn't disappoint you Russy

 

[LJS]

9 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I've just wet myself at Scot claiming that Farage and Trump are the ones who invented post-truth.

 

9 hours ago, eFestivals said:

and now I'm wetting myself at RIC woman saying Clinton won because she won the popular vote.

Here's betting she rejects the popular vote for brexit.

 

9 hours ago, eFestivals said:

and now i'm wetting myself at RIC woman saying the EU ref was "foisted" onto us by tory party splits, completely ignoring that for a long time a majority wanted a vote. Is she also saying that the wants of people in Scotland for an indyref should always be ignored? :

She's just done her "I didn't vote" bit. Funny as fuck.

And now a woman suggesting special status and special rights over others for Scotland is being cheered by indy supporters. 

Anyone want to tell me again that Scottish indy is fuck all like Trump?

Are you ok, Neil? I'm worried you might have drowned.  

 

[LJS]

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

The suggested cut in defence spending in that article is £1bn.. There's a deficit of £15Bn, which that article recognises.

I posted that comment when saying I was only a few lines in, and finished off by saying I was off to read some more of the article (so making clear that wasn't a comment on the whoole article but just the first part).

What don't you understand?

FFS.

What I understand is that you're now faking a row about something entirely different to distract from the very poor ideas laid out in that article you recommended. It's what you so often do.

Why no intelligent comment, referencing reality?

Why? because I haven't yet had the chance to read the full report which I'd imagine I'll do sometimes over the weekend. 

Also I didn't recommend it unless suggesting that  "you'll want to have a gander at this" counts as a recommendation. 

Of course, what you overlook is that any projection for the future has to make assumptions. You & chokka make the rather large assumption that the notional deficit in GERS will be the same as the actual deficit in an Indy Scotland. This guy takes a different approach and starts from scratch. Of course you will disagree with some of his assumptions  - and I'm sure I will too. 

I will certainly give a more considered opinion when I get round to reading it. 

I'll make a couple of very brief points:

Nato: Scotland's value to NATO is pretty much entirely its location in the North Atlantic. Whether Scotland spends £1.9Bn or £3Bn or even more on defence - the size of our armed forces will be entirely insignificant. On a personal note, I don't really care if we are in NATO or not. 

Debt. This will inevitably be the subject of negotiations over not only the distribution of not only debt, but also assets. It seems entirely plausible that ends up with Scotland foregoing some of its share of assets in excahnge for a lower share of debt.

 

 

[LJS]

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

You know what? I'm a great proponent of voting & believe everyone should vote. But, I quite admired her honesty. Pretty much anyone else would have lied. Maybe she is starting post - post -truth politics 

her honesty would only stand up as a good point is she's not later contradicted herself around the importance of voting. 

It ended up as being just that indie is important to her - which is fair enough, but she was pretending to have more to say and proved she didn't.

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

I thought you said you'd seen question time?

Did you watch it with your eyes shut and your fingers in your ears?

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

Also I didn't recommend it unless suggesting that  "you'll want to have a gander at this" counts as a recommendation. 

But why do you think I'd want to have a gander at it, unless you were recommending it as saying something interesting?

For a switched on brain, the VERY big issues with what its saying jumped out immediately - that it was short of NATO requirements, and that pretty much the rest is "England will fund Scotland's independence", tho also with some head-in-the-sand stuff about the facts of public employees in Scotland.

If you missed that, where the fuck is your brain?

Even as a supporter you should be reading this sort of stuff critically - rather than lapping it up - to see whether you think there's anything sensible within it.

Arguments can be made about whether NATO membership is really necessary, tho what's beyond doubt is Scotland's attachment to NATO and it's necessity to get indy over the line if indy is ever going to get over the line.

But you know what? I reckon the goalposts have just moved, and they'll never be an indyref in Scotland on a 50%+1 basis. I reckon things are very definitely back into the territory of super-majorities for this sort of thing now.

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

Nato: Scotland's value to NATO is pretty much entirely its location in the North Atlantic. Whether Scotland spends £1.9Bn or £3Bn or even more on defence - the size of our armed forces will be entirely insignificant. On a personal note, I don't really care if we are in NATO or not. 

Cos no one else can patrol international waters...?

NATO is a club with rules. Those rules say everyone pays in at at-least 4% of GDP. 

And you're claiming, again, that Scotland is so super-special to other countries that Scotland doesn't have to play by the agreed rules because other countries are happy to pay for Scotland.

For other similar claims of Scottish exceptionalism and self-importance also see:-

1. what the white paper says about how the EU will give Scotland better terms of membership than all other countries.
2. the EU ref and demands of a veto.
3. what Sturgeon has said about the EU since the EUref.
etc etc etc.

 

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

Debt. This will inevitably be the subject of negotiations over not only the distribution of not only debt, but also assets. It seems entirely plausible that ends up with Scotland foregoing some of its share of assets in excahnge for a lower share of debt.

What assets outside Scotland do you think Scotland has a claim on? Without having a list and the values, you're just making it up. 

I hope £10,000 is going to mysteriously appear in my bank account, just because I think it should do. What do you reckon the chances are of that £10k being in my bank account is? 

[LJS]

48 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

What assets outside Scotland do you think Scotland has a claim on? Without having a list and the values, you're just making it up. 

I hope £10,000 is going to mysteriously appear in my bank account, just because I think it should do. What do you reckon the chances are of that £10k being in my bank account is? 

Of course I don't have a list. I'm not going to be doing the negotiating. are you saying there is no negotiation required over assets that currently belong to the UK? 

[LJS]

54 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Cos no one else can patrol international waters...?

Of course they can. and I have no doubt that the strategic value of lots of places has lessened due to improved technology, sattelite surveillance etc. 

However there is still value in being able to install kit near where you want it to function. 

54 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

NATO is a club with rules. Those rules say everyone pays in at at-least 4% of GDP. 

Which as you have admitted, are ignored by many members.

54 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

And you're claiming, again, that Scotland is so super-special to other countries that Scotland doesn't have to play by the agreed rules because other countries are happy to pay for Scotland.

No I'm not. I'm saying I think Scotland is too small to matter militarily but has some value geographically.

54 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

For other similar claims of Scottish exceptionalism and self-importance also see:-

1. what the white paper says about how the EU will give Scotland better terms of membership than all other countries.

What has the white paper got to do with this?

54 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

2. the EU ref and demands of a veto.

Politics, dear boy, politics.

54 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

3. what Sturgeon has said about the EU since the EUref.
etc etc etc.

Clearly running out of ideas now. it's always the problem when you try that list thing.

 

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

But why do you think I'd want to have a gander at it, unless you were recommending it as saying something interesting?

I think it gives a different view of Scotland's likely financial position after Indy. you appear to take some interest in the subject so I guessed you would like to read it.

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

For a switched on brain, the VERY big issues with what its saying jumped out immediately - that it was short of NATO requirements, and that pretty much the rest is "England will fund Scotland's independence", tho also with some head-in-the-sand stuff about the facts of public employees in Scotland.

If you missed that, where the fuck is your brain?

As I said  I haven't read the full report & I have responded to a couple of your points.

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Even as a supporter you should be reading this sort of stuff critically - rather than lapping it up - to see whether you think there's anything sensible within it.

I agree. which is why at no stage have I said "this is great, it proves Scotland will be rich"

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Arguments can be made about whether NATO membership is really necessary, tho what's beyond doubt is Scotland's attachment to NATO and it's necessity to get indy over the line if indy is ever going to get over the line.

Is that really beyond doubt? I doubt it.

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

But you know what? I reckon the goalposts have just moved, and they'll never be an indyref in Scotland on a 50%+1 basis. I reckon things are very definitely back into the territory of super-majorities for this sort of thing now.

You might be right. or you might be wrong. 

Who knows?

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

her honesty would only stand up as a good point is she's not later contradicted herself around the importance of voting. 

It ended up as being just that indie is important to her - which is fair enough, but she was pretending to have more to say and proved she didn't.

Cat can be accused of many things. Only being interested in Indy is definitely not one. it's why many of the wingnuts don't like her.

Edited November 19, 2016 by LJS

[eFestivals]

25 minutes ago, LJS said:

Of course I don't have a list. I'm not going to be doing the negotiating. are you saying there is no negotiation required over assets that currently belong to the UK? 

if you can't identify the assets that might be negotiated over to Scotland's favour, there cannot be a belief that there'd be anything to Scotland's favour from negotiations.

Otherwise you could just as easily claim that Scotland will be paying the UK, and it's no less reasonable - but here's betting you'd think that outcome impossible. 

So without listing what it is that exists as UK assets that for some practical reason rUK gets to keep and will owe Scotland for its share, this is empty hot air.

PS: they'll be lots of 'contra trading' of (say) "we get all 100 aircraft and you get 2 warships" (or whatever) type of thing, but that's something different.

Edited November 19, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

19 minutes ago, LJS said:

Which as you have admitted, are ignored by many members.

Those members have made the committment of 4%.

That paper is saying scotland will refuse to make that commitment.

That paper is saying Scotland will not agree to NATO terms unless NATO comes up with a special set of more-beneficial terms just for Scotland.

It's laughable, just as it's laughable for the UK to expect the EU to give the UK more-beneficial terms than the other members over free movement of people.

 

19 minutes ago, LJS said:

No I'm not. I'm saying I think Scotland is too small to matter militarily but has some value geographically.

Exceptional Scotland.

international Treaty clubs don't work like that, they don't have special members with special terms just because of how super-snowflake special that member thinks of itself.

 

19 minutes ago, LJS said:

What has the white paper got to do with this?

I'm just pointing out that it's more of the same "Scotland is so special to the world that the world will treat Scotland differently to how it treats all other countries" bollocks that was in the white paper.

It's not quite of the level of Salmond saying that Scotland can vote itself rights to the currency of another country, tho, I'll give you that. That took an exceptional amount of exceptionalism to go that far into nuttyland.