The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

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.

You wanted a list.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-national-asset-register

[eFestivals]

21 minutes ago, LJS said:

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.

It's easy to give a different view of Scotland's financial position - just make up any old bollocks and say "look, sorted".

Nothing of doing that makes it the "likely" thing you claim,k tho. :rolleyes:

I've pointed out where it's laughable and why. You're defending it, but without answers tho those laughable issues.

 

21 minutes ago, LJS said:

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

but you have claimed it "likely".

So why is it likely, when it has those issues?

Only because a man who gives an outcome you like has said it, that's all.

Which is more laughable than that article.

 

21 minutes ago, LJS said:

Is that really beyond doubt? I doubt it.

I refer you to previous discussion around NATO membership in Scotland. It's no coincidence that the SNP support NATO membership. FFS

 

21 minutes ago, LJS said:

You might be right. or you might be wrong. 

Who knows?

The facts normally give a good indictaion. remember them?

More importantly, do you have any of them? If you do, want to give the facts in support of that article, rather than you merely wanting it to be true?

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, LJS said:

You wanted a list.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-national-asset-register

PMSL

So nothing then.

I asked for a list of things that after dividing up all the obvious things, Scotland would be left without it's fair share of, to give it the financial benefit that's claimed.

BTW, the claimed saving of £1.7Bn pa in that article is Scotland being let-off about 50% of its debts.

You mentioned "politics, dear boy". Who do you think in rUk wants to give Scotland undeserved freebies?

FFS.

 

[LJS]

"NATO's official guidelines say member states should spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense. Of the 28 countries in the alliance, only five -- the U.S., Greece, Poland, Estonia and the U.K. -- meet the target. The rest lag behind. Germany spent 1.18% of its GDP on defense last year, France forked out 1.8%.15 Apr 2016

[LJS]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

PMSL

So nothing then.

I asked for a list of things that after dividing up all the obvious things, Scotland would be left without it's fair share of, to give it the financial benefit that's claimed.

No you didn't. you just asked for a list of assets.

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

BTW, the claimed saving of £1.7Bn pa in that article is Scotland being let-off about 50% of its debts.

That of course depends on how you work out our liability. there are different ways of doing so.

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

You mentioned "politics, dear boy". Who do you think in rUk wants to give Scotland undeserved freebies?

No one. which is why I haven't made any such claim.

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

FFS.

 

Does that stand for freedom for Scotland?

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

 

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

 

4%? really?

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, LJS said:

4%? really?

My error, cos it's roughly 4% of govt spending.

17 minutes ago, LJS said:

"NATO's official guidelines say member states should spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense. Of the 28 countries in the alliance, only five -- the U.S., Greece, Poland, Estonia and the U.K. -- meet the target. The rest lag behind. Germany spent 1.18% of its GDP on defense last year, France forked out 1.8%.15 Apr 2016

Yep, and have you paid any attention to what NATO has been saying since before then, and trump is saying even louder?

Scotland will have to give the 2% commitment, which means it won't be able to commit to less to people in Scotland, and that article goes up in smoke.

 

[eFestivals]

16 minutes ago, LJS said:

That of course depends on how you work out our liability. there are different ways of doing so.

whichever method is used, the servicing of the debt comes out much the same in all versions, with any variance too small to make any significance difference to anything (tho an extra £100M, perhaps, is always useful of course).

 

16 minutes ago, LJS said:

No one. which is why I haven't made any such claim.

But you have presented me with an article which has, and said you think what the article says is "likely".

[LJS]

10 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

 

But you have presented me with an article which has, and said you think what the article says is "likely".

No I haven't. I did say  "I think it gives a different view of Scotland's likely financial position after Indy"

Which clearly gives no view either way on the accuracy of the paper. I will repeat: as i haven't read it, I have not formed a final opinion.  I think it is certainly useful to have another view from the GERS view of Chokka. What I am fairly sure of is that neither will be 10% correct.

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, LJS said:

No I haven't. I did say  "I think it gives a different view of Scotland's likely financial position after Indy"

Which clearly gives no view either way on the accuracy of the paper. I will repeat: as i haven't read it, I have not formed a final opinion.  I think it is certainly useful to have another view from the GERS view of Chokka. What I am fairly sure of is that neither will be 10% correct.

It's nothing about GERS, it's about post-indy spending.

[LJS]

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It's nothing about GERS, it's about post-indy spending.

What's nothing about GERS? Chokka has been banging on about GERS endlessly - his whole case for Scotland been an economic basket case is based on GERS. Or are you saying because he has written one post about spending his has withdrawn all his previous graphs & spreadsheets?

[Comfy Bean]

On 18/11/2016 at 9:24 AM, russycarps said:

The raving nationalists in the audience were fuming.

 

Have still to catch up on the rest of the programme but will do so over the weekend.

I did see the rule brittania dude in the orange cagoule though before I hit the hay. He was banging on about the SNP being on all the losing sides. He could hardly contain his SNP bad glee when advising that in the indy ref, the ge, the Brexit vote, the Trump victory he had been on the winning side while the SNP bad were losers in every single vote !

Makes you reflect that sometimes it`s better to not be on the " winning " side.

Imagine the state he`ll get himself in to if / when Scotland becomes indy . Maybe he`ll move to Wales like these fellas.

 

 

[Comfy Bean]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

It's easy to give a different view of Scotland's financial position - just make up any old bollocks.....

 

Agreed 

I don`t remember anyone who`s posted on here in favour of Scotland being perfectly capable of becoming an independent Country EVER claiming that it would be an easy path paved with gold while the rivers run with oil and money falls from the sky ( or your magic tree  )

If anyone has predicted a smooth ride to great riches then please pull up their whole post and I will stand corrected.

I have however seen many, many posts predicting disaster / basket case / cave dwelling.

#crystalball

 

[LJS]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

My error, cos it's roughly 4% of govt spending.

Yep, and have you paid any attention to what NATO has been saying since before then, and trump is saying even louder?

Is that one of the things trump has said that he actually means?

Because when it suits your argument, you are happy to claim he doesn't mean what he says.

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Scotland will have to give the 2% commitment, which means it won't be able to commit to less to people in Scotland, and that article goes up in smoke.

 

Neil, you know very well how these things work. If NATO want Scotland in, there will be a way for Scotland to give some airy fairy commitment which never happens.

[LJS]

Oh, by the way I've read the common weal paper now & here's what I think.

It makes sense on debt & defence.

It is wildly optimistic on pensions.

I have no idea how accurate it is on civil service jobs as I don't know whether there would be a net increase in the number of posts located on Scotland after Indy. I have tried to look for this info without success in the past. Clearly if we are currently paying for 50,000 civil servants but only 40,000 are based on Scotland, there is a big economic benefit. The opposite is clearly true as well. 

So, overall, in my view, he makes a good case that things are better than Chokka claims, but falls short of proving his whole case.

[eFestivals]

22 hours ago, LJS said:

What's nothing about GERS? Chokka has been banging on about GERS endlessly - his whole case for Scotland been an economic basket case is based on GERS. Or are you saying because he has written one post about spending his has withdrawn all his previous graphs & spreadsheets?

GERS lists Scottish income and spending. It's relevant for both non-indy and indy with those spendings and revenues.

GERS only becomes "nothing" if income or spending changes, tho even then GERS has use. because the effect of any change can be measured against the numbers in GERS.

FFS. :lol:

When you point at some made-up numbers and want to believe they say something meaningful, you're only proving how much you reject reality.

If you want someone to have belief in the made up numbers, you need to show why those made up numbers might actually become the reality.

So: show why NATO would accept iScotland as a member when iScotland has a public commitment to never meet NATO's terms (which is something no other member has done, in case it has passed you by).

So: show why rUK would gift iScotland £3.5Bn a year towards its pension costs.

So: show why rUK will reduce iScotland's share of national debt by around 40%.

Making up some numbers or pointing at some numbers and saying "that's how it will be" is utterly laughable.

[eFestivals]

20 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Agreed 

I don`t remember anyone who`s posted on here in favour of Scotland being perfectly capable of becoming an independent Country EVER claiming that it would be an easy path paved with gold while the rivers run with oil and money falls from the sky ( or your magic tree  )

If anyone has predicted a smooth ride to great riches then please pull up their whole post and I will stand corrected.

I have however seen many, many posts predicting disaster / basket case / cave dwelling.

#crystalball

 

So, having accepted that iScotland could not meet its current spending commitments with current revenues and spending - you have just accepted that, yes? - you then need to say how it might make the books balance*.

(* or, more correctly, make them work at an acceptable level, by running an average deficit of less than 3% - which means [in sensible-land] aiming for less than 2% deficit via revenue raising and spending policies).

Which means telling us all how the revenues will rise (and how and why), or what spending will be cut.

Pointing at some fantasy numbers as LJS did is not how that's done.

Until that's done, only the "disaster / basket case / cave dwelling" outcomes apply.

Edited November 20, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

19 hours ago, LJS said:

Is that one of the things trump has said that he actually means?

Because when it suits your argument, you are happy to claim he doesn't mean what he says.

Some of us pay attention, and some of us don't.

The demand that other NATO members pay the share they've committed to contribute is a NATO theme that long predates Trump. Trump is merely repeating what already exists.

 

19 hours ago, LJS said:

Neil, you know very well how these things work. If NATO want Scotland in, there will be a way for Scotland to give some airy fairy commitment which never happens.

I don't disagree.

But if Scotland has a *public* commitment to *never* meet NATO's spending rules, the room for that airy-fairy has gone.

The article you pointed to requires Scotland to be making that public commitment, as a "this is the only way Scotland can be financially viable" thing.

The other members just can't accept the political consequences of someone else getting a *guaranteed* better deal than they are getting for themselves. It's exactly the same thing with the EU and the UK's brexit wants.

The only way Scotland could achieve membership on a "we won't pay our dues" basis is via a smoke and mirrors trick, where what is publicly presented is different to what really happens - which means the savings to make the books balance can't be achieved by saying NATO won't be paid the full amount,.

 

[eFestivals]

19 hours ago, LJS said:

Oh, by the way I've read the common weal paper now & here's what I think.

It makes sense on debt & defence.

Care to now list then the things that are UK assets that Scotland will rightly be compensated for?

Without the list, you can't sensibly claim it makes sense.

And see above for how much sense publicly committing to not paying full NATO dues makes.

 

19 hours ago, LJS said:

It is wildly optimistic on pensions.

No shit sherlock.

And, it should be noted, pensions is where the bulk of the claimed savings in that article comes from.

 

19 hours ago, LJS said:

I have no idea how accurate it is on civil service jobs as I don't know whether there would be a net increase in the number of posts located on Scotland after Indy. I have tried to look for this info without success in the past. Clearly if we are currently paying for 50,000 civil servants but only 40,000 are based on Scotland, there is a big economic benefit. The opposite is clearly true as well. 

The public sector in Scotland - both whole-UK & Scottish funded - is currently approximately 20% greater than it should be against the UK average.

Care to tell me how bloating it further as that article suggests is a saving? 
(don't forget, Scotland will be paying the full costs all of those public sector employees, which it doesn't currently)

 

19 hours ago, LJS said:

So, overall, in my view, he makes a good case that things are better than Chokka claims, but falls short of proving his whole case.

What?

Chokka doesn't make any future case. He lays out the problems that exist now, and says no one is presenting any realistic solutions for the future.
(if someone does present a claimed solution, he analyses those claims)

You even have to lie about that, or you're too fucking stupid to understand any of it.

Hoping that NATO will let Scotland off a bililon quid is just an empty hope until such time as NATO starts to suggest it might allow it.

Hoping that rUK will let Scotland off 40% of it's national debt share is just an empty hope without giving the details of what it might be sensibly recompensed for.

Hoping that rUK will pay 20% of iScotland's pensions bill is just an empty hope without giving sensible justifications for why it might

Etc, etc, etc.

It's a piece of piss to present "an alternative". Making an alternative fit with reality is far far harder - which is why no one is able to do it, not even the Scottish Govt who desperately want to be able to do it and have a world of resources with which to come up with it if it's possible to do.

FFS.

[Comfy Bean]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

So: show why rUK would gift iScotland £3.5Bn a year towards its pension costs.

 

Not sure what you mean here, please explain " costs " and the figure your giving plus " gift ". Genuine question 

Are you talking about the state retirement pension payments going forward of people currrently living in Scotland who would continue to do so after indy ?

[Comfy Bean]

On 11/18/2016 at 9:29 AM, eFestivals said:

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

 

Each to their own but I thought she raised an interesting point on the way voting systems are set up, not just in the US. 

If someone anywhere receives millions more votes than their opponent then I think there is a debate to be had rather than just pointing and laughing at the person who dares to challenge the way the system is set up. I`ve watched it this morning and for me that is all she was doing.

[Comfy Bean]

On 11/19/2016 at 7:41 AM, eFestivals said:

I thought you said you'd seen question time?

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

I hope.....really hope that you are not suggesting that the reactions of the pantomime that has for years now become the qt audience is a way to gauge Scottish opinion on Brexit ?

A far better way to gauge it would be to use the facts and figure from a very recent referendum on that very subject 

Much as it annoys you, lets remember the fact that ALL 32 Scottish counts voted to remain. Every single area whether rural or urban. All 32 voted to stay in the EU. We are now leaving the EU.

We are at a new low if you are trying to use the Beeb QT audience against these hard facts. 

The 32 counts plus the fact that the people who live in Scotland returned 1 ( one ) Tory MP to Westminster buried the myth that the folk living in Scotland can`t hold views that are that different to those in rUK. To be clear different doesn`t mean better but different they clearly are and the opportunity / responsibility to take that different path that we voted for is what some of us have been arguing for.

Looks unlikely that we will get back in our box anytime soon 

[Comfy Bean]

On our income and expenditure, I still think that over the years of this Westminster parliament more exposure will come down on the reductions in the block grant and the smoke and mirrors of the barnett consequentials as all corners of the UK struggle with the effects of Brexit.

Going forward as the powers transfer to Holyrood the challenge for the Scottish Govt will be to have enough folk working and paying tax with more burden falling on those who earn more. This last bit won`t be popular with many and will become a vote opportunity for the Tories. If Indy had been won last time round then this would not have been such an issue for NS.

If we accept that we are in a 50 / 50 zone on indy then NS can`t lose a single yes voter and Ruth is already clear that she wants to cut taxes. As we have all discussed before, this could be why the SNP are taking baby steps with things like higher council tax on the bigger bands only. 

We need jobs, we need free movement of people so more people can come and live ( more housing ) and work in Scotland and we need to maximise the tax take from those working in higher paid jobs. Easy lol ! 

[eFestivals]

19 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Not sure what you mean here, please explain " costs " and the figure your giving plus " gift ". Genuine question 

Are you talking about the state retirement pension payments going forward of people currrently living in Scotland who would continue to do so after indy ?

I'm referring to that article LJS linked to, which states that rUK will pay a chunk of of the pension costs within an iScotland,

So you need to refer your question to them, and ask them why they others will pay the bills that are rightfully Scotland's.

 

[eFestivals]

19 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Each to their own but I thought she raised an interesting point on the way voting systems are set up, not just in the US. 

If someone anywhere receives millions more votes than their opponent then I think there is a debate to be had rather than just pointing and laughing at the person who dares to challenge the way the system is set up. I`ve watched it this morning and for me that is all she was doing.

All voting systems have anoimilies cause issues to the people who don't get the result they think they should have. 

You know, like the regular one from Scotland, about how the vote in Scotland doesn't count as Scotland but counts as part of the UK ... which, funnily enough, is what RIC woman was saying is the perfect thing when  talking of the USA .... tho here's betting she thinks it less perfect when talking of Scotland and not the USA.

The electorate picks itself a system, and that the system that creates the valid result. That's the *ONLY* way a valid result is decided, to the rules.

If you don't like the rules campaign to have those rules changed, but in the meantime the result under the current system is still the result.

Edited November 21, 2016 by eFestivals