The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

19 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

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 ?

It's a way.

And given that the audience itself was referring to opinion in Scotland, I think what is opinion in Scotland is pretty clear, given that the polls say the same thing.

 

19 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

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

Thart Scotland doesn't wish to be independent?

Yes, why don't you do what you're suggesting?

 

19 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

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.

Yep, the UK voted on it on a whole-UK basis, and Bristol voted remain to. As did London. As did Manchester.

Why is Scotland special, super special, so very special it's leader demanded that tiny Scotland should decide the result for everyone else? Was that because she beliives in equality, or because she doesn't (like Trump)?

Because the UK believes in equality, the UK is leaving the EU.

Campaign for making Scotland great again if you want. Maybe you can get Trump to come and campaign for the special rights over others you both think your nationals should have.

 

19 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

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

What about all the other hard facts that the Beeb QT audience align with? Don't they count?

 

19 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

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 

People can vote how they like, that's what voting is meant to be about.

As is accepting the rules for that vote.

Rather than demanding that Scottish votes have a greater value than other votes in the UK, as your glorious leader did. So much for civic, when fascism is her thing.

[eFestivals]

19 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

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 ! 

You do realise that creating jobs that you need non-Scottish people for keeps Scotland in the same place, don't you?

Or is some simple adding up and substraction not your strong point?

What Scotland needs (to make the deficit go away) are some super-special higher-profits jobs. Which, given the way of the world, just isn't going to happen.

Never mind tho. It means there's decades more comedy from ideas like the one LJS presented a link to.

Edited November 21, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

On 11/18/2016 at 8:39 AM, LJS said:

Morning, Neil ...I'm sure you'll want to have a gander at this.

https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/9879/report-beyond-gers-scotlands-fiscal-position-post-independence

Just delving into this a bit further.

And I noticed it's starting premise...

"The very act of independence will result in significant redistributions and reallocations of government resources which will likely result in economic benefits accruing to Scotland."

When "research" like this assumes that rUK will pay the Scottish pensions bill just because the UK said the UK is liable (as it did with the national debt but which doesn't mean the UK accepts this liability in all circumstances, as it's also made clear), the research is shown as a crock of shit because it makes this wrong assumption. It's laughable.

If stuff like this is what's being bigged up in Scotland as indy economic salvation, there's some absolutely massive educational problems (or worse) within Scotland and an indy Scotland can *only* end in failure.

[eFestivals]

There's also the stuff where it references tax revenues as a % of GDP, and picks the high taxing countries. Notice that it's picking the high taxing countries, not the countries which are efficient i collecting taxes.

But the 'research' doesn't measure anything of the effect of taxes being higher - which is taking money out of your pocket, making you poorer.

Which isn't a 'saving' it's a transfer of wealth from 'the people' to 'the govt'. 

Higher taxes might be a good thing, the right thing - but they're also a choice for the Scottish people, who might not wish to pay those higher taxes and to have voted themselves poorer.

[Comfy Bean]

9 hours ago, eFestivals said:

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.

 

On the pension question....if Scotland became indy tomorrow, are you saying that folk who live in Scotland and have contributed to the kitty for decade after decade should no longer have their sate retirement entitlement met from the pool of money they paid into in good faith along with the other good folks in other corners of what had once been the UK ?

[Comfy Bean]

9 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

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.

I have never once stated that the result isn`t the result so not sure why you are inventing an argument here 

I agree 100% that the result is the result whether EU or Indy.

[Comfy Bean]

9 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

Why is Scotland special, super special, so very special it's leader demanded that tiny Scotland should decide the result for everyone else? 

 

Too wee 

I`m pretty sure she actually said that she respects the wishes of the folks in England and Wales to leave the EU.

Happy to dig up a quote on that if you like.

It`s only you who ever bangs on about how special Scotland is. I don`t think anyone up here wants everyone else to have to do what we voted for. Just maybe the opportunity to have what we actually voted for would be nice.

Scotland voted to remain. Bristol is not a Country. This isn`t difficult 

 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

On the pension question....if Scotland became indy tomorrow, are you saying that folk who live in Scotland and have contributed to the kitty for decade after decade should no longer have their sate retirement entitlement met from the pool of money they paid into in good faith along with the other good folks in other corners of what had once been the UK ?

There is no pool of money, and there never has been. Today's pensions are paid by today's workers, and that's how it's always been worked.

(if you want to finger someone for getting the benefit but who didn't pay in, that'll be the long-dead first state pensioners, who were in Scotland in greater proportion than is the proportion today - so you owe us )

An iScotland will take the liability for the pensioners in Scotland. It won't work any other way to that.

And it's not something iScotlland could wriggle out of, as it might try to do with its share of the national debt - cos rUK will simply stop paying them.

There might, perhaps, be some adjustment made around it so rUK takes a little of the liability - perhaps 5 or 10%, worked out on some devilishly complicated formula onto a set of factual numbers, based solidly within something which shows rUK should take that part-liability, but outside of that, nope, not a chance of anything. Scotland will pay for Scotland's pensioners.

This is basic stuff around a potential split, comfy, I'm surprised you've not been aware of it. It was 100% clear in the indyref, and Salmond & SNP accepted the general basis* of it working that way (it's clear in the white paper, for example).

(* of course, I fully accept they'd try to argue a case in Scotland's favour in the negotiations - which is why I'm happy to admit that rUK might carry a small part of the liability, but it's by no means certain that they'd even be that).

 

[gary1979666]

11 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

On the pension question....if Scotland became indy tomorrow, are you saying that folk who live in Scotland and have contributed to the kitty for decade after decade should no longer have their sate retirement entitlement met from the pool of money they paid into in good faith along with the other good folks in other corners of what had once been the UK ?

I don't think there's any doubt about the entitlement of the retirees getting that money, the question is who owns that debt.  We know that the UK has a large debt pit and that needs divvying up - should Scotland get's it's share of the pension part of the pit?

Currently the UK pays for pensions out of tax receipts and debt.  If Scotland gets indy, then rUK will pay for the UK pensions with money from tax receipts and debt.  Why shouldn't iScotland do the same - it's just one of the things you have to pay for out of the funds available).  If anything, this is one of the clearer cut divisions.  (I accept there's the question of determining who is an iScot pensioner, but that's a different argument).

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I have never once stated that the result isn`t the result so not sure why you are inventing an argument here 

I agree 100% that the result is the result whether EU or Indy.

The RIC woman I mentioned WAS arguing (for the US elections) that the rules weren't the rules. She was trying to claim Clinton won because she won the popular vote, when the popular vote isn't the rules.

[gary1979666]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

There is no pool of money, and there never has been. Today's pensions are paid by today's workers, and that's how it's always been worked.

(if you want to finger someone for getting the benefit but who didn't pay in, that'll be the long-dead first state pensioners, who were in Scotland in greater proportion than is the proportion today - so you owe us )

An iScotland will take the liability for the pensioners in Scotland. It won't work any other way to that.

And it's not something iScotlland could wriggle out of, as it might try to do with its share of the national debt - cos rUK will simply stop paying them.

There might, perhaps, be some adjustment made around it so rUK takes a little of the liability - perhaps 5 or 10%, worked out on some devilishly complicated formula onto a set of factual numbers, based solidly within something which shows rUK should take that part-liability, but outside of that, nope, not a chance of anything. Scotland will pay for Scotland's pensioners.

This is basic stuff around a potential split, comfy, I'm surprised you've not been aware of it. It was 100% clear in the indyref, and Salmond & SNP accepted the general basis* of it working that way (it's clear in the white paper, for example).

(* of course, I fully accept they'd try to argue a case in Scotland's favour in the negotiations - which is why I'm happy to admit that rUK might carry a small part of the liability, but it's by no means certain that they'd even be that).

 

gah - beat me to it!

[gary1979666]

7 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Too wee 

I`m pretty sure she actually said that she respects the wishes of the folks in England and Wales to leave the EU.

Happy to dig up a quote on that if you like.

It`s only you who ever bangs on about how special Scotland is. I don`t think anyone up here wants everyone else to have to do what we voted for. Just maybe the opportunity to have what we actually voted for would be nice.

Scotland voted to remain. Bristol is not a Country. This isn`t difficult 

 

If only there's been a vote in the last 3 years where we asked the Scottish public whether they wanted a separate voice or whether they accepted being part of a larger country. 

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Too wee 

I`m pretty sure she actually said that she respects the wishes of the folks in England and Wales to leave the EU.

she just doesn't respect the rules of the vote, because she also doesn't respect the vote made within Scotland by Scottish people.

But hey, let's make up some new facts to pretend something different, so the English can be blamed for her not respecting the Scottish vote.

 

5 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Happy to dig up a quote on that if you like.

It`s only you who ever bangs on about how special Scotland is. I don`t think anyone up here wants everyone else to have to do what we voted for. Just maybe the opportunity to have what we actually voted for would be nice.

Scotland voted to remain. Bristol is not a Country. This isn`t difficult 

 

Sturgeon demanded that Scoltland have a veto over a whole-UK decision. Care to tell me how that's not a demand for a special status for Scotland?

I think Sturgeon is trying to make Scoltland great again. Do you agree?

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, gary1979666 said:

If only there's been a vote in the last 3 years where we asked the Scottish public whether they wanted a separate voice or whether they accepted being part of a larger country. 

damn, I wish I'd thought of wording it like that.

 

[eFestivals]

15 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Scotland voted to remain. Bristol is not a Country. This isn`t difficult 

Anything is a country which says it is. :rolleyes:

That's how the civic works, comfy. Otherwise, how could Ireland come to be, which had never existed as a sovereign one-nation state, a country.
(apologies to any Irish people if I'm stretching history a bit too much, I'm trying to illustrate a point)

Claiming a divine right to nationhood is the ethnic, the blood and soil.

[Comfy Bean]

27 minutes ago, gary1979666 said:

If only there's been a vote in the last 3 years where we asked the Scottish public whether they wanted a separate voice or whether they accepted being part of a larger country. 

It's a fair point gary and as you know I respect the choice the people in Scotland made. Of course the decision might be different next time they are asked or maybe it won't. Will be too late by then for Europe. 

I was referring to the choice they more recently made in the eu ref which will not be respected. It's a bonus when you can pick and chose what one to respect I suppose :-)

I accept that you folks don't see the difference between how bristol votes and how Scotland votes. We've been over that one often enough. Ns thinks it represents a material change which I think is fair enough. I know she respects the choice of the good folks in England and Wales to leave.

I still think an indy ref will come after the.next tory general election victory but I've been wrong before. 

[Comfy Bean]

48 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

There is no pool of money, and there never has been. Today's pensions are paid by today's workers, and that's how it's always been worked.

(if you want to finger someone for getting the benefit but who didn't pay in, that'll be the long-dead first state pensioners, who were in Scotland in greater proportion than is the proportion today - so you owe us )

An iScotland will take the liability for the pensioners in Scotland. It won't work any other way to that.

And it's not something iScotlland could wriggle out of, as it might try to do with its share of the national debt - cos rUK will simply stop paying them.

There might, perhaps, be some adjustment made around it so rUK takes a little of the liability - perhaps 5 or 10%, worked out on some devilishly complicated formula onto a set of factual numbers, based solidly within something which shows rUK should take that part-liability, but outside of that, nope, not a chance of anything. Scotland will pay for Scotland's pensioners.

This is basic stuff around a potential split, comfy, I'm surprised you've not been aware of it. It was 100% clear in the indyref, and Salmond & SNP accepted the general basis* of it working that way (it's clear in the white paper, for example).

(* of course, I fully accept they'd try to argue a case in Scotland's favour in the negotiations - which is why I'm happy to admit that rUK might carry a small part of the liability, but it's by no means certain that they'd even be that).

 

Apologies,  pool of money and kitty were not the best choice of phrases :-) I was aware that we are slightly in debt as we speak. 

You seem to have softened your stance around ongoing and future payments to retirees which is what I was interested in.

Our life expectancy round my way is pretty shit so I'm sure we won't be difficult to deal with lol.

I've already posted that we should take our fair share of debts accrued. 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

It's a fair point gary and as you know I respect the choice the people in Scotland made. Of course the decision might be different next time they are asked or maybe it won't. Will be too late by then for Europe. 

I was referring to the choice they more recently made in the eu ref which will not be respected. It's a bonus when you can pick and chose what one to respect I suppose :-)

PMSL  ... talk about missing the point entirely.

If you respect the Scottish 2014 vote, you cannot claim the Scottish vote is being disrespected in the EU ref, because there was no Scottish vote. There was only a whole-UK vote.

Scotland very definitely opted into whole-UK decisions. Scotland has to accept that whole-UK decision.

Scotland is in a great position, because if it doesn't like having to go along with that whole-UK decision, Sturgeon has a mandate for an indyref that if she wins means Scotland will never ever ever have to go along with a whole-UK decision ever ever again. And no more tories, too.

So ask yourself: why hasn't she called a vote? 

FFS. :lol:

And, i'll point out, endless polls had long shown a majority in favour of an EU ref - you know, the same reason you give for why there should be another indyref at the right time.

 

1 minute ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I accept that you folks don't see the difference between how bristol votes and how Scotland votes. We've been over that one often enough. Ns thinks it represents a material change which I think is fair enough. I know she respects the choice of the good folks in England and Wales to leave.

I still think an indy ref will come after the.next tory general election victory but I've been wrong before. 

Yep, NS can spin out the material change thing, and invoke the indyref she has a mandate for.

Off she goes then ... oh, no, she doesn't. She doesn't seem keen to hold that ref.

Put up or shut-up, as the saying goes.

I must say, I think rUK is going to enjoy the silence. 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Apologies,  pool of money and kitty were not the best choice of phrases :-) I was aware that we are slightly in debt as we speak. 

You seem to have softened your stance around ongoing and future payments to retirees which is what I was interested in.

Our life expectancy round my way is pretty shit so I'm sure we won't be difficult to deal with lol.

I've already posted that we should take our fair share of debts accrued. 

No, i haven't changed a jot of anything about pensions. It's always been 100% clear that each part would take on the costs of their own resident pensioners.
(as Gary says, what classes as 'resident is a different discussion).

And it's precisely because I'm aware of potential unfairnesses around what's been paid out and where - such as might be the case with length of life - that I'm recognising that rUK might agree to bear a little of the costs.

The research LJS linked to works on the basis of UK carrying all of the costs forever (for the lifetime of current pensioners). It's just not going to happen, and even the SNP don't think it will. It would not be a fair or reasonable argument for anyone to make within the negotiations.

[Comfy Bean]

On 11/20/2016 at 9:19 AM, eFestivals said:

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

 

 

On 11/20/2016 at 9:51 AM, eFestivals said:

Hoping that rUK will pay 20% of iScotland's pensions bill is just an empty hope

 

1 hour ago, gary1979666 said:

I don't think there's any doubt about the entitlement of the retirees getting that money...

 

It was your use of the word " gift " that caught my eye. I don`t think we should be relying on " hope " never mind empty hope that rUK will pay a % going forward to those who have paid in for decades as I mentioned earlier.

I agree with Gary. It seems fair and sensible. Just like iScotland taking it`s share of the debt. 

As you have now said ( earlier today ) that you agree that rUK might agree to bear a little of the pension costs I thought you had softened your stance a little and so it turns out we all agree with Gary 

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

It was your use of the word " gift " that caught my eye. I don`t think we should be relying on " hope " never mind empty hope that rUK will pay a % going forward to those who have paid in for decades as I mentioned earlier.

The pensions liability is (essentially) a debt. When the debt's are divvied up if Scotland becomes indy, Scotland will get the pension debt - which is the liability to pay the pensions - appropriate for Scottish pensioners.

Nothing of that is a 'gift'. 

Matey in that very crap article laughably says Scotland won't take it's rightful share of pension liability (debt) because rUK will agree to pay Scotland's share - the 'gift' I referred to.

A gift that will never happen, cos that 'expert' is mindnumbingly stupid.

[Comfy Bean]

53 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Scotland is in a great position, because if it doesn't like having to go along with that whole-UK decision, Sturgeon has a mandate for an indyref that if she wins means Scotland will never ever ever have to go along with a whole-UK decision ever ever again. And no more tories, too.

So ask yourself: why hasn't she called a vote? 

 

As you know, my view is that she has done the right thing by not calling a vote. She is visibly exploring all other alternatives after the brexit vote. This from the beeb earlier today :

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-38052659

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

As you have now said ( earlier today ) that you agree that rUK might agree to bear a little of the pension costs I thought you had softened your stance a little and so it turns out we all agree with Gary 

do you agree with Gary about where the money for Scottish pensions will come from post-indy? From the Scottish Govt, and not rUK govt?

 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

As you know, my view is that she has done the right thing by not calling a vote. She is visibly exploring all other alternatives after the brexit vote. This from the beeb earlier today :

But only because she knows she can't win a vote. FFS.

She even downgraded what triggers the vote from voting out of the EU to leaving the single market, and even that didn't rouse enough indy supporters.

She's running away from an indy vote because she's running away.

Exploring others options is because she's run away.

 

1 minute ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-38052659

That's just the normal Salmond shit stirring, so he's got a "this is what you could have had" grievance tool to dangle you on his string in the future.

FFS. 

Will the UK sanction a customs border between England and Scotland as that would require? Not a fucking chance.

It's laughable that you think there's anything in it.

Btw, I've got a bridge for sale, I'm wondering, are you looking to buy?

[Comfy Bean]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

do you agree with Gary about where the money for Scottish pensions will come from post-indy? From the Scottish Govt, and not rUK govt?

 

I agree with you and Gary. Scotland will have responsibility going forward but I think rUK will chip in via some complicated calculation as one of you outlined earlier. The size and period of that " chip in " will of course be part of the whole negotiation around debt.

To put it another way, if I pay into my work pension for 30 years and then leave to go work elsewhere. I`d be expecting my old employer to be paying me a coin or two towards my retirement. I realise that this might not be the best example