The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

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.

Nope, I very much doubt it. The deal for pensions will be distinct, it's a 100% all-enclosed issue, where nothing of it has need to be part of any other wider debt or other discussions.

Because it's not really debt, it's a liability. Scotland is wanting to be independent, so Scotland takes on the liability of people in Scotland.

There will of course be a whole-deal of which pensions will be part, but pensions are a part that can be dealt with separately. so that talks about the more complex cross-connecting issues can be dealt with without the unnecessary clutter of pensions.

 

8 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

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 

You'd pay your pension subs to a pensions company. The owner of that pension pot will be changing hands and you don't get a say about it. You get paid your pension by the new owner.

That the true analogy.

Edited November 21, 2016 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

11 minutes 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 :

 

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

 

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

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.

 

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?

A bridge you say ? Have I not already paid something towards it 

Read my post again and calm your breeks for a minute.

You are using terms like running away. Fair enough.

I am saying things like - I think that she is doing the right thing NOT calling the vote at this moment. I am saying that she is being very visible in taking time to explore every possible alternative.

Despite the fact that you call her a poisoned dwarf, facist etc I think that deep down you know that Sturgeon is an astute politician.

You say that at the moment, she can`t win another vote. Maybe I agree with you. Maybe Sturgeon agrees with you.

Think about it for a moment. IF.....you and her agree on the likely outcome if there was to be a vote tomorrow, if you were her, would you call a vote for tomorrow or would you explore every possible alternative ?

 

[eFestivals]

I dont think I've ever called her a poison dwarf.

And generally she's astute, her plan here wasn't a poor one.

But it's not panned out as she hoped because she misjudged Scottish opinion'.

The alternatives are ones she knows are impossible and unacceptable in all circumstances. The point isn't for Westminster to accept them the point is for Westminster to reject them, so she can then scream outrage.

 

[Comfy Bean]

On 10/25/2016 at 7:18 AM, eFestivals said:

 

Yep, but you wanted to win independence by lying that (in effect) it wouldn't disappear, because you and the poison dwarf claimed Scotland wouldn't be poorer without that money.

More recently you've welcomed tory cuts that remove part of that Barnett problem, proving you know what's what really, and proving you'll post lies to claim differently. Oh dear.

Nicola's less keen. Why not ask her why?

Oh, you mean that she knows she'd lose?

 

Who you talking about then ?

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Who you talking about then ?

OK, fair enough, tho it's a long way from being habitual insults her way - and it's not like you're slow to insult politicians yourself.

And there's factual accuracy in my slur, as her divisive manner IS poisoning Scotland. If you think the divisions of brexit are bad, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Meanwhile, do you only have shoot the messenger, or do have anything sensible to say towards indy? Or is guff like that laughable article the very best Scotland has? If so, indy is dead.

 

[LJS]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

OK, fair enough, tho it's a long way from being habitual insults her way - and it's not like you're slow to insult politicians yourself.

And there's factual accuracy in my slur, 

 

Absolutely classic, Neil.

[LJS]

Who says the SNP make no impact at Westminster?

Irn Bru sales increase in Westminster following 2015 election

•  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-38051933

 

[eFestivals]

33 minutes ago, LJS said:

Absolutely classic, Neil.

She's taller than my missus.

And she's poison. Sowing division is her purpose in life (as she's next likely to prove with her brexit 'alternatives'), and fuck all about Make Scotland Great Again - even tho that's her war cry.

As proven by the fact that she and no one else is able to present a plan that demonstrates anyone being able to make Scotland great again.

Do get back to me when there is one - and if you present another article like you just did, my laughter is more at your lack of applied intelligence than at the author's own.  

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, LJS said:

Who says the SNP make no impact at Westminster?

Irn Bru sales increase in Westminster following 2015 election

•  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-38051933

 

glad to see that they're not reinforcing steortypes, and they're well into improving the health of Scoltand.

 

[gary1979666]

I think for pensions, it's best not to think of it as any type of balance sheet item - debt, liability, or otherwise.  It's a future cost, just like the upkeep of Scottish roads, the SNHS, future unemployment benefit, etc.  It's something that the host country has to pay for.  And rUK will have the equivalent costs too.

[Comfy Bean]

17 minutes ago, gary1979666 said:

I think for pensions, it's best not to think of it as any type of balance sheet item - debt, liability, or otherwise.  It's a future cost, just like the upkeep of Scottish roads, the SNHS, future unemployment benefit, etc.  It's something that the host country has to pay for.  And rUK will have the equivalent costs too.

Fair point well made . Population living longer and advances in medicines, treatment and of course cost is a massive issue for all countries going forward. I maintain that some sort of initial transitional payment could be in order due to historical contributions but I`m still assuming that would be tabled with the overall debt negotiations.

[eFestivals]

16 minutes ago, gary1979666 said:

I think for pensions, it's best not to think of it as any type of balance sheet item - debt, liability, or otherwise.  It's a future cost, just like the upkeep of Scottish roads, the SNHS, future unemployment benefit, etc.  It's something that the host country has to pay for.  And rUK will have the equivalent costs too.

Yup.

I'm pleased to say that this is one thing where the SNP doesn't have fantasies - tho I wish the same could be said for their supporters, many of whom (from what they say) totally believe that rUK would keep responsibility for paying pensions to iScoltand.

Where it gets despicable is with the SNP not being keen to wise up their supporters to the very many misplaced and wrong beliefs they have around indy - which is why stuff like that article appears - because it's very obviously to the advantage of the SNP's dream of indy if people support it via a lie rather than reject it on truth.

The SNP don't give much of a shit for what happens after indy, cos they'll have their dream. Just like Farage they'd be happy to run away and let others deal with the shit they've caused.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I maintain that some sort of initial transitional payment could be in order due to historical contributions

It's a fair question to ask, to then see what the facts about it really say.

Don't make the mistake of believing it's certain tho. It's foolish to base the economics of indy - the whole future of your country - on hopes that might never happen.

[Comfy Bean]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

OK, fair enough, tho it's a long way from being habitual insults her way - and it's not like you're slow to insult politicians yourself.

And there's factual accuracy in my slur, as her divisive manner IS poisoning Scotland. If you think the divisions of brexit are bad, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Meanwhile, do you only have shoot the messenger, or do have anything sensible to say towards indy? Or is guff like that laughable article the very best Scotland has? If so, indy is dead.

 

It`s entirely fair enough for you to insult Nicola or anyone else for that matter. It`s up to you mate how you roll and it`s your house  

You also have the option to not call people who you disagree with politically poison, liars, morons, facists.........

As an aside, you also don`t need to call people who may be a bit shorter than the average " dwarfs ". 

My intention was not to shoot the messenger as you put it. If you read my post I was making the point that although you use unnecessary language and personal insults against her, I reckon that deep down you realise that she is quite the astute politician.

 

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

You also have the option to not call people who you disagree with politically poison, liars, morons, facists.........

As an aside, you also don`t need to call people who may be a bit shorter than the average " dwarfs ". 

My intention was not to shoot the messenger as you put it. If you read my post I was making the point that although you use unnecessary language and personal insults against her, I reckon that deep down you realise that she is quite the astute politician.

The dwarf bit was out of order. The poison part is fully accurate. 

Her poisoning intends to divide Scotland on the basis of lies, lies so embedded that articles like the one LJS presented can emerge and be regarded as sensible, and which she does nothing to counter with truth.

As I said, if you think the divisions around brexit are bad, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Edited November 22, 2016 by eFestivals

[gary1979666]

2 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Fair point well made . Population living longer and advances in medicines, treatment and of course cost is a massive issue for all countries going forward. I maintain that some sort of initial transitional payment could be in order due to historical contributions but I`m still assuming that would be tabled with the overall debt negotiations.

Not sure payment is the right wording, but maybe a bit of give in the amount of debt transferred.  Though worth remembering that Scotland is not a net contributor to the British economy*, so historical contributions might be pushing it.

*Like most of UK, except London/SE - so not just singling out the Scots.

[eFestivals]

8 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Where it gets despicable is with the SNP not being keen to wise up their supporters to the very many misplaced and wrong beliefs they have around indy - which is why stuff like that article appears - because it's very obviously to the advantage of the SNP's dream of indy if people support it via a lie rather than reject it on truth.

Just in reference to this, i just made a post about something similiar to this but where I said something distinctly different, so I'll go back on this

I didn't call it 'despicable' in that other post, tho I did say (in this context) the SNP wising those people up would be the right thing to do.

But, I accepted that they wouldn't, because that would be expecting them to be calling their own supporters stupid - which no party is ever going to do. Saying nothing is the standard politics for this sort of thing.

So while I was wrong to say its despicable of them, I still don't hold any respect for the deception they're well aware they're part of.

The change of view is due to thinking it thru from a different angle, and not because I'm applying different standards to the SNP. I'm posting back here because i'm not.

 

[LJS]

11 hours ago, eFestivals said:

OK, fair enough, tho it's a long way from being habitual insults her way - and it's not like you're slow to insult politicians yourself.

And there's factual accuracy in my slur, as her divisive manner IS poisoning Scotland. If you think the divisions of brexit are bad, you ain't seen nothing yet.

 

I'd just like to point out, as someone who lives and works in Scotland ( & occasionally pulls myself away from my keyboard & emerges above the ground) Scotland is not being poisoned by The Poisson Dwarf (geddit?) we all get on with each other pretty much as we always have done. There has been virtually no violence (with very few eggceptions) & we overwhelmingly disagree in a polite & respectful manner. I think most folk I know are well aware that I am openly Indy & I get on swimmingly with then whether they be "out" like me or still in the UK closet. 

Of course, it is entirely understandable if you form your opinion from dredging the online sewers that you love to frequent that you form a different opinion. There are www@nkers on line mouthing off with great vitriol on pretty much every subject under the sun & Scottish Indy (on both sides) is no exception. Lazy journalists have had a field day with this & some naive folk are foolish enough to believe that their portrayal of a boitter & divided Scotland is accurate. 

It's as accurate as this...

 

9 hours ago, gary1979666 said:

I think for pensions, it's best not to think of it as any type of balance sheet item - debt, liability, or otherwise.  It's a future cost, just like the upkeep of Scottish roads, the SNHS, future unemployment benefit, etc.  It's something that the host country has to pay for.  And rUK will have the equivalent costs too.

Just to clarify for you Gary, in case you are misled by Neil - I was quite clear that I though that the report which started this chat was "wildly optimistic" in its view of pension distribution post Indy  - in other words, I broadly agree with Neil & yourself.

 

I do think there is room for savings on defence  - although Neil is convinced we would need to leave Nato to achieve these. As ususal he presents his opinions as Facts but i guess we are all used to that by now,

It also seems reasonable to suggest that there is room for negotiation on the matter of Debts v. assets. Neil seems to think I should have a list somewhere of all the assets to be negotiated away - I don't. But currently everything from Polaris subs, to foreign embassies; from foreign currency reserves to government buildings are assets held by the entire UK & just as with debt there will need to be negotiations as to what happens to them.

 

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

I'd just like to point out, as someone who lives and works in Scotland ( & occasionally pulls myself away from my keyboard & emerges above the ground) Scotland is not being poisoned by The Poisson Dwarf (geddit?) we all get on with each other pretty much as we always have done. There has been virtually no violence (with very few eggceptions) & we overwhelmingly disagree in a polite & respectful manner. I think most folk I know are well aware that I am openly Indy & I get on swimmingly with then whether they be "out" like me or still in the UK closet. 

Who said violence? Only you, as a fake argument, a squirrel, to hide the fact of division behind.

If indy wins on 50%+1, that's a divided country.

And when indy will most likely be won (if it ever is) on a lie, that majority won't even hold, so they'll be over half of Scotland against where Scotland has gone - and the finger of blame for the shit Scotland is in will be pointed.

 

Quote

Just to clarify for you Gary, in case you are misled by Neil - I was quite clear that I though that the report which started this chat was "wildly optimistic" in its view of pension distribution post Indy  - in other words, I broadly agree with Neil & yourself.

It's good you arrived at the right conclusion.

Just think, if you'd spent less than 30 seconds reading the article you'd linked to - just as I did - the flaws like that one would have jumped right out at you (as they did me), and then you wouldn't have looked foolish by appearing to recommend a crock of shit.

You instead went with the idea that because it was being recommended far and wide by snippers it must be good, and so gave a link.

Somewhere in this process you might wake up to the fact that the snippers far and wide who recommended it to you are far less smart than you managed to be, and start to be properly critical rather than accepting of people's views just because they're 'on your side', and you might even go as far as realising that there just isn't an economic case that can be made.

Even St Nicola has wised up to that as she made clear when she said "there's more to indy than the economics" - but Scotland didn't agree so Nicola got back in her very own nicely padded box, and started making new plans to try and hide her having to back down over her threats of a new indyref..

And it's not about the money, right? Scotland isn't waiting for someone to tell them how gloriously rich they'll be before they'll commit to indy. It's why there's majority support for indy today.

 

Quote

I do think there is room for savings on defence  - although Neil is convinced we would need to leave Nato to achieve these. As ususal he presents his opinions as Facts but i guess we are all used to that by now,

Exception ands special rules for Scotland, because Scotland is special?

Scotland demands that other countries pay its share because it's so special and exceptional, so that Scotland can spend money on Scots instead. That's the new carey sharey Scotland that's ready to take it's place in the world as a proud nation.
(so proud a nation it thinks others should pay its bills for it )

And that spending money on Scots instead? It's about Making Scotland Great Again, nothing like The Donald at all.

 

Quote

It also seems reasonable to suggest that there is room for negotiation on the matter of Debts v. assets. Neil seems to think I should have a list somewhere of all the assets to be negotiated away - I don't. But currently everything from Polaris subs, to foreign embassies; from foreign currency reserves to government buildings are assets held by the entire UK & just as with debt there will need to be negotiations as to what happens to them.

Do you agree that the fair way to approach things would be to primarily look at splitting assets, and only to fall back to any 'cash' adjustment payments as a very last resort? I can't see it being handled in a different way.

Stuff like currency reserves will be a simple split, with no arguments. The only arguments with stuff like that will be on 'what is the fair split?' (population share? Or perhaps population share plus Barnett supplement? That sort of thing)

For military stuff, for example, rUK would keep Trident (obviously), but rather than there being a cash payment for that*, Scotland will take a greater amount than its share in other military hardware to balance things.

(* which wouldn't be much anyway if it happened today, it now classes as about worthless at the end of its life; the same 'not much there for Scotland' will apply to its replacement too if you stop and think about it.)

It might be the case that the difference can't be full reconciled with hardware, so next up to cover that difference will come another asset where Scotland wants a greater-than-its-share and which rUK is happy to accept.

Only if it can't be covered by all assets would things then revert to 'cash' (which will really be an adjustment to Scotland's national debt share).

It's obviously going to be very complicated, but don't forget that the settlement is going to have to be politically acceptable to rUK just as it will Scotland, so they'll be no shafting in the final deal (tho i'm sure they'll be plenty of attempts by both sides in the negotiations).

And so the outcome just isn't going to be anything better for Scotland than rUK covering 20% (at max) of Scotland's debt share, amongst everything (assets, pensions, future payments, national debt - the lot).

But, if it can go 20% against rUK, that also means it might go against iScotland too. There's not even any certainty that the outcome won't work against an iScotland rather than for it. Here's betting your prejudices have never had you consider that.

If iScotland got as much as 20% 'debt relief' out of rUK - which I doubt (it's asking rUk to pay £30Bn in taxes to benefit the country which has just told it to fuck off, not an easy political sell) - iScotland would still be economically fucked. That's far too small to cover Scotland's 'deficit gap' of £9bn a year.

So any other cuts to make iScotland's books balance would be by cuts to Scottish spending, which is you getting poorer. Or higher taxes, which is you getting poorer. Or better collection of due taxes, which is (ultimately) still you getting poorer.

It's no coincidence that Sturgeon said "there's more to indy than the economics". It's no coincidence that the SNP doesn't have a basis for an iScottish economy. It's no coincidence that Sturgeon is running away from her own threat of another indyref.

She's cried wolf too many times. The game is over, you've just not realised it yet.

 

[LJS]

20 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Who said violence? Only you, as a fake argument, a squirrel, to hide the fact of division behind.

The reference to violence was a small part of my reply to your ridiculous claim.

20 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

If indy wins on 50%+1, that's a divided country.

You didn't claim it was divided, you said it was poisoned.

20 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

 

It's good you arrived at the right conclusion.

Just think, if you'd spent less than 30 seconds reading the article you'd linked to - just as I did - the flaws like that one would have jumped right out at you (as they did me), and then you wouldn't have looked foolish by appearing to recommend a crock of shit.

I didn't recommend it & didn't give an opinion until I'd read the full report.

20 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

You instead went with the idea that because it was being recommended far and wide by snippers it must be good, and so gave a link.

I gave a link because I thought you'd be interested.

20 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Somewhere in this process you might wake up to the fact that the snippers far and wide who recommended it to you are far less smart than you managed to be, and start to be properly critical rather than accepting of people's views just because they're 'on your side', and you might even go as far as realising that there just isn't an economic case that can be made.

Yes there is and I think one of the reasons the Poisson dwarf is not rushing headlong into indyref 2 is she realises full well that a more robust economic case will be required this time round. I fully expect her to make that case. 

You fully expect her not to.

Let's wait & see.

[eFestivals]

39 minutes ago, LJS said:

You didn't claim it was divided, you said it was poisoned.

And it is. 

Right now it doesn't much matter. Economic disaster and Scots being poorer comes after an indy victory, remember?

[eFestivals]

40 minutes ago, LJS said:

I didn't recommend it & didn't give an opinion until I'd read the full report.

The internet is full of idiocy. Posting a link to something on the internet you've not read is the stuff of morons ... tho i guess I shouldn't be too surprised given the number of times already you've shown you love a headline but can't be bothered to read what's underneath it.

Care to tell me how it is that Scottish politics is so much better and more intelligent and engaged when you're demonstrating just how undiscerning it is?

 

 

[eFestivals]

55 minutes ago, LJS said:

Yes there is and I think one of the reasons the Poisson dwarf is not rushing headlong into indyref 2 is she realises full well that a more robust economic case will be required this time round. I fully expect her to make that case. 

You fully expect her not to.

Let's wait & see.

There is no case that can be made.

The very fact that you think something can be magic-ed up from somewhere to fill a £9Bn hole only shows how detached and unthinking you are.

There is no case that can be made, If it's so easy, why IYO is only super-special Nicola able to do what no one else is able to? Nicola is more super-special than all other Scots? It must be, if only she can come up with a plan (that no one has seen, and no on ever will).

There is no case that can be made, which is why she's not making one.

There is no case that can be made, which is why she tried the line of "there's more to indy than the economics".
(but no one bought it, so it's definitely not about the money, right? )

There is no case that can be made, which is why she's already changed the bollocks she spouts from "indyref if brexit" to "indyref if hard brexit".
(and still no one bit )

There is no case that can be made, which is why she's now desperately scrambling to make an impossible-for-UK-to-accept case for super-special status for a non-indy Scotland, so she can fall back to her normal refrain of "nasty nasty Westminster".

When she hopes she'll have created enough new false grievance that she might start again.

All because there is no case that can be made.

Edited November 23, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The internet is full of idiocy. Posting a link to something on the internet you've not read is the stuff of morons ... tho i guess I shouldn't be too surprised given the number of times already you've shown you love a headline but can't be bothered to read what's underneath it.

That's genuinely funny from the man who posted a herald story which headlined on the SNP debt mountain only for the story beneath to say no such thing.

 

As for beyond GERS, I genuinely thought you would be interested in reading it. I didn't realise I was required to supply a full review of it before I was allowed to post it. 

I quite clearly did not indicate that I agreed with it - as I hadn't read the full report.

 

[eFestivals]

18 minutes ago, LJS said:

That's genuinely funny from the man who posted a herald story which headlined on the SNP debt mountain only for the story beneath to say no such thing.

Which was about the growing Scottish debt mountain, caused by the policies of the SNP as it proved.

There's no growing Scottish debt mountain? Perhaps ask your local council about that one, and what caused them to create it.

 

18 minutes ago, LJS said:

As for beyond GERS, I genuinely thought you would be interested in reading it. I didn't realise I was required to supply a full review of it before I was allowed to post it. 

I was interested to read it.

Just as i'd be interested - even pleased - to see intelligence being applied by snippers like you.

Which should surely come before you present something which claims to deal with the ecomnomic factors for thew cause YOU support.

If snippers aren't even interested enough in their own side to read what their side says, Scotland has the bleakest of futures whether indy or not.

 

18 minutes ago, LJS said:

I quite clearly did not indicate that I agreed with it - as I hadn't read the full report.

It didn't take reading the full report to spot the holes. I spotted them from the summary you linked to. 

FFS. :lol: