The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

This is a lie. Please withdraw it and apologise or provide evidence to support you lies 

Neil is a serial killer.

It ceases to be the truth *ONLY* when you stop with the idiot bollocks of Sturgeon producing a miracle white paper that somehow covers the deficit, and the indy side campaigns on the basis of "you'll be poorer but it will be worth it".

It's YOU that makes it the truth. 

If you want to turn it into that lie, I look forwards to you campaigning on the basis of "vote indy, vote yourself poorer". Only you are stopping you.

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

No one has advocated shafting Scotland's poor. Another lie.

No one has suggested not shafting them, either. I look forwards to the details of the humongous tax rises so public services to benefit Scotland's poor can be maintained.

I could point out the cuts the SNP are making onto Scotland's poor RIGHT NOW!!!! - without there even being indy, and with Scotland's budget maintained (so not tory austerity, just SNP austerity!)  - to show that even before indy Scotland and its separatists are advocating shafting the poor.

Facts are awkward things, eh?

 

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

So how come the reduction on the onshore deficit which you have grudgingly accepted is all down to Tory austerity, if there is no Tory austerity?

what a bullshit argument.

The reduction is down to tory measures. Call them what you like.

After all, snippers claim that it's impossible for the SNP to do anything because they don't control all of the necessary 'levers'.

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

You would know because you are the one scaremongering about the costs of Indy.

There's scaremongering, and then there's the words of the SNP.

An SNP who claimed *all* of a new Scottish public administration could be created for peanuts, but who then said it wasn't possible to create even a tiny Scottish welfare department for less than half a billion.

Which one of those SNP claims is the truth and which is the lie?

If I'm scaremongering the SNP are thieves.

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

I have no idea what point you are failing miserably to make here. There is no one claiming that "the money" is the most important point.

You are the only person who seems to think it's all about the money. Not quite sure what that says about you.

The money becomes the the most important point via your refusal to discuss it on a factual basis.

If the money side of things was a nothing you wouldn't have to lie about the money.

[LJS]

On 19/01/2017 at 7:30 AM, eFestivals said:

She might ... bluffing about a bluff that she's bluffing.

So anyway: before March 2019* - she explicitly said it, remember - and not this year, which means sometime in 2018 or in early 2019.
(* providing a50 is done this March)

She might change her mind though, I mean according to you she already has about a dozen times.

On 19/01/2017 at 7:30 AM, eFestivals said:

Which means the UK will have fully left the EU long before Scotland is indy, meaning all chance of any 'stay in' interim deal is dead. So Scotland would be leaving the UK to stay in the EU but not staying in the EU: great logic.

Not logic... opinion. I know you struggle with the difference.

On 19/01/2017 at 7:30 AM, eFestivals said:

Tho of course Spain has already made clear, countless times, that they'll be no special favours for a breakaway region as it will set a precedent for other breakaway regions - which one of Sturgeon's brexit-advisor sidekicks pointed out was an issue for many EU states, not just Spain.

So let's see how quickly Scotland might be in the EU via the normal application process, its only route. How long did it take for the last 3 applicants? Over 10 years for each one.

Didn't take East Germany long though, did it?

On 19/01/2017 at 7:30 AM, eFestivals said:

BUT ... each of those countries already had a stable sovereign currency and central bank - and two of them ran a budget surplus at time of application too (the other a small deficit), whereas Scotland will require around 10 years of currency/central bank operation before they meet the terms to apply, and will need to first sort its humongous deficit via humongous cuts.

But none of them had already defacto been in the EU for over 40 years. 

On 19/01/2017 at 7:30 AM, eFestivals said:

People like comfy say that the SNP should wait till after the next election for another indyref when they'll be another tory govt (didn't work last time ), plus because the shite from brexit should have (so the snippers meme goes) kicked in and decimated Scotland's economy.

Which means that the deficit won't have been reduced - LJS's big hope for victory, remember - and in fact (from that meme) things will be worse than they've ever been, and snippers say the answer to that is to make things even worse by cutting off 60% on top of cutting off 15% of trade.. Yeah, that'll sell.

The (on-shore) deficit has been reducing despite the major shocks to two of the largest sectors of our economy. None of us know exactly what the effects of Brexit will be  - although some of us have always said the remain campaign scare mongered them out of all reasonable proportion. Others poo-poohed that & said there was no scaremongering & the projections were accurate. Some of these seem to have seen the post- Brexit light & suddenly accept that brexit may not be the economic catastrophe they once believed, 

On 19/01/2017 at 7:30 AM, eFestivals said:

Sturgeon says indy is necessary to protect the 80,000 jobs that rely on Europe (but doesn't give a shit about protecting the 350,000 jobs which rely on the rest of the UK). Yet May's plan will - supposedly - protect those EU-related jobs.

Well if TMay can protect Jobs that rely on the EU from outside the EU, Sturgeon can equally protect Scottish jobs that rely on trade with England .

On 19/01/2017 at 7:30 AM, eFestivals said:

So all that's left to appeal from the EU is for new immigration... meaning that Sturgeon wants Scotland to be indy to benefit no one in Scotland. Yep, I reckon that'll sell, too.

Except it is complete bollocks, dreamt up in one your new tory light dreams.

 

[LJS]

On 22/01/2017 at 8:56 AM, eFestivals said:

Yep, but I'm concentrating right now on Sturgeon bottling it. 

If she's not done the deed - done and dusted - by March 2019, she'll have bottled it.

Maybe, or maybe she will have tactically withdrawn her troops to fight another day. As you know, I think the likelihood is she'll go before March 2019 but one thing is for sure, she won't be  much influenced by what you or I think.

On 22/01/2017 at 8:56 AM, eFestivals said:

Have I mentioned that I think she'll bottle it, that she's playing a poor game of bluff?

No, I don't think mentioned is an accurate description.

On 22/01/2017 at 8:56 AM, eFestivals said:

the SNP said voting no would be a vote that took Scotland out of the EU, and Scots still voted no.

Right lets remember this.

On 22/01/2017 at 8:56 AM, eFestivals said:

That's a relevant expression of people in Scotland, and has relevance for that lack of reaction to Scotland being taken out of the EU via the UK vote.

The white paper mentioned the possibility of an EU ref and it's possible consequences for Scotland, to try and scare people into voting yes. And Scots rejected what the SNP were saying

.It said: "If we remain in the UK, the Conservative Party’s promise of an in/out referendum on EU membership raises the serious possibility that Scotland will be forced to leave the EU against the wishes of the people of Scotland" (page 60).

So they didn't say "voting no would be a vote that took Scotland out of the EU" they talked about "the possibility of an EU ref and it's possible consequences for Scotland" 

On 22/01/2017 at 8:56 AM, eFestivals said:

It also said: "What impact will the Conservative Party proposal to have a UK referendum on EU membership have? It is the view of the current Scottish Government that the only real risk to Scotland’s membership of the EU is the referendum proposed by the Prime Minister. 298070_Q&A Chapters_FIN.indd 460 19/11/2013 14:06 461 The Scottish Government does not wish Scotland to leave the EU and does not support the Prime Minister’s plans to hold an in-out referendum on EU membership. Following a vote for independence, Scotland will become an independent EU member state before the planned in-out referendum on the EU in 2017. However, if we do not become independent, we risk being taken out of the EU against our will." (page 460)

Yet again they are raising the real possibility of this happening ( & they were right) What is missing from your predictable SNP Baad narrative is the story Better Together were telling including Ruth Davidson (no less) claiming that an EU referendum was unlikely because the Tories were unlikely to win. 

History has recently been rewritten to pretend that we knew there was going to be an EU referendum when we voted in 2014. We didn't. Most of us also thought it would probably end up in a remain vote. But, hey only the SNP tell fibs.

 

On 22/01/2017 at 8:56 AM, eFestivals said:

The SNP have already made these arguments, and the people of Scotland have rejected these arguments.

Never mind?

The people of Scotland rejected the arguments for Independence from a UK that was part of the EU. We have never been asked about remaining in a Little Britain outside the EU.

[LJS]

On 20/01/2017 at 8:23 AM, eFestivals said:

 

Meanwhile, if "being dragged out against our will" stands up, can the parts of Scotland that don't want indy remain in the UK?

 

 

On 21/01/2017 at 9:25 PM, LJS said:

 

I am not aware of any parts of Scotland that are claiming not to be part of Scotland. Are you?

 

 

On 22/01/2017 at 8:58 AM, eFestivals said:

I'm not aware of any parts of the UK that are claiming not to be part of the UK. Are you?

Yes, Scotland is - or at least a large proportion of it: and its main political wing forms the government here & has virtually all our mp's.

Before referendums became the vogue a parliamentary majority of Scottish mp's would have been seen as a mandate for independence.

There is no equivalent movement in any part of Scotland wanting to leave Scotland.

except for this dude

 

Quote

Stuart Alan Hill (born 1943), is an English sailor, jurist, and activist in the Shetland Islands independence movement, known for failing in a disastrous attempt to circumnavigate the British Isles and for the creation of the unrecognized micronation of Sovereign State of Forvik.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_"Captain_Calamity"_Hill

 

On 22/01/2017 at 8:58 AM, eFestivals said:

FFS.

Sturgeon accepted the UK vote on the EU so-very-much that she officially campaigned for one side of that divide. That's a strange rejection by anyone's dictionary.

She would be rejecting reality if she didn't realise that, however unfortunately, Scotland currently remains a part of the UK. She also made it abundantly clear that her preferred option was an independent Scotland within an EU which also contained the rUK. It  may have escaped your attention but the SNP are a pro-democracy party. It would be bizarre in the extreme for her to do anything other than campaign for a UK wide Remain vote. If you choose to read that as an acceptance of Scotland remaining in the UK your interpretative powers are plumbing new depths.

[LJS]

On 22/01/2017 at 9:16 AM, eFestivals said:

No one has suggested not shafting them, either. I look forwards to the details of the humongous tax rises so public services to benefit Scotland's poor can be maintained.

I could point out the cuts the SNP are making onto Scotland's poor RIGHT NOW!!!!

Go on, then.

On 22/01/2017 at 9:16 AM, eFestivals said:

- without there even being indy, and with Scotland's budget maintained (so not tory austerity, just SNP austerity!)  - to show that even before indy Scotland and its separatists are advocating shafting the poor.

Facts are awkward things, eh?

It would appear so otherwise why haven't you come up with any?

 

[LJS]

On 22/01/2017 at 9:18 AM, eFestivals said:

what a bullshit argument.

The reduction is down to tory measures. Call them what you like.

But wait a minute, you just said " not tory austerity, just SNP austerity " Which is it Neil? 

On 22/01/2017 at 9:18 AM, eFestivals said:

After all, snippers claim that it's impossible for the SNP to do anything because they don't control all of the necessary 'levers'.

But I don't. I claim they could do more. Although I do not accept they are doing nothing. If you want to argue with "Snippers" go BTL at Wings - i'm sure you'll fit in just fine there.

[LJS]

On 22/01/2017 at 9:23 AM, eFestivals said:

The money becomes the the most important point via your refusal to discuss it on a factual basis.

My refusal to discuss it on a factual basis?

Was that when I used GERS & Chokka's numbers to show a steady reduction in the onshore deficit which you denied at first until I proved you wrong. 

Or was that when you claimed that my numbers (Sorry GERS & Chokka's numbers) didn't work because they didn't take into account inflation? Of course you were wrong again. 

So I've made my case using your favourite "factual" numbers yet you still refuse to engage seriously preferring to accuse me of " refusal to discuss it on a factual basis" 

 

On 22/01/2017 at 9:23 AM, eFestivals said:

If the money side of things was a nothing you wouldn't have to lie about the money.

This is a beautiful example of the way you twist what people say in an argument. You posted the above in response to me saying...

 

"I have no idea what point you are failing miserably to make here. There is no one claiming that "the money" is the most important point.

You are the only person who seems to think it's all about the money. Not quite sure what that says about you."

 

At no point do I make a claim within a million miles of " the money side of things was a nothing " 

I have never said anything within a million miles of " the money side of things was a nothing " 

I don't believe that   " the money side of things was a nothing " 

Is that what you call a straw man, Neil?

Or is it a straw squirrel?

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, LJS said:

Not logic... opinion. I know you struggle with the difference.

so you think Scotland could vote out in 2018 (and late 2018 is what most people think) and be independent before March 2019, and have done a deal with the EU in the meantime?

There's opinion, and then there's utter stupidity by the rejection of reality.

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, LJS said:

Didn't take East Germany long though, did it?

The (West) German constitution still encompassed the east, and so East Germany was always a theoretical part of the EU.

And merging a chunk of land into existing treaties is a very different thing to splitting a territory and that new territory requiring its own treaties.

FFS.

I see were back to day one of the campaign for the 2014 ref, where all of the same facts have to be re-established with a bunch of fantasists.

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, LJS said:

But none of them had already defacto been in the EU for over 40 years. 

Scotland is not a member of the EU.

Scotland is waaaaay short of meeting the 'Copenhagen criteria' of EU membership requirements.

Scotland doesn't meet the requirements of more than 25 of the 35 'chapters'.

Central Bank, currency, required legal institutions, required trade bodies. Show time the Scottish ones of these, please, or STFU with your ridiculous fact-free claims.

You might remember I suggested back in 2014 that Scotland got off its arse and created these things in preparation for membership - but it's done fuck all, when if its govt were actually serious it would have started to do the required preparatory work.

[LJS]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Scotland is not a member of the EU.

Scotland is waaaaay short of meeting the 'Copenhagen criteria' of EU membership requirements.

Scotland doesn't meet the requirements of more than 25 of the 35 'chapters'.

Central Bank, currency, required legal institutions, required trade bodies. Show time the Scottish ones of these, please, or STFU with your ridiculous fact-free claims.

You might remember I suggested back in 2014 that Scotland got off its arse and created these things in preparation for membership - but it's done fuck all, when if its govt were actually serious it would have started to do the required preparatory work.

You in the real world today? Can you imagine the outcry if Scotland started spending money setting up the institutions required for Indy. 

And you wouldn't be at the head of the queue screaming about them robbing the poor to fund their vanity projects.

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, LJS said:

The (on-shore) deficit has been reducing despite the major shocks to two of the largest sectors of our economy. None of us know exactly what the effects of Brexit will be  - although some of us have always said the remain campaign scare mongered them out of all reasonable proportion. Others poo-poohed that & said there was no scaremongering & the projections were accurate. Some of these seem to have seen the post- Brexit light & suddenly accept that brexit may not be the economic catastrophe they once believed, 

Just as comfy has been saying, a country ploughs its own path, and in the vast majority of cases a comparison of what might have been on a different path can never be known.

So if there's consequences from brexit, there's no way of actually knowing if we might have suffered better or worse from no-brexit. After all, economies are unstable, and the average for recessions is every nine years (which means we're due one anyway).

Meanwhile, if Scotland goes indy, comparison *IS* possible. It's a perfectly reasonable assumption that it's levels of proserity would continue at around the UK average, so a drop of prosperity for Scotland would be blindingly obvious to anyone just by comparing with rUK.

When (not if) Scottish pensions have to be cut because of Scotland's humongous deficit, everyone in Scotland will know what indy has cost them.

[LJS]

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The (West) German constitution still encompassed the east, and so East Germany was always a theoretical part of the EU.

And merging a chunk of land into existing treaties is a very different thing to splitting a territory and that new territory requiring its own treaties.

FFS.

I see were back to day one of the campaign for the 2014 ref, where all of the same facts have to be re-established with a bunch of fantasists.

Yup, we're back to 2014 where anyone who disagrees with Neil is a fantasist even if actually have real experience within the EU. Cos someone who reads Wikipedia knows better.

[eFestivals]

Just now, LJS said:

You in the real world today? Can you imagine the outcry if Scotland started spending money setting up the institutions required for Indy. 

but it's only £200M. Alex said so, remember? 

But you're being dumb. Mostly they'd be self-financing. Regulatory trade bodies are supported by their membership fees, for example.

(Of course, those new Scottish trade bodies wouldn't be sovereign initially, but with support for indy so strong they'd have no difficulty in getting a big enough membership for them to be viable, right...?   ... the reason they haven't happened is nothing to do with them exposing how imbalanced the support is, of course, just as it's no coincidence that BfI have gone very quiet )

 

Just now, LJS said:

And you wouldn't be at the head of the queue screaming about them robbing the poor to fund their vanity projects.

The SNP are robbing the poor anyway and using lies to do it, and you support it. And you say my opinion counts for fuck all.

So you'll have to tell me why you're suddenly scared of the very tactics you support.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, LJS said:

Yup, we're back to 2014 where anyone who disagrees with Neil is a fantasist even if actually have real experience within the EU. Cos someone who reads Wikipedia knows better.

I'm someone who read the white paper, which you never did. I'm someone who's read Sturgeon's recent 'stay in Europe' doc which you haven't.

I'm someone who understands GERS, rather than says laughable stuff like "adding up and subtraction works differently when indy".

You don't even reach the heights of reading wiki.

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, LJS said:

Well if TMay can protect Jobs that rely on the EU from outside the EU, Sturgeon can equally protect Scottish jobs that rely on trade with England .

A smart man would realise it's not the same thing,.

You know how you and plenty of other Scots firstly look to a Scottish supplier for what you need? The same thing doesn't happen in England for English suppliers: the UK is the UK for us.

If you put up a wall, attitudes down here will change to match the one you work to, and the lesser-desire to trade with companies in a different country kicks in.

So England 'brings' its trade 'home' and gains by doing so, while Scotland is already primarily trading on the 'home' market so there's no similar gain (or at least, not one as large) to make up for the business Scotland would lose.

 

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, LJS said:

So they didn't say "voting no would be a vote that took Scotland out of the EU" they talked about "the possibility of an EU ref and it's possible consequences for Scotland" 

True. But you need to consider what it actually means.

It means that Scots regard the relationship with rUK as the more-important.

And that's because it REALLY is.

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, LJS said:

History has recently been rewritten to pretend...

from a snipper that's priceless.

If I had a quid for every time I've seen a snipper reference the declaration of Arbroath or the treaty of union like it means something today I'd be an extremely rich man.

[LJS]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

from a snipper that's priceless.

If I had a quid for every time I've seen a snipper reference the declaration of Arbroath or the treaty of union like it means something today I'd be an extremely rich man.

The treaty of union means nothing?

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, LJS said:

Yes, Scotland is - or at least a large proportion of it: and its main political wing forms the government here & has virtually all our mp's.

Before referendums became the vogue a parliamentary majority of Scottish mp's would have been seen as a mandate for independence.

Ahhh, I love how you talk about MPs and not MSPs, and pretend those MPs are a majority and not the 8% that they really are.

And I love how you now back that unfair FPTP system that returned them in those numbers.

And I love how you ignore the democratic will of the people of Scotland.

It must all be that better Scotland you speak of.

 

9 hours ago, LJS said:

She would be rejecting reality if she didn't realise that, however unfortunately, Scotland currently remains a part of the UK. She also made it abundantly clear that her preferred option was an independent Scotland within an EU which also contained the rUK. It  may have escaped your attention but the SNP are a pro-democracy party. It would be bizarre in the extreme for her to do anything other than campaign for a UK wide Remain vote. If you choose to read that as an acceptance of Scotland remaining in the UK your interpretative powers are plumbing new depths.

You really are a devious lying little shit, aren't you?

This is what you said that my reply was against, that your reply above was back again.

On 1/21/2017 at 9:25 PM, LJS said:

I am not aware of any parts of Scotland that are claiming not to be part of Scotland. Are you?

It wasn't about "acceptance of remaining in the UK", it was about acceptance that Scotland is a part of the UK.

Which Sturgeon fully accepted by campaigning for one side of a whole-UK binary-decision vote.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, LJS said:

The treaty of union means nothing?

In the way snippers say it, yup. What have you missed?