The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, LJS said:

Go on, then.

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

 

I refer you to the latest Scottish budget and the cuts they're making onto services to the poor despite the funding from westminster not having been cut.

FFS. :lol:

 

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, LJS said:

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

I'll accept you've made a genuine error, and haven't done a lying c**t routine.

The reduction I was talking about was the reduction of the deficit, and not a reduction in funding for Scotland.

It *MUST* be that in the snippers narrative, because snippers claim they don't have the necessary levers to make a difference, so therefore the difference - the improvement - must be Westminster's doing.

 

9 hours ago, LJS said:

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.

They could help the poor - supposedly what this great new Scotland is all about.

So why aren't they?

 

[LJS]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

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.

The discussion was specifically about Scotland where SNP mp's form mire than 8%.

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

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

I never have & I don't now.

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

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

I don't.

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It must all be that better Scotland you speak of.

 

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

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

Oh, Neil, what a true pleasure it is debating with you.

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

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

 

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.

Scotland is part of the UK. That is a fact. Accepting that as a fact is different from accepting it as the best way of organising things. Or is that distinction a wee bit too subtle for you 

[LJS]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I'll accept you've made a genuine error, and haven't done a lying c**t routine.

The reduction I was talking about was the reduction of the deficit, and not a reduction in funding for Scotland.

It *MUST* be that in the snippers narrative, because snippers claim they don't have the necessary levers to make a difference, so therefore the difference - the improvement - must be Westminster's doing.

 

They could help the poor - supposedly what this great new Scotland is all about.

So why aren't they?

 

They are...not enough in my opinion.

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, LJS said:

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. 

No, it's why you claim that adding up and substaction works differently when Scotland is independent.

 

9 hours ago, LJS said:

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" 

We both agree that the deficit has reduced. The dispute is about why.

You claim it's a wonder of Scotland. I claim it's a wonder of tory cuts onto whole-UK spending while the spending within Scotland has been maintained.

Given that you claim Scotland is suffering cuts when it's not, one of us is starting our analysis with false data. Can you guess which one of us?

 

9 hours ago, LJS said:

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?

I've said indy is about the money. You say it's not.

But then you try to make all discussion about the money impossible, by rejecting even simple addition and subtraction as being relevant.

Which of us is clutching at straws? Is it the one who accepts facts or the one who rejects them?

 

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, LJS said:

The discussion was specifically about Scotland where SNP mp's form mire than 8%.

in which case you've still talked bollocks, because those MSPs don't have sovereignty and therefore would not be able to declare indy under any circumstances. :rolleyes:

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, LJS said:

Oh, Neil, what a true pleasure it is debating with you.

I wish I could say the same. I say one thing and you claim it's about something else entirely.

You're not running away scared from a discussion about what was actually said, of course.

 

4 minutes ago, LJS said:

Scotland is part of the UK. That is a fact. Accepting that as a fact is different from accepting it as the best way of organising things. Or is that distinction a wee bit too subtle for you 

That distinction was fuck-all of what started this tangent. :roilleyes:

You're twisting cos you're scared of what was actually said.

[eFestivals]

I see you didn't refute the blood and soil bit that appears every time Sturgeon proclaims "Scotland is a country" like it's a meaningful thing for a civic movement.

And of course, a civic nation is a nation where it's society chooses to join together - which would an indy Scotland where all parts voted to be included in that new civic nation.

As soon as parts which rejected indy are included against their stated wish, that's the end of 'civic' and the start of blood and soil.

Do you advocate a civic movement, or one based on blood and soil? Your view is defined by what you support.

Edited January 24, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

why's she asking the question, if she's not been bluffing about holding a ref...?

This raises fundamental issues above and beyond that of EU membership. Is Scotland content for our future to be dictated by an increasingly rightwing Westminster government with just one MP here – or is it better that we take our future into our own hands?

It is becoming ever clearer that this is a choice that Scotland must make.

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

I see you didn't refute the blood and soil bit that appears every time Sturgeon proclaims "Scotland is a country" like it's a meaningful thing for a civic movement.

Blood & soil is a phrase strongly linked to the Nazi. Yet again, you demean your argument by such tactics. And of course I have refuted your Bloody Soiled argument dozens of times before.

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

And of course, a civic nation is a nation where it's society chooses to join together - which would an indy Scotland where all parts voted to be included in that new civic nation.

An excellent description of the sort of Scotland I'd like to see.

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

As soon as parts which rejected indy are included against their stated wish, that's the end of 'civic' and the start of blood and soil.

That's precisely not how democracy & civic society works.

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Do you advocate a civic movement, or one based on blood and soil? Your view is defined by what you support.

Why are you asking this? You know precisely what I support & precisely why I support it which makes it all the more disappointing when you insist on continually misrepresenting my position.

[LJS]

38 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

why's she asking the question, if she's not been bluffing about holding a ref...?

 

 

Because it's a reasonable question to ask? Whether she is bluffing (your view) or not (my view) she is trying to frame the Indy question in terms other than the EU. Or perhaps as well as the EU.

[LJS]

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I wish I could say the same. I say one thing and you claim it's about something else entirely.

You're not running away scared from a discussion about what was actually said, of course.

 

That distinction was fuck-all of what started this tangent. :roilleyes:

You're twisting cos you're scared of what was actually said.

this is frankly getting pathetic. I specifically reply to the pints you make. When you don't like the reply instead of justifying your position, you accuse me of twisting things and of course toss in a few gratuitous insults. I suppose it's easier than having a grown up conversation.

Unless calling people lying little shits is your idea of grown up.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, LJS said:

Blood & soil is a phrase strongly linked to the Nazi.

It's about - *only* - ethnic nationalism.

The type some in Scotland want they say towards indy "Scotland is a country".

The civic is opt-in only, with no forced-in because "Scotland is a country".

Just because the SNP have gone for the ethnic doesn't mean you can lie about it.

 

3 minutes ago, LJS said:

Yet again, you demean your argument by such tactics. And of course I have refuted your Bloody Soiled argument dozens of times before.

Get back to me when Scottish indy is about civic and not ethnic.

 

3 minutes ago, LJS said:

An excellent description of the sort of Scotland I'd like to see.

Then tell Sturgeon to put away the ethnic "Scotland is a country" and replace with the civic which will not force independence on those who don't want it.

 

3 minutes ago, LJS said:

That's precisely not how democracy & civic society works.

A civic society is one that opts-in.

Democracy only starts to operate on that civic space after its creation as a civic space.

 

3 minutes ago, LJS said:

Why are you asking this? You know precisely what I support & precisely why I support it which makes it all the more disappointing when you insist on continually misrepresenting my position.

Then you agree to not force parts of Scotland to be indy that do not woish to be indy.

I looks forwards to you campaigning on that basis.

If you win, you might need a new capital city.

 

 

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, LJS said:

Because it's a reasonable question to ask? Whether she is bluffing (your view) or not (my view) she is trying to frame the Indy question in terms other than the EU. Or perhaps as well as the EU.

If she wasn't bluffing she wouldn't be trying to whip up the support she needs but doesn't have via false narratives.

If she wasn't bluffing she'd have called the indyref already.

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, LJS said:

this is frankly getting pathetic. I specifically reply to the pints you make. When you don't like the reply instead of justifying your position, you accuse me of twisting things and of course toss in a few gratuitous insults. I suppose it's easier than having a grown up conversation.

Unless calling people lying little shits is your idea of grown up.

No, you very definitely did not. It's plain to see by reading it back.

I'm happy to accept that you lost what was actually being discussed, tho thatg requires you to be man enough to take the necessary actions and admit your error.

Can you read it back, or can you only make up lies?

[eFestivals]

i reckon that this goes nowhere until you admit your laughable take on GERS, where addition and subtraction works differently after indy, and you proclaim "GERS isn't relevant after independence".

Cos when there's a deficit created by spending more than the income, the only way that deficit changes if by cutting spending or increasing income.

Given that SNP policy has already shown that Scotland is not willing to be taxed at a greater rate for (only) Scotland's benefit, the only way the deficit changes after indy is by humongous cuts.

So if you're going to say GERS is a crock of shit for after indy, you need to tell us all where the cuts are.

Will you? Can you do facts and simple maths?

Or will you keep up with the laughable brain-dead routine?

[LJS]

8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

i reckon that this goes nowhere until you admit your laughable take on GERS, where addition and subtraction works differently after indy, and you proclaim "GERS isn't relevant after independence".

Cos when there's a deficit created by spending more than the income, the only way that deficit changes if by cutting spending or increasing income.

Given that SNP policy has already shown that Scotland is not willing to be taxed at a greater rate for (only) Scotland's benefit, the only way the deficit changes after indy is by humongous cuts.

So if you're going to say GERS is a crock of shit for after indy, you need to tell us all where the cuts are.

Will you? Can you do facts and simple maths?

Or will you keep up with the laughable brain-dead routine?

But Scotland's deficit has been decreasing steadily over the past 6 years or so. You are at great pains to point out (sometimes) that there have been no spending cuts.

This oxygen point where you try & change the subject by claiming (wrongly) that I am wrongly crediting the SNP for this when it is the Tories wit dunnit.

Unfortunately for you , I have made no such claim, I have merely observed that it is a thing that has happened. It might stop happening (& brexit might increase the chances of that) 

My point is that gers suggest you can reduce the deficit without slashing spending.

[LJS]

21 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

No, you very definitely did not. It's plain to see by reading it back.

I'm happy to accept that you lost what was actually being discussed, tho thatg requires you to be man enough to take the necessary actions and admit your error.

Can you read it back, or can you only make up lies?

How's your glass house, Neil?

[eFestivals]

29 minutes ago, LJS said:

How's your glass house, Neil?

Made of glass, and all intact.

How's your house made of wet paper?

I can dig out each part of that tangent if you wish me to make you look foolish, yet again?

[eFestivals]

45 minutes ago, LJS said:

But Scotland's deficit has been decreasing steadily over the past 6 years or so. You are at great pains to point out (sometimes) that there have been no spending cuts.

There have been no spending cuts for Scotland. The latest SG budget proves it (see chokka for the details of the SNP lies).

The population of the UK has grown significantly in that time, while the populatoin of Scotland hasn't.

Scotland's funding is based on the UK funding, where the funding has stayed about static before inflation adjustments, causing the amount per-person to fall for whole-UK but causing the amount per-person to stay about the same for Scotland.

Meanwhile GDP has grown, so the deficit has fallen.

I know it's all too complicated to get your head around, so you can continue talking about what you don't understand and keep showing you don't understand it, or you could be the smart guy who actually understood it.

 

Quote

This oxygen point where you try & change the subject by claiming (wrongly) that I am wrongly crediting the SNP for this when it is the Tories wit dunnit.

You've told me more than once that the SG don't have the powers they need to improve things, so by your own narrative (and the SNP's too) it *HAS* to be the tories wot done it.

Quote

My point is that gers suggest you can reduce the deficit without slashing spending.

It does, yeah - if you extrapolate the last few years for 70 or so years into the future.

You can't admit the 70 years tho, can you? Or the 120 years that Salmond detailed in the white paper.

Or even that the Scottish deficit will stop reducing when the tories stop cutting English spending (population changes, GDP growth, etc, see above for all that you refuse to engage your brain about).

Edited January 24, 2017 by eFestivals

[LJS]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Made of glass, and all intact.

I'll huff & I'll puff....oh, no that's you, that is.

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

How's your house made of wet paper?

Quality banter there, Neil!

People in wet paper houses shouldn't...take up arson?...have electricity?

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I can dig out each part of that tangent if you wish me to make you look foolish, yet again?

Is that like the time when you made me look foolish by proving that I'd linked to & endorsed a post from wings? Oh, no of course you were caught out lying there, weren't you? 

Do feel free to have a bash again, but without any of your special paraphrases.

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, LJS said:

I'll huff & I'll puff....oh, no that's you, that is.

Quality banter there, Neil!

People in wet paper houses shouldn't...take up arson?...have electricity?

shouldn't ... get a nights sleep.  A wet blanket is better.

 

8 minutes ago, LJS said:

Is that like the time when you made me look foolish by proving that I'd linked to & endorsed a post from wings? Oh, no of course you were caught out lying there, weren't you? 

Do feel free to have a bash again, but without any of your special paraphrases.

Nah, you're really not worth it, and you're obviously too dumb to read words anyway, else we wouldn't be here.

Why don't you tell me again how addition and subtraction works differently in an independent country? You seem to love that one.

[LJS]

 

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

There have been no spending cuts for Scotland. The latest SG budget proves it (see chokka for the details of the SNP lies).

Correct, that was what I was saying. That's a good start. We agree on something.

Quote

The population of the UK has grown significantly in that time, while the populatoin of Scotland hasn't.

It has a wee bit but yeah not as much & your point is...

Quote

Scotland's funding is based on the UK funding, where the funding has stayed about static before inflation adjustments, causing the amount per-person to fall for whole-UK but causing the amount per-person to stay about the same for Scotland.

Scotland's real funding may well be but GERS doesn't give figures on Scotland;'s real funding it looks at what it estimates to be the"real" revenue raised in Scotland. 

Quote

Meanwhile GDP has grown, so the deficit has fallen.

Correct again, we agree on something else. I feel we're getting somewhere Neil. Indeed keeping spending increases below the rise in GDP is how smart governments tackle deficits.

Quote

I know it's all too complicated to get your head around, so you can continue talking about what you don't understand and keep showing you don't understand it, or you could be the smart guy who actually understood it.

Oh Neil, I though we were getting along so well. Anyway let's carry on...

Quote

 

You've told me more than once that the SG don't have the powers they need to improve things, so by your own narrative (and the SNP's too) it *HAS* to be the tories wot done it.

I've told you that it is difficult to apportion credit precisely between the two but I have equally acknowledged that the likelihood is that, as they control more of these lever things, its probable Westminster is more responsible than Holyrood. The point you continually ignore is that who is responsible is entirely irrelevant to my argument. Its the fact that it is possible that matters.  

Quote

It does, yeah - if you extrapolate the last few years for 70 or so years into the future.

OK let's extrapolate the last few years for 70 years into the future. We'll need one of your pals pretty graphs to help us here.

Ooh that was clever wasn't it?

its from here (http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/gers-story-told-through-graphs.html) just in case you want to check I haven't interfered with it. 

Let's concentrate on the green line which excludes oil & gas revenues because we are all agreed it would be crazy to base a case for independence on them.

Now let's look at the past 6 years (I'm sure you'll allow me to omit the previous couple as there was a bit of a stooshie going on then) in these 6 years Scotland's on shore deficit has fallen from 16% of GDP to 10% of GDP  - I make that an average of 1% per year.

Is my maths OK so far?

For some reason, you want to extrapolate these figures for 70 years. 

OK ... if you're sure.

I make that a surplus of 60% of GDP by 2086. Bugger, & I won't be around to join in the vast wealth my countrymen (& women) will enjoy

I'll let you into a wee secret - I don't believe this will happen. i know you'll be surprised as I swallowed all the stuff in the white paper I never read about the streets being paved with Whisky & oil gushing out of our taps.

 I do believe that there is no reason why we couldn't continue at roughly the same rate for a few more years and unless my maths are awry we could be down to a deficit of about 3% in about 7 years.

Not 70, Neil.

7.

Is that what happened Neil? Did you mean to say 7 years but your finger slipped & popped a wee zero on the end. It's an easy mistake to make & no one would think any the less of you (hardly possible in fairness) for admitting it. 

Anyway, I hope that sorts out our little mathematical disagreement and we can continue on more amicable terms.

 

Quote

You can't admit the 70 years tho, can you?

You've got me there,Neil. I genuinely don't believe we could maintain this for 70 years.

Quote

Or the 120 years that Salmond detailed in the white paper.

Quote from the Bristol English dictionary 

Quote

detailed: verb (past tense) : made up by Neil

Quote

Or even that the Scottish deficit will stop reducing when the tories stop cutting English spending (population changes, GDP growth, etc, see above for all that you refuse to engage your brain about).

 The Scottish deficit will stop reducing some time that's for sure. Lots of things might make that happen. You are certainly correct that under the current arrangement we are largely at the mercy of whoever is in power at Westminster. I'd rather it wasn't that way because frankly, despite the huge importance that you & your mate Chokka attach to it, I don't see any Westminster politicians giving a flying squirrel about the Scottish deficit.    

Edited January 24, 2017 by LJS

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

 

Correct, that was what I was saying. That's a good start. We agree on something.

Yep, that the SNP are liars with the latest budget. I'#ll take your admission of that as progress.

 

12 hours ago, LJS said:

It has a wee bit but yeah not as much & your point is...

More than a wee bit.

The population of the UK has grown significantly since 2010. The population of Scotland hasn't. 

The spending per-head in the UK has reduced (in real terms, after inflation adjustment) significantly in that time. The spending in Scotland has not.

The economic growth in the UK has increased in that time. The economic growth in Scotland has been slower.

All of these are parts of the reasons why Scotland's deficit has fallen while its spending has stayed static, because the whole UK deficit has been reduced and the Scottish numbers have benefitted via that.

A graph plot of deficit reduction over that period has the line of Scottish deficit follow (stay parallel with) the line of UK deficit - which *proves* (to anyone with a working brain) that Scotland's deficit deduction is strictly-tied to what has been done from Westminster.

You hold out hopes of that being Scotland's salvation, yet it would require 70 years of what you've been falsely calling "austerity" ... which has the laughable situation of someone who slags off 'austerity' seeing austerity as Scotland's salvation from its deficit.

It's only maths, but it's beyond you.

 

12 hours ago, LJS said:

Scotland's real funding may well be but GERS doesn't give figures on Scotland;'s real funding it looks at what it estimates to be the"real" revenue raised in Scotland. 

If there's anything that's questionable because it's an estimate, it means that the true number could see things worse for Scotland, and not better. Logically it's not an angle via which anything can be dismissed.

That aside, if the fact of estimates change anything of the true numbers, the change will be small. GERS are national accounts to international standards.

It doesn't make the deficit go away, before or after indy.

The deficit only changes post-indy is the spending or revenues change.

If the spending is changing you'll have to tell us all what spending is being cut.

The revenues might increase slowly, but they won't instantly magic an extra £9Bn from the air just because Scotland is indy, to cover the deficit gap caused by the extra Barnett funding Scotland has

 

12 hours ago, LJS said:

Correct again, we agree on something else. I feel we're getting somewhere Neil. Indeed keeping spending increases below the rise in GDP is how smart governments tackle deficits.

Scotland's on-shore deficit over-and-above the whole-UK has been constant for more than 30 years.

There's some graphs at chokka which prove this. There's even GERS to Salmond's own methodology which prove this.

Why has Scotland's on-shore deficit over-and-above the whole-UK has been constant for more than 30 years? Because it's the consequence of the extra funding Scotland receives via the Barnett formula.

 

12 hours ago, LJS said:

Oh Neil, I though we were getting along so well. Anyway let's carry on...

I've told you that it is difficult to apportion credit precisely between the two but I have equally acknowledged that the likelihood is that, as they control more of these lever things, its probable Westminster is more responsible than Holyrood. The point you continually ignore is that who is responsible is entirely irrelevant to my argument. Its the fact that it is possible that matters.  

The whole-UK part of Scotland's deficit has fallen.

The 'deficit gap' caused by Scotland's extra funding via Barnett - which accounts for 6-7% of Scotland's total deficit (and which would require a 14%-ish cut in spending to address) - has remained constant.

Because the Barnett formula has remained constant in the financial benefit it brings to Scotland.

 

12 hours ago, LJS said:

OK let's extrapolate the last few years for 70 years into the future. We'll need one of your pals pretty graphs to help us here.

Ooh that was clever wasn't it?

its from here (http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/gers-story-told-through-graphs.html) just in case you want to check I haven't interfered with it. 

Let's concentrate on the green line which excludes oil & gas revenues because we are all agreed it would be crazy to base a case for independence on them.

Now let's look at the past 6 years (I'm sure you'll allow me to omit the previous couple as there was a bit of a stooshie going on then) in these 6 years Scotland's on shore deficit has fallen from 16% of GDP to 10% of GDP  - I make that an average of 1% per year.

Is my maths OK so far?

Your maths is, but the maths needs context - an explanation for the why that reduction has happened.

As is clear, the reduction started in 2010. As is also clear, cuts in whole-UK spending started in 2010 too.

A graph plot of the UK deficit and Scottish deficit shows the lines remaining just-about parallel, which shows the deficit gap as about static.

That deficit gap is 6 or 7%. It's not reducing by any meaningful extent. It *CAN'T* reduce, without reducing the guaranteed extra funding Scotland has above the UK average.

12 hours ago, LJS said:

For some reason, you want to extrapolate these figures for 70 years. 

That's how long it would take to work thru the average of small improvement Scotland has had with it's deficit gap over the last 7 years.

BUT ... that's actually a mathematical anomaly created by the whole-UK deficit reduction, and as soon as whole-UK deficit reduction stops, so does the small improvement.

It's just maths. 

Which you reject here, just as you claiming adding up and taking away works differently after indy is a rejection of maths.

 

12 hours ago, LJS said:

I make that a surplus of 60% of GDP by 2086. Bugger, & I won't be around to join in the vast wealth my countrymen (& women) will enjoy

And at the same time, the whole-UK surplus would be greater than the Scottish number. Which actually means Scotland has gone backwards in its position against the UK, and it isn't an improvement. You do know that, right?

In the real world, the UK (nor Scotland) is going to keep reducing spending, so those suprlusses won't happen.

In the real world, Scotland's improvement can only be measured against the whole-UK position, because the two things are formally tied together via the Barnett funding. 

So everything of the whole-UK-caused reductions can be subtracted from the Scottish reductions, to leave remaining what is solely created in Scotland (or by purely-Scottish circumstances, to put it another way).

Which is *still* around 6%.

Nothing has improved!!!!

 

12 hours ago, LJS said:

 I do believe that there is no reason why we couldn't continue at roughly the same rate for a few more years and unless my maths are awry we could be down to a deficit of about 3% in about 7 years.

Not 70, Neil.

That would require Scotland to keep on cutting spending after UK spending cuts have stopped.

It's impossible via any other means. It's just maths.

 

12 hours ago, LJS said:

7.

Is that what happened Neil? Did you mean to say 7 years but your finger slipped & popped a wee zero on the end. It's an easy mistake to make & no one would think any the less of you (hardly possible in fairness) for admitting it. 

It's 70 years for the deficit gap improvement to work thru - tho *only* if the improvement of the last few years (which went backwards in the last year, in case that passed you by) is average-constant for all of that 70 years. It won't be.

For your 7 years estimate, it would require Scotland to cut at the current tory rates of cutting for whole-UK *AFTER* the tories have stopped cutting. It's just maths.

Get back to me when Scotland has a plan to return the extra barnett funding, which would be those purely-Scottish cuts - and bigger cuts than the tories have made since 2010.

 

12 hours ago, LJS said:

Anyway, I hope that sorts out our little mathematical disagreement and we can continue on more amicable terms.

Only if you're accepting the mathematical realities, of how westminster cuts benefit the scottish numbers, and of how changes within the UK (but [mostly] outside of Scotland) benefit the Scottish numbers.

Normally you say Scotland doesn't have the levers to change anything, but suddenly right here you're trying to pretend that Scotland is changing everything and Westminster are changing nothing.

 

12 hours ago, LJS said:

You've got me there,Neil. I genuinely don't believe we could maintain this for 70 years.

And if we did, that 70 years would prove you wrong, just as maths does today.

 

12 hours ago, LJS said:

Quote from the Bristol English dictionary 

Salmond laid out in the indy white paper what he said was the economic benefit of being a small country.

By his own estimates, it would take 120 years to bridge the deficit gap via extra growth.

That's nothing made up by me, that's something made up by Salmond.

When you call your own indy leaders liars - as you do here, and as you do with GERS - all substance for indy has gone.

 

12 hours ago, LJS said:

The Scottish deficit will stop reducing some time that's for sure.

Yep. When the tories stop reducing it.

The next GERS or the one after will show a slow-down in reduction if not a reversal of reduction. 

That's a mathematical certainty, as a result of a lesser whole-UK reduction in the deficit via the extra spending that Hammond has announced.

(I'm not entirely sure which year(s) that extra spending falls within, which is why I've not committed to a fixed year for when it will show in within GERS).

Mathematical relationships are mathematical relationships.

 

12 hours ago, LJS said:

 Lots of things might make that happen. You are certainly correct that under the current arrangement we are largely at the mercy of whoever is in power at Westminster.

PMSL  ... I've said nothing of the sort.

Scotland can reduce its deficit tomorrow if it wants to. It's fuck all to do with Westminster whether it keeps on reducing.

All Scotland has to do is send back the Barnett money, which ensures that Scotland will always have a 6%-ish deficit gap compared to whole-UK for all the while it's accepted.

 

12 hours ago, LJS said:

I'd rather it wasn't that way because frankly, despite the huge importance that you & your mate Chokka attach to it, I don't see any Westminster politicians giving a flying squirrel about the Scottish deficit.    

Oh FFS. :rolleyes:

Westminster politicians give so much of the fuck they help create it by sending Scotland more money than its equal share.

They don't create it to be nasty to Scotland, tho, they create it because of Scottish demands for it.

(Westminster has been trying to reduce the amount to something fairer for at least 50 years, but Scotland won't have it. It's the very reason the Barnett formula exists in the first place, as a first step of reduction from the better-funded system it replaced.)

I wish some people who didn't give a flying fuck about me sent me money they didn't have to. I've like some of that nastiness, just as you would.

When your argument is so very weak that you're calling benefit to Scotland from Westminster an evil thing, you only have brain-dead.

[LJS]

Hey, Neil...

 

"What is "Scotland is a country" apart from a reference to Scottish soil and the historical ethnic - bloodlines - that created it?"

this is something you said in another thread but is clearly more appropriate here so I'll make my point here.

 

I'd really like to know what you mean by ...

"the historical ethnic - bloodlines "

I was under the impression that we are a mongrel race (I use the term race very loosely) just as much as you guys down south are. You know, a bit of pict, a dash of Briton, a smidgen of Celt, some Viking....I could go on. Not quite sure where this fits in with your blood & soil malarkey. 

Please help me out, Neil.

Once you've cleared that up, can you help me with the soil bit?

I thought our soil was pretty much like everyone else's but apparently not. According to you our "Scottish soil" was created by these "historical ethnic bloodlines" which I'm hoping you will now have enlightened me about.

When I find these "historical ethnic bloodlines", can I get them to create some soil for me? And can I choose what sort of soil I'd like.

Of course, alternatively you could withdraw your ridiculous Nazi slurs & engage in adult debate.

Your call, matey.