The Dirty Independence Question

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

 

I know you are very happy to criticise the leader of the party you support.  

 

I was also willing to criticise Blair, Brown and Ed. In some ways I feel more natural being critical of labour as I feel I have far more invested in them and therefore feel more let down by them when I feel they let me down. In a way its like football, there is no team I criticise more than my own!!

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

just occasionally LJS will criticise the SNP - but as gently as possible, never with the same venom he'd use for the tories or Labour doing the same thing

Which is pretty much how it goes for supporters of any parties.

The difference with SNP supporters is they won't actually engage with the facts around things in trying to justify a policy or formulate a position - because the facts are too inconvenient to allow them to do that. It's with that part of things that the SNP are devoid of criticisms by their supporters.

 

I disagree again, the most criticism I have heard about Corbyn has come from labour voters, the torys consider him as a bit of a joke.  Also when Cameron was PM the most rabid criticism I heard came from his own team.

[eFestivals]

34 minutes ago, LJS said:

Sturgeon has repeatedly stated that Scotland is happy to accept refugees

And so has May.

 

Quote

but more than just saying it she has played a part in ensuring that we have taken about a third of the refugees that have arrived under the Syrian Resettlement programme

Only because of the rules that apply to that resettlement programme.

Anyone who is resettled isn't allowed to take a house from a local. 

Who's got the biggest available housing stock? Scotland!*

FFS!!

(*but not because of anything about Scotland being better, merely because Scotland's population is growing by the least, and in places the population is falling by over 1%  a year [and there's fuck all of that happening anywhere in England]!!!)

 

Quote

, as well as a sixth of the Dubs kids that have arrived in the UK.  Actions speak louder than words.

The actions of Westminster which set the rules for the UK around spare capacity, of which scotland has the most spare capacity.

Because it's population is static.

NOTHING of that is Sturgeon's doing. NOT A JOT!!!!!

 

Quote

You started off by accusing her of doing nothing.

Not true, tiny minded man.

I've said she doing nothing beyond the arrangements the UK has put together for the whole UK.

She's doing nothing EXTRA!!!!

Is that because she's extra-caring above the English, or because she isn't?

FFS.

She's doing nothing extra when she could do extra if she cared more. She's not doing any extra because she doesn't.

 

Quote

She is clearly committed to Scotland taking its share of refugees.

Just as the rest of the UK is.

 

Quote

I have said before that I do not have enough information to know whether she should be doing more. You don't have that information either but you just assume that she is doing nothing because that is what you do.

May controls the resources in England that refugees need. Sturgeon controls the resources in Scotland that refugees need.

May set some UK-wide rules with associated UK funding. Sturgeon has operated to those UK-wide rules and *ONLY* those UK rules.

Scotland hasn't chipped in an extra penny above the common-UK requirement.

Because Scotland wants to do more or because it doesn't?

FFS

 

 

 

Edited February 17, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

22 minutes ago, LJS said:

I'm quite sure Scotland will at least maintain the %GDP of foreign aid that the UK currently sends. I'll certianly be looking for such a commitment from any party that gets my vote.

So you'll hurt Scotland's poor to help others, while supporting indy to help Scotland's poor...?

 

22 minutes ago, LJS said:

(you can reply about the £15Bn deficit & shutting hospitals if you wish - you will however be wasting your time as it has been covered about 15Bn times) 

everything's been covered except covering the missing £15Bn.

Yeah, i know.

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

 

Scotland hasn't chipped in an extra penny above the common-UK requirement.

 

 

 

 

Incorrect & I have told you so on more than one occasion. Please stop repeating lies once it has been pointed out to you that they are lies.

[eFestivals]

17 minutes ago, LJS said:

Incorrect & I have told you so on more than one occasion. Please stop repeating lies once it has been pointed out to you that they are lies.

It's 100% correct. 

Money is given by the UK govt to the SG to support the refugees.

That money or may not cover all of their varying needs, and if it doesn't the 'local' source of funds makes up any shortfall. It's *EXACTLY* the same in England as it is in Scotland.

Scotland has *ONLY* taken refugees via the UK-wide scheme.

It has made no attempt to get any extras on a Scotland-only (and Scotland paying) basis via any means whatsoever - when it could do.

Scotland has *chosen* to do nothing beyond what Westminster has said.

Edited February 17, 2017 by eFestivals

[LJS]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It's 100% correct. 

Money is given by the UK govt to the SG to support the refugees.

That money or may not cover all of their varying needs, and if it doesn't the 'local' source of funds makes up any shortfall. It's *EXACTLY* the same in England as it is in Scotland.

Scotland has *ONLY* taken refugees via the UK-wide scheme.

It has made no attempt to get any extras on a Scotland-only (and Scotland paying) basis via any means whatsoever - when it could do.

Scotland has *chosen* to do nothing beyond what Westminster has said.

The Scottish Government has made funds available over and above the Government money if you were actually interested in finding out what the Scottish Government had done you would have had a wee poke around their website & found this out for yourself. May I ask what research you did to make you so sure that " Scotland hasn't chipped in an extra penny above the common-UK requirement?" It's a strange thing to be sure of - and I certainly agree if it were true it would certainly be hard to prove. But then it's not true. It's a lie that you made up because funnily enough no one else is saying it & you will be aware that the Scottish Government has plenty of people only too keen to criticise it for any shortcomings so we can be sure the SNP's political opponenets woudl be taking her to task if there was a shred of truth in your claim.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

The Scottish Government has made funds available over and above the Government money

and the Home Office has made funds available to England beyond the given funding by the UK govt.

Spot the difference? There is none.

2 minutes ago, LJS said:

May I ask what research you did to make you so sure that " Scotland hasn't chipped in an extra penny above the common-UK requirement?"

I apologise for a poor choice of words.

Scotland hasn't gone beyond the obligations that the UK govt has put on all parts of the UK.

Better?

Scotland has done nothing *extra* for refugees, when it could do.

But even if it was how you said and they chucked them a few extra quid beyond the SG's obligations, it doesn't actually help any *extra* refugees.

Sturgeon is saying more refugees should be helped, while not trying to help more refugees.

 

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, LJS said:

you will be aware that the Scottish Government has plenty of people only too keen to criticise it for any shortcomings

yeah, your criticisms of them are damning.

In this particular case, the ones who might criticise them for doing fuck all are nearly all the same people who support them in the first place - which is why it's deafening silence. You spend enough of your time pointing that fact out, FFS!

Then there's the free passes that you and plenty of others hand out for *EVERTHING* they do.

I'm still waiting for you to explode about Sturgeon promising to help a refugee but doing fuck all. Instead we get "it a bit daft", nothing like the damnation of Cameron for doing the same, and then lots of false bollocks about Scotland having gone further than UK obligations when it hasn't.

Edited February 17, 2017 by eFestivals

[LJS]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

and the Home Office has made funds available to England beyond the given funding by the UK govt.

Has it? Not that I'd heard of.

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

Spot the difference? There is none.

I apologise for a poor choice of words.

Scotland hasn't gone beyond the obligations that the UK govt has put on all parts of the UK.

Yes it has. It has made additional money available that it was not required to do. I've told you this clearly. the information is on the public record so quite why you continue to deny it, I'm not sure. Can I suggest you stop now before you seriously embarass yourself.

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

Better?

Naw!

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

Scotland has done nothing *extra* for refugees, when it could do.

But even if it was how you said and they chucked them a few extra quid beyond the SG's obligations, it doesn't actually help any *extra* refugees.

It might. it might enable us to house more refugees than we otherwise would. And it might make life better for the refugees that are here which in itself is a worthy cause.

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

Sturgeon is saying more refugees should be helped, while not trying to help more refugees.

 

It looks to me as if she is trying to help as many as she can. The rate at which refugees arrive is determined by the UK Government & the UNHCR and depends on local authorities making places available. The Scottish Government in association COSLA (convention of Scottish Local authorities) and various statutory & voluntary organisations has been working to ensure that as many places as possible are made available. The more places they make available, the more refugees the UK government will admit. Remember though , the main scheme is limited to 20,000, events of the past few days make it very clear that the Government is highly unlikely to take any more than that even if additional places were made available. The number of refugees coming to the UK is not being limited by Nicola Sturgeon but by Theresa May. 

[LJS]

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

yeah, your criticisms of them are damning.

In this particular case, the ones who might criticise them for doing fuck all are nearly all the same people who support them in the first place - which is why it's deafening silence. You spend enough of your time pointing that fact out, FFS!

Then there's the free passes that you and plenty of others hand out for *EVERTHING* they do.

I'm still waiting for you to explode about Sturgeon promising to help a refugee but doing fuck all. Instead we get "it a bit daft", nothing like the damnation of Cameron for doing the same, and then lots of false bollocks about Scotland having gone further than UK obligations when it hasn't.

I believe we have covered that . And anyway I'm not damning Cameron for leading us to believe we might take about 3,000 kids. I'm damning Amber Rudd & Theresa May for cynically changing the policy.

And I'm damning you for giving them a free pass for it.

 You continue to equate a deliberate & premeditated change of policy with a line in a TV interview.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, LJS said:

Has it? Not that I'd heard of.

You do know that the Home Office carries out many of the same functions as the SG, don't you? It's responsible for many 'England only' functions in the same way that the SG is responsible for 'Scotland only' stuff.

(just to be clear, i know the HO doesn't do everything for England that the SG does for Scotland, cos stuff like Education is done by the education dept).

 

2 minutes ago, LJS said:

Yes it has. It has made additional money available that it was not required to do.

Not true. :rolleyes:

It spent some of it's own money on support services, which is beyond the funding for the refugees themselves.

Do you think there's only those extra support services for refugees in Scotland? :lol:

 

2 minutes ago, LJS said:

've told you this clearly. the information is on the public record so quite why you continue to deny it, I'm not sure. Can I suggest you stop now before you seriously embarass yourself.

I'm denying your claims of it, not it's existence.

Learn to fucking read you moron.

 

2 minutes ago, LJS said:

It might. it might enable us to house more refugees than we otherwise would. And it might make life better for the refugees that are here which in itself is a worthy cause.

It might, but doesn't.

It would only do that if Scotland was influencing the numbers upwards by providing resources beyond what was known to be available.

That would take Sturgeon to commit to taking full - including financial - responsibility for any *extra* refugees she demanded came to Scotland.

First it would require her to commit those extra resources - and she hasn't.

Then it would require her to ask the UK govt to let extras in for Scotland-only to fund. She hasn't.

She's saying she'll take more - but only if the UK pays for them and not Scotland.

Scotland doing more than the UK obligations would require Scotland to take on extra obligations, which it's not done.

 

2 minutes ago, LJS said:

It looks to me as if she is trying to help as many as she can.

On exactly the same basis as you've used there, so is May.

After all, they're operating to identical rules and funding (tho May puts her hand in her own budgets, while Sturgeon wants others to pay so mugs like you to glorify her as having gone further when she hasn't).

 

2 minutes ago, LJS said:

The rate at which refugees arrive is determined by the UK Government & the UNHCR and depends on local authorities making places available. The Scottish Government in association COSLA (convention of Scottish Local authorities) and various statutory & voluntary organisations has been working to ensure that as many places as possible are made available.

Yep.

A place is available when a property is found that won't be denying locals a property them's the UK rules.

Which is pretty easy on somewhere like Bute, which has its population falling at 10% a decade.

Care to show me anywhere in England that has a 1% a year drop in population?

 

2 minutes ago, LJS said:

The more places they make available, the more refugees the UK government will admit.

A more correct way of putting it would be...

The more empty houses there are, the more refugees can enter.

Because those are the rules which govern the numbers.

 

2 minutes ago, LJS said:

Remember though , the main scheme is limited to 20,000, events of the past few days make it very clear that the Government is highly unlikely to take any more than that even if additional places were made available.

Whatever the total number will be, that's what it'll be.

As we've already covered, it's a piece of piss to guilt trip any politician into upping the commitment (tho if it's not done properly they'll wriggle out of it again by pretending that's not what they said - exactly as happened with Sturgeon's 'promise' and Cameron's 'promise')..

 

2 minutes ago, LJS said:

The number of refugees coming to the UK is not being limited by Nicola Sturgeon but by Theresa May. 

As we've already covered, it's a piece of piss to guilt trip any politician into upping the commitment - because the commitment is governed by the resources that politicians wish to make available to make that commitment meaningful.

May has set her limit for the UK. Sturgeon has accepted those limits for Scotland.

As proven by her not committing extra money, Scottish money, for extra refugees to enter.

[eFestivals]

20 minutes ago, LJS said:

And anyway I'm not damning Cameron for leading us to believe we might take about 3,000 kids. I'm damning Amber Rudd & Theresa May for cynically changing the policy.

You've presented the words of Cameron's "commitment" and you've also posted the words of the legislation.

Neither of which give the policy you claim existed.

 

[LJS]

Hey neil!, you still haven't told me about the extensive research that you have done so you can be sure that the Scottish Government is not doing anything or spending any money above and beyond what is required of it in accommodating refugees.

Is it because you just made it up?

 

 

[Comfy Bean]

55 minutes ago, LJS said:

 

 You continue to equate a deliberate & premeditated change of policy with a line in a TV interview.

The people of Scotland will soon enough face a clear choice, an Indy Scotland under the governance of an snp or Labour government or... life within the uk led by the Tories in a hard brexit ukip influenced world.

Perhaps people against Indy feel the need to continually demonise sturgeon, call her names etc as they are uncomfortable with the side they are on ?

NS's commitments on things like nuclear weapons don't sit so well with people who have abandoned similar views. Calling her a facist , dwarf etc maybe makes folk feel better about themselves and diverts attention away from the Indy question ?

i still think a lot of labour voters voted no in the hope milliband would be next pm. Those hopes are gone.

 

[LJS]

Here's a wee hand with your research Neil

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34164632

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35192528

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34416076

http://www.qmu.ac.uk/marketing/press_releases/Global-health-academic-teams-up-with-Scottish-Government-to-help-integrate-refugees.htm

https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2016/sep/03/scotland-welcome-safe-housing-refugees

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/scottish-government-announces-165m-funding-for-housing-support/7018295.article#

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland-to-offer-training-for-refugee-doctors-1-4361269

https://beta.gov.scot/news/scotland-welcomes-refugees/

let me know if you need any more

[eFestivals]

42 minutes ago, LJS said:

Hey neil!, you still haven't told me about the extensive research that you have done so you can be sure that the Scottish Government is not doing anything or spending any money above and beyond what is required of it in accommodating refugees.

Is it because you just made it up?

You still haven't told me what the Scots are paying for that the English aren't paying for. Is that because you've made it up?

Do you honestly think that when the UK govt takes in refugees, that some are booted to Scotland and loved and cared for by the SG, while in England they're booted out the door and never thought of again?

You're insane.

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, LJS said:

Here's a wee hand with your research Neil

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34164632

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35192528

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-34416076

http://www.qmu.ac.uk/marketing/press_releases/Global-health-academic-teams-up-with-Scottish-Government-to-help-integrate-refugees.htm

https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2016/sep/03/scotland-welcome-safe-housing-refugees

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/scottish-government-announces-165m-funding-for-housing-support/7018295.article#

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland-to-offer-training-for-refugee-doctors-1-4361269

https://beta.gov.scot/news/scotland-welcomes-refugees/

let me know if you need any more

 

because in England refugees are booted out of the door and never thought of again.

It's only in Scotland they get a bit of extra love by the govt.

You're INSANE!!!!

[eFestivals]

26 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

The people of Scotland will soon enough face a clear choice, an Indy Scotland under the governance of an snp or Labour government or... life within the uk led by the Tories in a hard brexit ukip influenced world.

That's only part of the choice.

There's also the choice of being poorer, which Scots would have but don't want.

But if they got it the Scottish govt would be cuting hard er than any tory has ever done. Think Greece, or Ireland circa 2009.

Which is why the Scots don't want it.

 

Quote

Perhaps people against Indy feel the need to continually demonise sturgeon, call her names etc as they are uncomfortable with the side they are on ?

Nope, it's just holding politicians to account, like people with brains do and snippers like you don't.

Even for the most normal of things the facts are so against you you have to invent a conspiracy.

But consider the finances? Nope, you'll never do that.

 

Quote

NS's commitments on things like nuclear weapons don't sit so well with people who have abandoned similar views. Calling her a facist , dwarf etc maybe makes folk feel better about themselves and diverts attention away from the Indy question ?

I call my missus a dwarf. Some people aren't so up themselves that pisstakes become daggers.

Who's called her a fascist? I've never seen that said anywhere.

So it's back the made-up, because the facts make you scream.

Will you tell me in a minute how Scotland is too poor, too wee and too stupid to be indy? You normally do.

 

Quote

i still think a lot of labour voters voted no in the hope milliband would be next pm. Those hopes are gone.

your mate has made a few posts in the last few days detailing people's opinions.

If you care to look at them you can see that your own hopes are gone.

Or you could have watched QT last night to see it played out, too.

Edited February 17, 2017 by eFestivals

[LJS]

18 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

I call my missus a dwarf. Some people aren't so up themselves that pisstakes become daggers.

Who's called her a fascist? I've never seen that said anywhere.

So it's back the made-up, because the facts make you scream.

Will you tell me in a minute how Scotland is too poor, too wee and too stupid to be indy? You normally do.

 

 

Quote

 

Posted November 21, 2016 · Report post

 

 

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.

 

 

Quote

 

Posted July 21, 2016 · Report post

She claimed a greater right to indy for Scotland than (say) London.

There is nothing civic about claiming greater rights for yourself than you'll grant others. Mostly it's called fascism.

She claimed a greater right to indy, and claimed that was because Scotland is 'a nation' - a historical-ethnic fact, and not it's current status.

Blood and soil.

 

 

Dearie me!

 

 

[LJS]

34 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

because in England refugees are booted out of the door and never thought of again.

It's only in Scotland they get a bit of extra love by the govt.

You're INSANE!!!!

What happens in England is irrelevant, you said Sturgeon had done nothing beyond what she was obliged to do. You  were wrong. It would be really nice if you had the common decency to admit that instead of tossing Straw men about all over the place.

I can't Imagine Pink Triangle is mad enough to be reading this but if you are, perhaps you an understand why I always seem to be defending Sturgeon when Neil just makes stuff up about her.

Wait a minute, news just in. I have located a picture of Nicola Sturgeon doing nothing about refugees. Neil was right all along.

 

Edited February 17, 2017 by LJS

[LJS]

29 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

your mate has made a few posts in the last few days detailing people's opinions.

If you care to look at them you can see that your own hopes are gone.

Or you could have watched QT last night to see it played out, too.

Glad you mentioned it, here's the latest.

You will just love this one

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

Dearie me!

ahh, OK ... then yep, on the blood and soil Scotland basis she espouses, the putting Scotland first* that you know and love, yep, she's a fascist.

(* which is why the 0.7% of GDP for aid won't hold)

But the choice of word was more to do with boredom at just how fucking dense you were being about the opposite of civic that her "Scotland is a nation and that gives it greater rights" thing is, than the full-on death camps, etc, thing I thought comfy was referring to.

A more thoughtful version of what you've quoted would be "she's a blood and soil nationalist". Not civic.

Words i suspect I'd used in about a million posts before I used the word fascist.

Ao all this has really proven is just how fucking dumb comfy is, and how he can see anything he likes as an insult (it was an insult at your lack of intelligence, and not at her) but can't do a whole sentence. Joined-up thought is something never seen within Scottish indy.

[Comfy Bean]

39 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

Who's called her a fascist? I've never seen that said anywhere.

 

Really ? Lol

I thought you calling her a poisoned dwarf was poor form but each to their own. You are always calling her something :-)

I think she's going to call this next Indy ref for 2018 right enough. I think you and ljs have called this already. NS must be confident that a combination of a much higher starting base, the hard brexit, continuing Tory leadership and demise of Labour will give her the numbers.

The while type of Country thing versus Tory out of Europe land will be the narrative she will look to sell it on. I accept you don't recognise Scotland as a Country etc.

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, LJS said:

What happens in England is irrelevant, you said Sturgeon had done nothing beyond what she was obliged to do.

OMFG.

So you now reckon that the UK govt places no obligations on more-local authorities to care and look after the refugees they take on....?

What happens in England are those obligations from the UK govt. What Sturgeon does in Scotland are the same obligations from the UK govt.

The UK govt is giving you fuicking money for it. Do you think it's giving the money without an obligation going with it?????? 

The obligation is NOT to spend only the supplied funds on the refugees. it's to care for those refugees to the agreed level. If extra funds are needed to do that the extra funds are supplied 'locally'.

There will be a big variance of needs of the individual refugees, so it would be mindlessly-fucking dumb to say "you don't need to ever spend a penny extra on any one of them".

 

5 minutes ago, LJS said:

You  were wrong. It would be really nice if you had the common decency to admit that instead of tossing Straw men about all over the place.

She's done another extra beyond the standard obligations. What don't you get?

One of those links you supplied was funding for a refugee charity. Do you think that 'English govt'* money doesn't do the same, and that in the time of a refugee crisis it won't be granting extra?

(* we both know there's no such thing, but administration of all the same things that the SG does is done for England from somewhere, and from an England-only budget).