The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

16 minutes ago, LJS said:

OK, Neil what the "fact" that more than 10% of yes supporters are motivated by anti-English hatred.

So you're talking at least 160,000 folk maybe as high as 200,000.

Your "evidence" for this? A couple of hundred nutters crouched behind their keyboards.

Is this one of your opinions "formed from engagement?"

it's thousands and thousands and thousands of people whose comments I've seen, not just a couple of hundred.

As ever, when you have no answer, you deny the evidence.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

That's UK deficit (blue, sourced from where i found them all on one page) and Scottish deficit (orange, from GERS).

Can you notice how the UK deficit will (perhaps) reach zero in a few years, and that the scottish deficit will still be approx 6.5%?

Have you noticed that UK deficit reduction - also called 'spending cuts' - is due to end when it does reach zero, and that will leave Scotland with a 6.5% deficit that WILL NOT REDUCE???

And finally, can you tell me what the effect of the Barnett supplement has on those figures, which ensures that the Scottish deficit will never reach zero?

(and just in case you want to go the idiot "we'll that only shows how westminster is fucking Scotland", I refer you to your FM's words about how scotland costs more to run because of its geography. I don't think the indy campaign intends to change the geography of Scotland).

Given that modern economic theory reckons that a sovereign state should aim for a deficit of 2% or less, iScotland will need to introduce a minimum 4% of GDP of cuts (which equates to about 9% of public spending, don't forget!).

You might say "iScotland can borrow the money till the economy grows", but the lenders who might lend will laugh and refer iScotland to modern economic theory on the basis that they'll want their money back.

But even if the money was borrow-able while the economy expanded, that would still require a spending freeze - which is really cuts when the price of everything is inflating.

Salmond was able to find about 1% of savings in the 2014 white paper. Finding 9% will require cuts onto 'nice' spending priorities, no differently to how cuts for whole-UK have required cuts to nice things.

 

just so it's not lost on the last page, seeing as it's the central factor around indy.

[LJS]

17 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

it's thousands and thousands and thousands of people whose comments I've seen, not just a couple of hundred.

As ever, when you have no answer, you deny the evidence.

You do realise some people post multiple times and I have seen instances where people are accused of having multiple "identities" I popped briefly below a Scotsman article yesterday and read about 20 comments. One could be described as anti-English. I think you are making this up as you go along. Out I  the real world, where I live, amongst real people, I genuinely can't remember when I last heard an anti-English comment (other than sports related ....and at my work two of the most anti English when it comes to sport are no voters)  

[eFestivals]

18 minutes ago, LJS said:

You do realise some people post multiple times and I have seen instances where people are accused of having multiple "identities"

Yep, tho those accusations always come at people who are too inconvenient for snippers, because they keep on referencing facts.

Apparently, anyone with a fact to hand must all be the same anti-indy opponent.

Are there as many of those double accounts as there are the accusations? Not a feckin' chance.... but hey, conspiracy theories are always the way that the smart people deal with awkwards facts. Just ask Trump, who you're nothing like, nothing at all like.

 

Quote

I popped briefly below a Scotsman article yesterday and read about 20 comments. One could be described as anti-English.

Oh, so now you do actually recognise it's there.

Care to tell me if how many of the good snippers called it out?

I'll wager a fiver is was none at all. Am I right?

How many comments you might see depends on what the article is about, and whether a first anti-English post then becomes focus of discussion (and when it is, loads more wade  in with similar stuff).

 

Quote

I think you are making this up as you go along. Out I  the real world, where I live, amongst real people, I genuinely can't remember when I last heard an anti-English comment 

Probably because just like with the (general) racists, society has impressed on them that it's not something that's acceptable as general conversation.

It's not like kippers are quick to express their racism in a public conversation, but it all comes out BTL. 

I'm not sat here thinking "it's only a few nutters" when the kippers are doing it. I'm not sat here thinking it's only a few nutters when snippers do all the same things to the same (and often greater) extent.

And when you do see it, your default is always to excuse anyway. You demonstrate that constantly with all indy topics.

Which reminds me, i'm still waiting for you to say what you thought Salmond was on about when he said "Scotland is being treated like a county not a country"? Care to explain to me how that's not him referencing a claim of greater rights for just-some in the UK?

Edited March 21, 2017 by eFestivals

[LJS]

11 hours ago, eFestivals said:

it's thousands and thousands and thousands of people whose comments I've seen, not just a couple of hundred.

As ever, when you have no answer, you deny the evidence.

There is no evidence & even you clutter up this place with 500 comments all explicitly anti-English & all from unique posters, that will only be evidence that there are 500 nutjobs out there. You claim there are 200,000. 

You have no evidence. Not a shred.

[LJS]

12 hours ago, eFestivals said:

just so it's not lost on the last page, seeing as it's the central factor around indy.

I see you're replying to your own posts now.

I can save us all a lot of time because we have had this conversation at least 4 or 5 times now & it always goes the same way.

1: I point out that, for purposes of this thread,  we are talking about the viability of in Indy Scotland, If Scotland gets Indy anytime soon it will pretty much certainly be before England eliminates its deficit and once Scotland is Independent, the Tories increasing spending will not affect Scotland directly. I repeat that, as your graph shows, the Scottish deficit is consistently decreasing 

2: you reply by saying its only Tory cuts that are causing that decrease & the deficit gap is not decreasing

3: i reply by saying

  a)  government spending* in Scotland has fluctuated over the past few years but there has been no significant reduction.   I also remind you that you yourself have been at great pains to point out that Currently government spending in Scotland is increasing.

*this is true both of Holyrood spending or of total estimated spending as contained in GERS

  b)the deficit gap becomes irrelevant once Scotland is independent 

4: you come back with some more stuff about deficit gaps and at this stage normally toss in something about Alec Salmond claiming Scotland could grow its economy faster than Pinocchio could grow his nose, or China could grow it Pandas ... or something like that - i can't quite remember.

5: I reply by pointing out that you are misquoting Eck and that all I am suggesting is that by the time Indy actually happens, assuming current rates of deficit reduction continue, Scotland will be much closer to running a sustainable deficit. I may mention that deficits are terribly common & indeed, save for a handful of years, the UK has run one constantly since WW"

6: you ask me if I will close all hospitals or close all schools. and accuse me of loving Tory cuts and making up my own Scottish & exceptionla maths.

7: I challenge you to point out the flaw in my maths which is only extrapolating your favourite hobby economist's graphs.

 

We've done all this before - there will be nothing different this time, so until something changes - possibly next gers figures or Nicola's growth commission comes up with something, I would suggest we let this matter rest.

I fully understand that you will, ad nausea, accuse me of not answering the question so I feel its time for another  definition from ... 

 

Neil's Bristol English dictionary of words and phrases

to answer the question: (verb phrase): to agree wholeheartedly with Neil

conversely...

to fail to answer the question: (compound verb phrase) : to disagree with Neil, also to be a moron or have your head up your arse

 

So you may accuse me as much as you wish of failing to answer this question. I will ignore you completely. I woudl suggest that you assume this to be the case in any other areas where I ignore tediously repetative accusations of failing to answer questions.

I await your insults with anticipation.

 

 

Edited March 21, 2017 by LJS

[eFestivals]

39 minutes ago, LJS said:

There is no evidence & even you clutter up this place with 500 comments all explicitly anti-English & all from unique posters, that will only be evidence that there are 500 nutjobs out there. You claim there are 200,000. 

You have no evidence. Not a shred.

Fantastic answer. An admission that there's evidence available, then a lie with a number I've not said, and then a claim of no evidence for the evidence you've already admitted to.

[eFestivals]

16 minutes ago, LJS said:

I see you're replying to your own posts now.

I can save us all a lot of time because we have had this conversation at least 4 or 5 times now & it always goes the same way.

1: I point out that, for purposes of this thread,  we are talking about the viability of in Indy Scotland, If Scotland gets Indy anytime soon it will pretty much certainly be before England eliminates its deficit and once Scotland is Independent, the Tories increasing spending will not affect Scotland directly. I repeat that, as your graph shows, the Scottish deficit is consistently decreasing 

2: you reply by saying its only Tory cuts that are causing that decrease & the deficit gap is not decreasing

3: i reply by saying

  a)  government spending* in Scotland has fluctuated over the past few years but there has been no significant reduction.   I also remind you that you yourself have been at great pains to point out that Currently government spending in Scotland is increasing.

*this is true both of Holyrood spending or of total estimated spending as contained in GERS

  b)the deficit gap becomes irrelevant once Scotland is independent 

4: you come back with some more stuff about deficit gaps and at this stage normally toss in something about Alec Salmond claiming Scotland could grow its economy faster than Pinocchio could grow his nose, or China could grow it Pandas ... or something like that - i can't quite remember.

5: I reply by pointing out that you are misquoting Eck and that all I am suggesting is that by the time Indy actually happens, assuming current rates of deficit reduction continue, Scotland will be much closer to running a sustainable deficit. I may mention that deficits are terribly common & indeed, save for a handful of years, the UK has run one constantly since WW"

6: you ask me if I will close all hospitals or close all schools. and accuse me of loving Tory cuts and making up my own Scottish & exceptionla maths.

7: I challenge you to point out the flaw in my maths which is only extrapolating your favourite hobby economist's graphs.

 

We've done all this before - there will be nothing different this time, so until something changes - possibly next gers figures or Nicola's growth commission comes up with something, I would suggest we let this matter rest.

I fully understand that you will, ad nausea, accuse me of not answering the question so I feel its time for another  definition from ... 

 

Neil's Bristol English dictionary of words and phrases

to answer the question: (verb phrase): to agree wholeheartedly with Neil

conversely...

to fail to answer the question: (compound verb phrase) : to disagree with Neil, also to be a moron or have your head up your arse

 

So you may accuse me as much as you wish of failing to answer this question. I will ignore you completely. I woudl suggest that you assume this to be the case in any other areas where I ignore tediously repetative accusations of failing to answer questions.

I await your insults with anticipation.

 

 

Yep, the deficit doesn't matter.

 

[LJS]

8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Fantastic answer. An admission that there's evidence available, then a lie with a number I've not said, and then a claim of no evidence for the evidence you've already admitted to.

Correct you didn't say a number. Here's what you did do...

 

Comfy asked you a question ..

"Neil can you perhaps put a rough estimate on the numbers or percentage of YES voters you believe are driven by anti English sentiment."

 

You gave him an answer...

"There's no doubt in my mind it's greater than 10%."  

Now we could argue about the precise definition of "yes voters" but let's go with the most literal ... people who actually voted yes. That number is  1,617,989.

10% of that number is 161,799.

You said you had no doubt it was greater than 10%, so I took the liberty of rounding it up to 200,000 which is about 12.3% which seemed a perfectly plausible "no doubt greater than 10" percentage.

If you feel I have misrepresented you, I'll happily round that back down again. What about 165,00? would that be a reasonable interpretation of what you said?

Here I'll change it for you.

Quote

 

There is no evidence & even if you clutter up this place with 500 comments all explicitly anti-English & all from unique posters, that will only be evidence that there are 500 nutjobs out there. You claim there are 165,00 

You have no evidence. Not a shred

 

 I don't feel it changes the point I am trying to make. If I originally misinterpreted what you were trying to say, I apologise. It's really annoying when folk do that isn't it? 

[LJS]

good stuff here.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/03/4-ways-second-scottish-independence-campaign-would-be-different

4 ways a second Scottish independence campaign would be different

This time, Project Fear cuts both ways. 

 

1. Better together... with what?

2. EU membership is in reach

3. Scotland can think big

4. There is no status quo

[Comfy Bean]

13 hours ago, eFestivals said:

it's thousands and thousands and thousands of people whose comments I've seen, not just a couple of hundred.

As ever, when you have no answer, you deny the evidence.

Thousands and thousands and thousands is a bit vague.

It would be impossible to put an exact number on but are you guessing at 3000, 10000, 15000 plus ?

As an aside, are you including the 2 who post regularly on here ?

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, LJS said:

4 ways a second Scottish independence campaign would be different

 

What's different about the same duplicitousness?

Sturgeon says Scotland's future "should not be imposed".

Because I remember a vote that accepted that sometimes it should be, which rejected the idea that stuff couldn't be imposed.

Cos if stuff should not be imposed, Scotland would have voted to always go with its own choice, rather than choosing to go along with whole-UK decisions where it knew that Scottish opinion would sometimes be out of step.

So essentially, Sturgeon has already called independence, and now she wants you to confirm that her never accepting the views of the Scottish people is the right and proper thing.

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Thousands and thousands and thousands is a bit vague.

It would be impossible to put an exact number on but are you guessing at 3000, 10000, 15000 plus ?

As an aside, are you including the 2 who post regularly on here ?

It's not really an aside, it's part of the same thing. 

so let me see....?

Hmmm ... refusing to accept the fact of attempts at violence along with verbal abuse at someone because they're English, on the basis that Scots aren't like that when you know some are. I'd say that's anti-English.

Claims of racists roaming English streets like they don't in Scotland (and don't in England). I'd say that's anti-English.

Claims of a tory free Scotland and tories being distinctly English when the difference in tory-ism between England and Scotland is less than one in 15 people. I'd say that's anti-English.

Promoting the idea that the English are slaves to Scotland, responsible to pay Scottish pensions while Scots get a freebie. I'd say that's anti-English.

Indy is full to the brim with anti-Englishness, just not all of the utterly vile kind that I was specifically referencing. Cos after all, it's nationalism where everything is the fault of that other.

So for your last question: yup. Are you that unself-aware?

[LJS]

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It's not really an aside, it's part of the same thing. 

so let me see....?

Hmmm ... refusing to accept the fact of attempts at violence along with verbal abuse at someone because they're English, on the basis that Scots aren't like that when you know some are. I'd say that's anti-English.

Claims of racists roaming English streets like they don't in Scotland (and don't in England). I'd say that's anti-English.

Claims of a tory free Scotland and tories being distinctly English when the difference in tory-ism between England and Scotland is less than one in 15 people. I'd say that's anti-English.

Promoting the idea that the English are slaves to Scotland, responsible to pay Scottish pensions while Scots get a freebie. I'd say that's anti-English.

Indy is full to the brim with anti-Englishness, just not all of the utterly vile kind that I was specifically referencing. Cos after all, it's nationalism where everything is the fault of that other.

So for your last question: yup. Are you that unself-aware?

I'd just like to be sure that I'm not misunderstanding you Neil.

My reading of what you've said is that you believe that comfy & I are "driven by anti-English sentiment."

Have I misunderstood what you have said?

Edited March 22, 2017 by LJS

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

b)the deficit gap becomes irrelevant once Scotland is independent 

Not really.

The deficit gap is the difference between a deficit that's serviceable in the round, and one that is not and will lead to bankruptcy.

The deficit gap is the economic difference between England and Scotland. If you take away what currently bridges that gap - the extra money of the barnett formula - Scotland is poorer.

 

11 hours ago, LJS said:

2: you reply by saying its only Tory cuts that are causing that decrease & the deficit gap is not decreasing

As the graph shows very clearly, with the deficit gap not closing.

The deficit is reducing, because spending is not growing at the same rate as the economy: which in effect are spending cuts.

That deficit gap has been 6-ish% for 40 years. That's because it's caused by the Barnett money, which ensures that a Scotland which performs at the whole UK average will never have a whole UK average deficit, because it causes Scotland to have more money to spend than the UK average.

The stupid would call it a tory plot to tie Scotland to England. Smarter people - including your FM when caught off-guard - will admit extra money is necessary because Scotland costs more to run.

Which means Scotland could only keep spending as much without the Barnet money if the Scottish economy consistently out-performed the UK economy by more than 10%.

Which brings us onto ...

11 hours ago, LJS said:

I am suggesting is that by the time Indy actually happens, assuming current rates of deficit reduction continue, Scotland will be much closer to running a sustainable deficit.

Closer, but still short of sustainable. Only further cuts - cuts beyond what tories would make - would make it sustainable.

 

11 hours ago, LJS said:

the Tories increasing spending will not affect Scotland directly.

It will. FFS.

The 'Osborne plan': spending will be cut as a proportion of GDP until the deficit is zero, and then spending growth will again grow with GDP (so that in real terms cuts have stopped, which means that deficit reduction will have too)

 

11 hours ago, LJS said:

I challenge you to point out the flaw in my maths which is only extrapolating your favourite hobby economist's graphs.

Just above, where you say "the Tories increasing spending will not affect Scotland directly".

When the tories start to match spending growth to GDP growth, there is no reduction in deficit.

Scotland's deficit could only continue to reduce in those circumstances if:

1. Scotland's economy out-performs the UK average. But why would it, what are the plans which would cause that? There are none.

Without the how & why - solid plans - hoping for this is only empty hope.

2. Scotland cuts its spending when the tories were NOT cutting spending.

So your maths is fucked unless you show us the firm plan that can cause the Scottish circumstances to match your fantasy maths, or you're advocating worse-than-tory cuts.

11 hours ago, LJS said:

I repeat that, as your graph shows, the Scottish deficit is consistently decreasing 

because spending as a proportion of GDP is falling.

Because of tory cuts.

The amount being spent might be increasing, but at a slower rate than economic growth, which causes the deficit to close.

The extra Scottish part of the deficit - the 'deficit gap' - will only close if Scottish spending is cut by more than the tories plan.

Or because the SNP who (you'd like to claim) have no interest in chasing money are better at chasing money than the tories who you constantly condemn for their greed and determination to chase money for enrichment.

So the tories are greedy and obsessed by money, but the lovely non-money obsessed Scots will be better at chasing money? Pleeeeaasaasse!

If you want people not to laugh you at least need to have a plan that suggests a way of achieving the permanent 10+% better that Scotland would have to be economically for what you suggest to work.

But then that's now exposed your claim of exceptionalism for Scotland, where Scotland can perminantly run its economy better than UK can, and because the UK economy isn't (in the round) performing worse than the best in the world, it's also a claim of world-exceptionalism for Scotland.

But your maths is sound.

You just keep on telling yourself that, and those who are using their brain rather than your Farage-like nation-love will keep on laughing.

Edited March 22, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

21 minutes ago, LJS said:

I'd just like to be sure that I'm not misunderstanding you Neil.

My reading of what you've said is that you believe that comfy & I are "driven by anti-English sentiment."

Have I misunderstood what you have said?

I've not said you're 'driven' by it. i've simply pointed out you have it.

Which you've exposed above, again, by your laughable claim that the SNP can avoid cutting like a tory on steroids because if only Scots ran the Scottish economy it would out-perform the rUK economy by the 10+% it would need to not have to cut like a tory on steroids.

Because those nasty outsiders are fucking over Scotland. They must be, otherwise an iScotland wouldn't be able to perform better to avoid cutting like a tory on steroids.

For me to not take that as anti-English as its default, you'd need to at least show me a plan for how the Scottish economy can have that far better performance - but you have no plan.

(tho i'm sure you'll tell me that I only have to wait for Sturgeon to reveal she and Scotland are super-special, able to do what no one else can).

[LJS]

10 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I've not said you're 'driven' by it. i've simply pointed out you have it.

Which you've exposed above, again, by your laughable claim that the SNP can avoid cutting like a tory on steroids because if only Scots ran the Scottish economy it would out-perform the rUK economy by the 10+% it would need to not have to cut like a tory on steroids.

Because those nasty outsiders are fucking over Scotland. They must be, otherwise an iScotland wouldn't be able to perform better to avoid cutting like a tory on steroids.

For me to not take that as anti-English as its default, you'd need to at least show me a plan for how the Scottish economy can have that far better performance - but you have no plan.

(tho i'm sure you'll tell me that I only have to wait for Sturgeon to reveal she and Scotland are super-special, able to do what no one else can).

I have 2 major issues with this.

1) I take it as a serious personal insult for you to state I am anti-English. Astonishingly, I do not come here to be insulted. I am genuinely astounded that you can seriously make this claim.

2) I see absolutely no point in continuing this discussion with someone who views everything I say  as being motivated, at least in part, by anti English sentiment. There is no prospect of any meaningful debate.

So you have a simple choice.

You withdraw you slur and apologise, or I'm outta here. And if comfy has any sense, he'll do the same and you will be able to carry on in your own personal echo chamber.

Your call mate.

[eFestivals]

39 minutes ago, LJS said:

I have 2 major issues with this.

1) I take it as a serious personal insult for you to state I am anti-English. Astonishingly, I do not come here to be insulted. I am genuinely astounded that you can seriously make this claim.

2) I see absolutely no point in continuing this discussion with someone who views everything I say  as being motivated, at least in part, by anti English sentiment. There is no prospect of any meaningful debate.

So you have a simple choice.

You withdraw you slur and apologise, or I'm outta here. And if comfy has any sense, he'll do the same and you will be able to carry on in your own personal echo chamber.

Your call mate.

You're not anti-English.

You just very clearly believe that - even without a plan - Scotland can do it better than non-Scots in 'Westminster'. You outlined it in your deficit response.

You're not anti-English.

I look forwards to you telling me how come no-plan from Scotland *always* trumps the reality that is 'Westminster'.

Edited March 22, 2017 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

It's not really an aside, it's part of the same thing. 

so let me see....?

Hmmm ... refusing to accept the fact of attempts at violence along with verbal abuse at someone because they're English, on the basis that Scots aren't like that when you know some are. I'd say that's anti-English.

Claims of racists roaming English streets like they don't in Scotland (and don't in England). I'd say that's anti-English.

Claims of a tory free Scotland and tories being distinctly English when the difference in tory-ism between England and Scotland is less than one in 15 people. I'd say that's anti-English.

Promoting the idea that the English are slaves to Scotland, responsible to pay Scottish pensions while Scots get a freebie. I'd say that's anti-English.

Indy is full to the brim with anti-Englishness, just not all of the utterly vile kind that I was specifically referencing. Cos after all, it's nationalism where everything is the fault of that other.

 

So for your last question*: yup. Are you that unself-aware?

* The last question for the avoidance of doubt was.. Are you ( Neil ) including the 2 who regularly post on here -  within your claims of Indy supporters being driven by anti-English sentiment.

[eFestivals]

16 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

 

Dealing with Scotland's deficit.

 

 

I guess it must be.

Because it's very definitely nothing anti-English, yet the Scots will do what the English cannot.

Even when those magical Scots have no plan to do it with.

It's guaranteed according to LJS. So yep, it's true. The SNP won't have to cut like a tory in steroids to make the Scottish budget balance. 

If only the English were as fantastic as LJS says Scots will be, you wouldn't need indy at all.

[LJS]

8 hours ago, eFestivals said:

You're not anti-English.

You just very clearly believe that - even without a plan - Scotland can do it better than non-Scots in 'Westminster'. You outlined it in your deficit response.

You're not anti-English.

I look forwards to you telling me how come no-plan from Scotland *always* trumps the reality that is 'Westminster'.

Sorry, Neil, you are playing games. 

I still await an apology and a clear no ifs & buts acceptance that I am not in any way anti-English.

Just to help you, an apology that starts "I'm sorry if..." or " I'm sorry but" won't suffice.

[eFestivals]

42 minutes ago, LJS said:

Sorry, Neil, you are playing games. 

I still await an apology and a clear no ifs & buts acceptance that I am not in any way anti-English.

Just to help you, an apology that starts "I'm sorry if..." or " I'm sorry but" won't suffice.

I give you a full and clear no if & no buts apology and acceptance that you are not in any way anti-English.

 

[eFestivals]

Now we've got that out of the way, perhaps you'd like to revisit the subject of deficit, without bringing a sprinkling of magic for your reply...?

[LJS]

52 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I give you a full and clear no if & no buts apology and acceptance that you are not in any way anti-English.

 

Thank you. I accept your apology and trust we need discuss the matter no further. I am assuming that you take the same view of Comfy.

48 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Now we've got that out of the way, perhaps you'd like to revisit the subject of deficit, without bringing a sprinkling of magic for your reply...?

I fear you may not have read my recent post on the subject - here's the edited highlights for you.

22 hours ago, LJS said:

 

I can save us all a lot of time because we have had this conversation at least 4 or 5 times now & it always goes the same way.

 ...

We've done all this before - there will be nothing different this time, so until something changes - possibly next gers figures or Nicola's growth commission comes up with something, I would suggest we let this matter rest.

 ....

So you may accuse me as much as you wish of failing to answer this question. I will ignore you completely. I would suggest that you assume this to be the case in any other areas where I ignore tediously repetitive accusations of failing to answer questions.

 

I should, of course have ignored your post, but I'm feeling charitable given your generous apology. 

Meanwhile I see someone else has weighed into the great GERS debate.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/treasury-should-show-its-workings-funding-devolved-governments

"Despite the devolution of fiscal powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the devolved governments remain dependent on the Treasury for most of their funding. But exactly how their budgets are calculated is often shrouded in mystery. Greater transparency would improve accountability, argues Aron Cheung."

It appears Chokka has failed to shut his opponents up. Although he has shut me up - for the first time he has declined to publish a comment of mine (not on his GERS deniers piece) but on his bizarre attempt to deny the SNP have a mandate that he himself agreed they had. I fear he is starting to struggle...

[pink_triangle]

LJS the pension debate is one I have heard little about, do you have any views about this. Also if Scotland voted indie is there a specific protocol to follow. What happens if no deal can be made?