The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

29 minutes ago, LJS said:

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

Yep, that was the version sprinkled with magic, where somehow the Scottish economy performs like it never has, and outperforms every developed economy in the world.

Any particular reason why you think that's going to happen?

 

29 minutes ago, LJS said:

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."

I'm pretty sure it's not a mystery, just damned complicated for how a final pile of cash for a particular places is arrived at. Which isn't really surprising given the piecemeal way that devolution has happened.

You probably wouldn't find anyone arguing against the idea that it might be reformed, but to actually try to do encounters people who'll claim it's trying to stitch them up whether that's true or not. From the point of view of whichever politician might be in charge around this, it's probably best avoided, because serious reform can only work with honest and not-self-serving partners.

 

29 minutes ago, LJS said:

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...

It was unwise of him to go there, because I reckon it's fair to accept that on one of the measures for a mandate the SNP certainly have one (which is more than the Greens do).

I think their actual moral right to pursue it is much greyer because of everything they've also previously said, but they are going to pursue it and it's not worth the argument. There's far better things to nail the SNP on.

Like today, where they seemed to have got chicken that the most important announcement in Scotland's history might be overshadowed by that there London, only reinforcing the idea that there'll never actually be the escape from England/London's strong influence no matter how important you might regard a sovereign Scotland.

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

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? 

at the last indyref, UK took full responsibility for Scottish pensions, just as it took full responsibility for Scotland's share of the debt.

That was a moral obligation to ensure those things are paid, and not an immoral obligation to pay what should be rightfully paid by others. Essentially, UK guaranteed them on the basis that iScotland might not pay them.

To give the SNP credit where it's due, the white paper showed iScotland taking on the responsibility for UK state pensions in Scotland. I'm not aware of any different suggestion from them.

However, LJS presented a link to a supposedly 'good' indy proposal, where the guarantee the UK had given was now being used as a promise that it was the UK's obligation to pay the pensions of Scots - which is a crock of shit, of course (and credit to LJS, as he said it was a crock of shit for that too. tho only after he'd been put it forwards to others without having read it himself.)

[LJS]

14 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

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? 

Like much of any post indy settlement the exact arrangement for paying existing pensioners will be the subject of negotiation (much like like of debt & share of assets) What this means in practice is that neither of the extreme views so often expressed are likely to be correct. IN other words, rUK will probably end up picking up some of the cost of servicing existing pensions whilst iScotland will, I would expect pick up all the expense of anyone retiring post Indy. 

The one thing that is certain is that not paying pensions is political suicide, so whoever pays a way will be found to ensure the old no voting Tory gits get paid  .

I'm not sure about he protocol - or what would happen if an impasse is reached. I'm guessing there would have to be some sort of framework agreed at the outset and presumably that would include some sort of dispute resolution procedure. We've  never been near enough getting indy for me to worry about it too much. Lots of other countries have managed to become independent so I'm sure there is precedent.

Neil may know more than I do. 

[LJS]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

at the last indyref, UK took full responsibility for Scottish pensions, just as it took full responsibility for Scotland's share of the debt.

That was a moral obligation to ensure those things are paid, and not an immoral obligation to pay what should be rightfully paid by others. Essentially, UK guaranteed them on the basis that iScotland might not pay them.

To give the SNP credit where it's due, the white paper showed iScotland taking on the responsibility for UK state pensions in Scotland. I'm not aware of any different suggestion from them.

However, LJS presented a link to a supposedly 'good' indy proposal, where the guarantee the UK had given was now being used as a promise that it was the UK's obligation to pay the pensions of Scots - which is a crock of shit, of course (and credit to LJS, as he said it was a crock of shit for that too. tho only after he'd been put it forwards to others without having read it himself.)

just for info- when I post a link to something on here, It does not necessarily indicate that I endorse it - I will usually state explicitly that I do. Often I post stuff just to show what is being said usually on the pro-Indy side as I am conscious I probably see more of that stuff than most on here.

[eFestivals]

Just now, LJS said:

just for info- when I post a link to something on here, It does not necessarily indicate that I endorse it - I will usually state explicitly that I do. Often I post stuff just to show what is being said usually on the pro-Indy side as I am conscious I probably see more of that stuff than most on here.

Yep, and that's fair enough ... tho I think you introduced that particular link as 'interesting', which suggests a recommendation of some level, i'd say.

What i dislike about what you did there - tho I accept innocently - is spread around what you yourself later admitted to be very badly flawed around what it claimed on pensions.

It's probably on just that sort of 'sharing' that the very many myths of indy - which might be called 'fake news' now - are started and sustained.

[LJS]

16 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

 

It was unwise of him to go there, because I reckon it's fair to accept that on one of the measures for a mandate the SNP certainly have one (which is more than the Greens do).

The Greens don't need a mandate. they are not the government. They stated clearly their "preferred" means to proceed towards a referendum. Because they are not the government, they are unable to deliver that preferred means, As an opposition party they have to judge each Government proposal on its merit and make a decision how to vote on it. As they had clearly stated they were in favour of Independence, they are perfectly free and fully justified in deciding to vote in favour of a second referendum.

You are free to disagree with that decision but they have not broken a "mandate" in any shape manner or form and the current demonisation of Andy Wightman & Patrick Harvie going on in Unionist (especially Tory) circles is pretty desperate as well as being excruciatingly embarrassing.  

16 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I think their actual moral right to pursue it is much greyer because of everything they've also previously said, but they are going to pursue it and it's not worth the argument. There's far better things to nail the SNP on.

Like today, where they seemed to have got chicken that the most important announcement in Scotland's history might be overshadowed by that there London, only reinforcing the idea that there'll never actually be the escape from England/London's strong influence no matter how important you might regard a sovereign Scotland.

They were getting pelters for delaying the suspension of Holyrood for even a few minutes - whether right or wrong, they would have been crucified if they hadn't suspended proceedings. 

[LJS]

 

mandate

 

 

NOUN

Pronunciation /ˈmandeɪt/

• 1An official order or commission to do something.

  ‘a mandate to seek the release of political prisoners’

   

  More example sentences

  Synonyms

  1. 1.1Law A commission by which a party is entrusted to perform a service, especially without payment and with indemnity against loss by that party.
      

     Example sentences
  2. 1.2 A written authorization enabling someone to carry out transactions on another's bank account.
      

     Example sentences
  3. 1.3historical A commission from the League of Nations to a member state to administer a territory.
     ‘the end of the British mandate in Palestine’

      

     More example sentences

• 2The authority to carry out a policy, regarded as given by the electorate to a party or candidate that wins an election.

  ‘he called an election to seek a mandate for his policies’

   

  https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/mandate

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

The Greens don't need a mandate. they are not the government.

but they do need to be honest if they don't want to be rightfully regarded as just more lying politicians.

But like other politicians, the people matter fuck all and it's their pursuit of their own power that matters most.

 

11 hours ago, LJS said:

You are free to disagree with that decision but they have not broken a "mandate" in any shape manner or form

We're back to you posting utter bullshit because nothing about indy or its supporters can be criticised even when the facts lay it all bare.

As you seem so hung up about the word 'mandate' let's just call them what they are. Liars. They are acting contrary to their written commitment. They're liars.

11 hours ago, LJS said:

they would have been crucified if they hadn't suspended proceedings.

Sturgeon wouldn't have stoked the grievance she needs to stoke if Holyrood had carried on.

That's the truth if it.

Scotland would have been ignored for London - a London that *IS* more important than all of Scotland - as a consequence of news events, and Sturgeon knows she cannot win without the opportunity to keep on pushing lies and have people believe them.

How does it go again? It would be wrong to "impose" anything on the country that freely voted - in a clear binary vote - in agreement with things being imposed on it in the exact sphere that something is going to be imposed from.

And that clear binary vote means nothing against a few words amongst many thousand  that just about everyone believed to be inconsequential and very few were actually voting in support of even if they do fully support the actions those words were about.

Sturgeon has made clear she has no respect for opinion in Scotland that isn't in line with her own desires, and that's turned off lots of people who might otherwise support indy, i'm glad to see.

 

Edited March 23, 2017 by eFestivals

[LJS]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

but they do need to be honest if they don't want to be rightfully regarded as just more lying politicians.

But like other politicians, the people matter fuck all and it's their pursuit of their own power that matters most.

 

We're back to you posting utter bullshit because nothing about indy or its supporters can be criticised even when the facts lay it all bare.

As you seem so hung up about the word 'mandate' let's just call them what they are. Liars. They are acting contrary to their written commitment. They're liars.

As usual, you have chosen to omit the bit of my previous post that disproves your point before you make it. Here it is again...

"The Greens don't need a mandate. they are not the government. They stated clearly their "preferred" means to proceed towards a referendum. Because they are not the government, they are unable to deliver that preferred means, As an opposition party they have to judge each Government proposal on its merit and make a decision how to vote on it. As they had clearly stated they were in favour of Independence, they are perfectly free and fully justified in deciding to vote in favour of a second referendum."

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Sturgeon wouldn't have stoked the grievance she needs to stoke if Holyrood had carried on.

That's the truth if it.

Scotland would have been ignored for London - a London that *IS* more important than all of Scotland - as a consequence of news events, and Sturgeon knows she cannot win without the opportunity to keep on pushing lies and have people believe them.

How does it go again? It would be wrong to "impose" anything on the country that freely voted - in a clear binary vote - in agreement with things being imposed on it in the exact sphere that something is going to be imposed from.

And that clear binary vote means nothing against a few words amongst many thousand  that just about everyone believed to be inconsequential and very few were actually voting in support of even if they do fully support the actions those words were about.

Sturgeon has made clear she has no respect for opinion in Scotland that isn't in line with her own desires, and that's turned off lots of people who might otherwise support indy, i'm glad to see.

 

I've covered my views on the suspension of proceedings in Holyrood on the general news thread.

In an entirely predictable move, you manage to find an SNPbaad angle in it.

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, LJS said:

As usual, you have chosen to omit the bit of my previous post that disproves your point before you make it. Here it is again...

the bit I recognised when i said to put that to the side to call the SGreens what they are?

The liars that they are.

5 minutes ago, LJS said:

I've covered my views on the suspension of proceedings in Holyrood on the general news thread.

In an entirely predictable move, you manage to find an SNPbaad angle in it.

In an entirely predictable move - that i'd predicted months in advance almost to the day - Sturgeon held a vote over something she's no powers for to stoke grievance.

In an entirely predictable move, the most important debate she's been involved in was suspended because she knew it wouldn't gain the publicity she knows it needs to succeed.

In an entirely predictable move, you refuse to accept the only other possible alternative narrative to what happened, that Holyrood accepts its subservience to Westminster ... yet it can't do because Sturgeon held that powerless vote.

 

[LJS]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

the bit I recognised when i said to put that to the side to call the SGreens what they are?

The liars that they are.

Yeah  you put it to one side because it clearly demonstrated that the greens are not liars. They are an opposition party whose manifesto clearly stated they were pro Indy. It also indicated a "preferred" method. My preferred method for getting to work to day Is in a Lamborghini driven by scarlet Johansson. I think this is unlikely to be on offer, so I'll get the train. It's not my preferred method but...

Quote

In an entirely predictable move - that i'd predicted months in advance almost to the day - Sturgeon held a vote over something she's no powers for to stoke grievance.

In an entirely predictable move, the most important debate she's been involved in was suspended because she knew it wouldn't gain the publicity she knows it needs to succeed.

In an entirely predictable move, you refuse to accept the only other possible alternative narrative to what happened, that Holyrood accepts its subservience to Westminster ... yet it can't do because Sturgeon held that powerless vote.

 

Who are you to decide there are only 2 possible narratives?

Edited March 23, 2017 by LJS

[eFestivals]

Just now, LJS said:

Yeah  you put it to one side because it clearly demonstrated that the greens are not liars. They are an opposition party whose manifesto clearly stated they were pro Indy. It also indicated a "preferred" method. My preferred method for getting to work to day I'd in a Lamborghini driven by scarlet Johansson. I think this is unlikely to be on offer, so I'll get the train. It's not my preferred method but...

Your choice of method of transport requires no input from others against your commitment, and nor does a change of choice abuse what you haven't misled others into doing.

The greens laid out in what circumstances they'd support another indyref. They've gone against what they said.

Your version only works if you or they had ever believed they'd be the victors in the SG elections - which was an impossibility given their limited candidates and the voting method.

So you're talking billy-big-bollocks, unless you're also saying their commitments to green stuff don't mean shit either....?

 

Just now, LJS said:

Who are you to decide there are only 2 possible narratives?

You're welcome to suggest a third.

But it does have to make sense against the facts. I thought it necessary to say that, because I know you have an aversion to the facts.

[LJS]

Just now, eFestivals said:

Your choice of method of transport requires no input from others against your commitment, and nor does a change of choice abuse what you haven't misled others into doing.

But it does demonstrate the meaning of the word "preferred"

Just now, eFestivals said:

The greens laid out in what circumstances they'd support another indyref. They've gone against what they said.

No they didn't. They indicate their preferred method. They did not say that was the only method. They didn't say they'd oppose it if that method wasn't used.

Just now, eFestivals said:

Your version only works if you or they had ever believed they'd be the victors in the SG elections - which was an impossibility given their limited candidates and the voting method.

Rubbish, the word "preferred" defeats your argument.

Just now, eFestivals said:

So you're talking billy-big-bollocks,

How old are you?

Just now, eFestivals said:

unless you're also saying their commitments to green stuff don't mean shit either....?

See above.

Just now, eFestivals said:

You're welcome to suggest a third.

But it does have to make sense against the facts. I thought it necessary to say that, because I know you have an aversion to the facts.

See the general news thread.

[eFestivals]

16 minutes ago, LJS said:

No they didn't. They indicate their preferred method. They did not say that was the only method. They didn't say they'd oppose it if that method wasn't used.

they didn't say they'd support other methods. It was the only stated method. 

You end up saying you want better democracy, and end up supporting the same lying crap that you said you wanted to escape from - just because its to your own preferred choice.

18 minutes ago, LJS said:

See above.

PMSL ... yeah, I know.

They "prefer" to be green but if burning all the oil is the price for indy, their preference was made clear in 2014.

[LJS]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

they didn't say they'd support other methods. It was the only stated method. 

You end up saying you want better democracy, and end up supporting the same lying crap that you said you wanted to escape from - just because its to your own preferred choice.

So opposition  parties can now only vote for things that they have specifically and precisely stated they will vote for in their manifesto? 

Let's flip this on its head to help you see how bizarre your argument is. Let's say the greens oppose the SNP in the current vote. As a green voter, my question to them is: I voted for you in part because you said you were pro-Indy. Why have gone back on that over some procedural not-picking. Your commitment to Indy far outweighs your "preferred" means to get their.

Quote

PMSL ... yeah, I know.

They "prefer" to be green but if burning all the oil is the price for indy, their preference was made clear in 2014.

Neil I've disproved this twice before. On at least one of these occasions, you accepted you were wrong. Quite why you think I wouldn't remember, I have no idea.

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, LJS said:

So opposition  parties can now only vote for things that they have specifically and precisely stated they will vote for in their manifesto?

If they planned to support indy in all circumstances, they could have said they'd support indy in all circumstances.

Rather than provide some stuff which via your narrative always means meaningless.

What don't you get about the justification you're giving it? They could have been honest, and not only are you supporting their deception, you're doing so in a manner which makes everything they say meaningless because you reckon they're permitted to ignore everything of their manifesto because it can never be 'a mandate'.

On the same basis the tories in Scotland could turn round in the recontinued session and say they now support indy, because what they'd put in their manifesto wasn't something they wanted a mandate for because they were never going to win.

And if they did, you'd be the first to wade in to criticise them for going against their word (tho you'd also be conflicted because you'd love the extra support - even from the hated tories that don't exist in Scotland).

Fuck me. You wouldn't be wriggling any more than you are if you were sat on the tip of a pencil.

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, LJS said:

Neil I've disproved this twice before. On at least one of these occasions, you accepted you were wrong. Quite why you think I wouldn't remember, I have no idea.

They backed a plan which would guarantee the burning of all the oil, because the whole of Scotland was dependent on it. 16% of govt spending, remember?

Unlike with the UK, which could afford to give up oil extraction (less than 0.5% of govt spending).

Saudi couldn't give up oil extraction. The plan for iScotland 2014 couldn't afford to give up oil extraction.

But other countries can, and those other countries can help save the world, and help change the situation in Saudi and Scotland too.

But the SGreens don't support that. Indy is more important than the planet.

[LJS]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

If they planned to support indy in all circumstances, they could have said they'd support indy in all circumstances.

Rather than provide some stuff which via your narrative always means meaningless.

What don't you get about the justification you're giving it? They could have been honest, and not only are you supporting their deception, you're doing so in a manner which makes everything they say meaningless because you reckon they're permitted to ignore everything of their manifesto because it can never be 'a mandate'.

On the same basis the tories in Scotland could turn round in the recontinued session and say they now support indy, because what they'd put in their manifesto wasn't something they wanted a mandate for because they were never going to win.

And if they did, you'd be the first to wade in to criticise them for going against their word (tho you'd also be conflicted because you'd love the extra support - even from the hated tories that don't exist in Scotland).

Fuck me. You wouldn't be wriggling any more than you are if you were sat on the tip of a pencil.

It shows how weak your case is when you have to invent something as improbable as the Tories supporting Indy to try & cobble together an argument.

Here's a question? What do you motivated people to vote green more? Their support for Indy? Or their preferred method?

I think we all know the answer, don't we?

Now, have you discovered the meaning of "preferred" yet?

[LJS]

Just now, eFestivals said:

They backed a plan which would guarantee the burning of all the oil, because the whole of Scotland was dependent on it. 16% of govt spending, remember?

Unlike with the UK, which could afford to give up oil extraction (less than 0.5% of govt spending).

Saudi couldn't give up oil extraction. The plan for iScotland 2014 couldn't afford to give up oil extraction.

But other countries can, and those other countries can help save the world, and help change the situation in Saudi and Scotland too.

But the SGreens don't support that. Indy is more important than the planet.

Fine. You believe that bollocks if you want. I have neither the time nor the inclination to prove you wrong again.

[eFestivals]

But anyway, enough of these squirrels, which you like.

I'm still hoping you're going to explain to me why you think iScotland will be the world's best performing developed economy, so that your deficit reduction without spending cuts idea is possible.

Especially when there's not even a plan for how it might become the world's best performing developed economy, while you remain certain and convinced it would happen as you say.

So...? On what basis do you have these extremely-exceptional Scotland ideas....?

 

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, LJS said:

Here's a question? What do you motivated people to vote green more? Their support for Indy? Or their preferred method?

which only exposes that there's fuck all support for their green-ism.

And that for the indy-ists, everything in Scotland is secondary to indy.

Look after the poor? Nope, fuck 'em, we want indy.

Looking after the planet? Nope, fuck the planet, we want indy.

Etc, etc, etc.

Edited March 23, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

But anyway, enough of these squirrels, which you like.

I'm still hoping you're going to explain to me why you think iScotland will be the world's best performing developed economy, so that your deficit reduction without spending cuts idea is possible.

Especially when there's not even a plan for how it might become the world's best performing developed economy, while you remain certain and convinced it would happen as you say.

So...? On what basis do you have these extremely-exceptional Scotland ideas....?

 

 

[LJS]

20 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

But anyway, enough of these squirrels, which you like.

I'm still hoping you're going to explain to me why you think iScotland will be the world's best performing developed economy, so that your deficit reduction without spending cuts idea is possible.

Especially when there's not even a plan for how it might become the world's best performing developed economy, while you remain certain and convinced it would happen as you say.

 

I'll be delighted to oblige, Neil. There's just one tiny problem & it's probably an age thing. Memory's not what it used to be  you know?

It's just that I can't remember ever saying "iScotland will be the world's best performing developed economy"

I'm sure you'll be happy to provide a link to me saying "iScotland will be the world's best performing developed economy" to help me out.

When you do, I'll do my best to prove that "iScotland will be the world's best performing developed economy" although to be honest  it does seem quite an optimistic claim. However I must have said it because you say I did .

I await your reply with eager anticipation.

 

 

[LJS]

30 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

which only exposes that there's fuck all support for their green-ism.

And that for the indy-ists, everything in Scotland is secondary to indy.

Look after the poor? Nope, fuck 'em, we want indy.

Looking after the planet? Nope, fuck the planet, we want indy.

Etc, etc, etc.

 

31 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

But anyway, enough of these squirrels,

 

Agreed.

[LJS]

Incidentally, your clerical buddy in Bath tweeted something mildly insensitive at the height of yesterday's furore. He was roundly and publicly condemned by many "snippers" as you call them including my son, some of whose work I posted on here recently. Of course his most loyal supporters remained true to the cause.

He then restricted himself to tweeting about fray bentos pies & The Chase"