The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, LJS said:

No

everyone's fav Prof. poll-guy (I can't spell that word) has put his name to some research which says attitudes are very broadly the same all round the UK. 

There is a slight improvement in attitudes in Scotland, but not the vast difference that your posts suggest.

Tho of course there's also a BIG difference in the levels of immigration in Scotland, which is likely to account for the slight difference in opinion.

He calls Sturgeon out as being out of step with where public opinion is.

And laughs at the higher moral ground you pretend Scotland stands on.

 

Edited March 30, 2017 by eFestivals

[gary1979666]

28 minutes ago, LJS said:

Some of us ain't terribly impressed with the general drift to the right in UK politics and can only see that getting worse post brexit with withdrawal from the ECHR & an increase in anti immigration rhetoric. 

Of course there are unknowns around independence but at least the odds look a bit better on a more social democratic outward looking country.

(Cue response from Neil about money)

I think the 'right' may have been disguised somewhat in Scotland with the rise in nationalism.  I'm not saying you and Comfy are right wingers, but I would think that the same righty element in England who like UKIP / Tories could have been taken in with the SNP's desire for indy.  Could be that post indy when it happens, there'll be a drift back to the red/blue/yellow parties.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, gary1979666 said:

I think the 'right' may have been disguised somewhat in Scotland with the rise in nationalism.  I'm not saying you and Comfy are right wingers, but I would think that the same righty element in England who like UKIP / Tories could have been taken in with the SNP's desire for indy.  Could be that post indy when it happens, there'll be a drift back to the red/blue/yellow parties.

You're not wrong.

Those who support the SNP are - as a general rule - people who think indy is the most important thing. All other issues are suppressed behind that desire, and it works the same for people anywhere on the political spectrum.

After all, just like with brexit or defence of the nation, it's not a left/right issue, it's a "what do you think is the best way to do it?" issue.

[eastynh]

Can someone explain to me why it is in Englands interests to not let the Scottish have another vote?

I like Scotland and the Scottish but it is getting a little boring listening to Sturgeon trying to hold the English to ransom.

Let them have the vote now. If they vote for indy then they can try and negotiate their own future with the EU. No point the rest of us fighting battles on numerous fronts.

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Can someone explain to me why it is in Englands interests to not let the Scottish have another vote?

I like Scotland and the Scottish but it is getting a little boring listening to Sturgeon trying to hold the English to ransom.

Let them have the vote now. If they vote for indy then they can try and negotiate their own future with the EU. No point the rest of us fighting battles on numerous fronts.

not so much 'Englands', as the UK's.

You can't hold a negotiation around trade when what you're negotiating with is uncertain.

Just as an example, there's fishing rights around the UK, where a large chunk would be an independent country's (iScotland's) and not the UK's. As access to these waters might be one of the bargaining chips (the EU currently has access via our membership), it makes negotiation almost impossible.

Me, i'd prefer they had another asap, on the real basis this time of leave or let it go. Sturgeon hammering the wedge at every opportunity is no good for either the UK or Scotland (as the fallen investment and growth rates show).

Edited March 30, 2017 by eFestivals

[pink_triangle]

29 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Can someone explain to me why it is in Englands interests to not let the Scottish have another vote?

I like Scotland and the Scottish but it is getting a little boring listening to Sturgeon trying to hold the English to ransom.

Let them have the vote now. If they vote for indy then they can try and negotiate their own future with the EU. No point the rest of us fighting battles on numerous fronts.

If we let them hold a referendum now we would be fighting on numerous fronts as it would mean a referendum campaign on top of brexit negotiation which in my view is not a good use of resources.

Also as citizens of the united kingdom I think we should be standing up against Sturgeon as nobody else will stand up for the poor and vulnerable in Scotland. If Scotland become independent there are cost savings whether that is tax rises or cuts in public services. I know what primeminister Sturgeon would choose with an eye on the next election.

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

not so much 'Englands', as the UK's.

You can't hold a negotiation around trade when what you're negotiating with is uncertain.

Just as an example, there's fishing rights around the UK, where a large chunk would be an independent country's (iScotland's) and not the UK's. As access to these waters might be one of the bargaining chips (the EU currently has access via our membership), it makes negotiation almost impossible.

Fishing (and agriculture) are devolved to Holyrood. Although, there is every chance that the Tories will "undevolve" them.

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Me, i'd prefer they had another asap, on the real basis this time of leave or let it go. Sturgeon hammering the wedge at every opportunity is no good for either the UK or Scotland (as the fallen investment and growth rates show).

How much of this are you pinning on uncertainty re Scotland's future & how much on brexit? And how are you reaching this conclusion?

[LJS]

1 hour ago, pink_triangle said:

If we let them hold a referendum now we would be fighting on numerous fronts as it would mean a referendum campaign on top of brexit negotiation which in my view is not a good use of resources.

Also as citizens of the united kingdom I think we should be standing up against Sturgeon as nobody else will stand up for the poor and vulnerable in Scotland.

And the Tories will?

1 hour ago, pink_triangle said:

If Scotland become independent there are cost savings whether that is tax rises or cuts in public services. I know what primeminister Sturgeon would choose with an eye on the next election.

No you don't. You also make assumptions based on guesses about an I Scotland's deficit.

[LJS]

And just in time, here are some thoughts on why GERS doesn't give an accurate picture of an independent Scotland's finances.

https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/10672/robin-mcalpine-be-careful-it-isnt-gers-thats-con-its-spin-it-thats-problem

I await Neil's considered and balanced response.

 

[eFestivals]

26 minutes ago, LJS said:

Fishing (and agriculture) are devolved to Holyrood. Although, there is every chance that the Tories will "undevolve" them.

Whatever might be written down, fishing is not devolved to Holyrood. 

Holyrood doesn't do fisheries protection (the miltitary kind), and neither does it have say over policy. The first is with Westminster and the 2nd is with Brussels.

Amusingly, snippers say it's an outrage that Westminster has control while planning to hand it back to the EU themselves, something they've always complained about previously. 

But anyway, the complaints around 'devolved' are irrelevant. Westminster is not taking anything away from Scotland and might yet give it more, depending where the final deal ends up.

And I was merely using fishing as an example of where Scotland wanting out fucks over the whole UK, tho of course that's the very point of what you're supporting.

 

26 minutes ago, LJS said:

How much of this are you pinning on uncertainty re Scotland's future & how much on brexit? And how are you reaching this conclusion?

The investment and growth trend was downwards before brexit. It's been falling ever since snippers started walking around saying 'inevitable'. 

[eFestivals]

33 minutes ago, LJS said:

And the Tories will?

In this instance they are.

Fancy that, eh? The party you support being outdone by the tories.

34 minutes ago, LJS said:

No you don't. You also make assumptions based on guesses about an I Scotland's deficit.

The deficit is a matter of simple maths, beyond dispute. 

An iScotland's deficit would only change if revenues were increased (tax rises) or spending was cut.

So tell us what you'll change. What taxes will be increased and what spending will be cut?

 

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, LJS said:

And just in time, here are some thoughts on why GERS doesn't give an accurate picture of an independent Scotland's finances.

https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/10672/robin-mcalpine-be-careful-it-isnt-gers-thats-con-its-spin-it-thats-problem

I await Neil's considered and balanced response.

 

Oh, i love a GERS denier, a man who thinks Scotland will be run so much better by Scots from Scotland that he refuses to believe what Scots in Scotland - the very party he supports - put their name to.

And that first para shows the article as a crock of shit.

GERS meets international National Accounting Standards. If the same methodology was used on Germany or elsewhere their deficits would be exactly the same.

FFS.

It's adding up and subtracting, FFS. There is nothing complicated to it.

The numbers underlying the methodology and so conclusions can be questioned, but the methodology is nothing complicated at all. FFS.

He says Murphy is right. Murphy is wrong, and so is numptie. Yes, the numbers are 'estimates' but it doesn't mean they're wildly wrong. Estimates are the best any National Accounts gets to use, which is why they're always being revised and tweaked as new info comes to light.

But 'estimates' does not mean wildly wrong. Tho if it did they are just as likely to be wildly wrong to scotland's disadvantage as they might be to its advantage.

How stupidly biased your take on this is is exposed via this: you say you don't have to worry about GERS because GERS is wrong, while assuming they *MUST* be wrong hugely in Scotland's favour. The 'don't worry' shows you believe them wrong in Scotland's favour.

When you don't have the slightest bit of evidence to know they're wrong in Scotland's favour. How could you? All the evidence is wrong, you say.

Numptie even goes so far as to say there can be no believable economic evidence, just as you're championing.

So you can't believe yourselves, you can't believe that brexit will be bad, you can believe nothing at all. 

FFS.

I thought you said CW was sane? 

 

[eFestivals]

An example of the madness...

(for context: he's talking hypothetically about if GERS 'methodology' were used by the Dutch)

I've not even mentioned that the Dutch would be forced to adopt a tax system which is one of the worst in the world for capturing corporate profits, that they'd have to use a currency run by and for the City of London.

Firstly, the tax system isn't anything of the GERS methodology.

Secondly, it assumes Scots in Scotland will be better at setting a tax regime for UK circumstances than anyone at all (including Scots) who've worked from Westminster. That's some claim of exceptionalism.

And thirdly, it ignores all effects of that hypothetical better tax collection, and essentially claims that money will be taken out of the economy via taxes but the economy won't shrink, that no businesses will flee the higher tax collection, that they'll be no loss of investment from companies.

... because they'll be just so happy to be in glorious Scotland amongst you good people that th3ey'll no longer care about their business making the best profits...?

Because Scotland.

PMSL

 

So let's be clear what GERS would demonstrate in this case: GERS would show that if the Netherlands lost its sovereignty and became a region of the UK, its economy would become weaker, its tax revenues would decrease and the costs of building public infrastructure would increase – among many other things.

All based on assumption that every single penny the Dutch govt spends would be spent within the Netherlands.

Which they don't.

The UK's overseas spends are not exceptional given our world standing. Comparing with Holland would be nuts.

France was the very first country he mentioned by he chose not to make that comparison, because that wouldn't show UK overseas spending in a bad light, it would show it as unexceptional for a country in its position.

And yep, iScotland wouldn't be a country in the same position, it would have little world standing, so could downgrade on some of that overseas spending and save a few quid (note: save, not cause it to be spent in Scotland!), but it will also lose some economies of scale too, and ultimately there's not going to be a huge amount to be saved.

And Salmond and his panel of experts (I always laughed, but you rated them, remember?) couldn't find these mystical savings, and even matey-boy here isn't actually following thru. He's just proclaiming huge amounts to be saved or 'recovered' but never saying where it will come from and how-come Scotland is guaranteed the prefection he's suggesting.

The deficit is about spending more than revenues. That only changes if you change the spending or increase the revenues. It doesn't happen by magic, it happens when you say where you'll spend less and how you'll raise more.

No one ever does.

Instead it'll be magic.

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

And the Tories will?

I think the best for poor and vulnerable in Scotland would be a labour government and remaining in the united kingdom. The first looks a long way at present, but things change in politics. I remember in 1997 people saying the conservatives were finished.

1 hour ago, LJS said:

 

No you don't. You also make assumptions based on guesses about an I Scotland's deficit.

Nobody has a crystal ball, but my assumptions are based on the snp seeming apathy when it comes to raising tax. Are you predicting that after a divorce and losing Barnett Scotland could just carry on as they are now?

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Whatever might be written down, fishing is not devolved to Holyrood. 

Devolved powers

The affairs over which the Scottish Parliament has control are called devolved powers, and they include:

• health
• education and training
• local government
• law, including most aspects of criminal and civil law, the prosecution system and the courts
• social work
• housing
• tourism and economic development
• some aspects of transport, including the Scottish road network, bus policy, and ports and harbours
• planning and the environment
• agriculture, forestry and fishing
• sport and the arts
• miscellaneous matters, such as compiling statistics and keeping public records
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/higher/modern/uk_gov_politics/gov_sco/revision/1/

Quote

Holyrood doesn't do fisheries protection (the miltitary kind), and neither does it have say over policy. The first is with Westminster and the 2nd is with Brussels.

Amusingly, snippers say it's an outrage that Westminster has control while planning to hand it back to the EU themselves, something they've always complained about previously. 

We have complained about Scottish fishermen being represented in EU quota negotiation by Tories with no concern for the interests of the Scottish Fishing Industry

"Sending a Conservative peer to represent Scottish fishermen at EU talks is a "slap in the face" for Scotland, the country's fisheries minister has said.

Richard Lochhead argued that he should have been allowed to stand in for UK Environment Secretary Liz Truss, who is unable to attend the meeting.

But the UK government has instead drafted in Lord de Mauley.

Two-thirds of the UK's fishing industry is based in Scotland.

Monday's talks in the Belgian capital are to focus on quotas for deep sea stocks, which disproportionately affect Scottish trawlers."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29987193

Quote

But anyway, the complaints around 'devolved' are irrelevant. Westminster is not taking anything away from Scotland and might yet give it more, depending where the final deal ends up.

see above - it rather depends on how you define "taking away" doesn't it? - it is certainly capable of being interpreted in different ways.

Quote

And I was merely using fishing as an example of where Scotland wanting out fucks over the whole UK, tho of course that's the very point of what you're supporting.

You were amongst the loudest shouting that the UK wanting out fucks the whole of the UK before the vote. Since then you have warmed to the Brexit project somewhat & get kippier every day. 

Quote

 

The investment and growth trend was downwards before brexit. It's been falling ever since snippers started walking around saying 'inevitable'. 

don't you think the price of oil might have had more to do with this than uncertainly over indy?

Edited March 30, 2017 by LJS

[LJS]

55 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Oh, i love a GERS denier, a man who thinks Scotland will be run so much better by Scots from Scotland that he refuses to believe what Scots in Scotland - the very party he supports - put their name to.

And that first para shows the article as a crock of shit.

GERS meets international National Accounting Standards. If the same methodology was used on Germany or elsewhere their deficits would be exactly the same.

FFS.

It's adding up and subtracting, FFS. There is nothing complicated to it.

The numbers underlying the methodology and so conclusions can be questioned, but the methodology is nothing complicated at all. FFS.

He says Murphy is right. Murphy is wrong, and so is numptie. Yes, the numbers are 'estimates' but it doesn't mean they're wildly wrong. Estimates are the best any National Accounts gets to use, which is why they're always being revised and tweaked as new info comes to light.

But 'estimates' does not mean wildly wrong. Tho if it did they are just as likely to be wildly wrong to scotland's disadvantage as they might be to its advantage.

How stupidly biased your take on this is is exposed via this: you say you don't have to worry about GERS because GERS is wrong, while assuming they *MUST* be wrong hugely in Scotland's favour. The 'don't worry' shows you believe them wrong in Scotland's favour.

When you don't have the slightest bit of evidence to know they're wrong in Scotland's favour. How could you? All the evidence is wrong, you say.

Numptie even goes so far as to say there can be no believable economic evidence, just as you're championing.

So you can't believe yourselves, you can't believe that brexit will be bad, you can believe nothing at all. 

FFS.

I thought you said CW was sane? 

 

do you want to try reading  the article now?

[LJS]

31 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

An example of the madness...

(for context: he's talking hypothetically about if GERS 'methodology' were used by the Dutch)

 

 

Firstly, the tax system isn't anything of the GERS methodology.

But it affects how much revenue is generated and which parts of the country benefit most

31 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Secondly, it assumes Scots in Scotland will be better at setting a tax regime for UK circumstances than anyone at all (including Scots) who've worked from Westminster. That's some claim of exceptionalism.

No it doesn't. It implies people (who may or may not be Scottish) in Scotland would struggle to do worse at setting a tax regime for Scottish circumstances than that currently in existence at |Westminster.

31 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

And thirdly, it ignores all effects of that hypothetical better tax collection, and essentially claims that money will be taken out of the economy via taxes but the economy won't shrink, that no businesses will flee the higher tax collection, that they'll be no loss of investment from companies.... because they'll be just so happy to be in glorious Scotland amongst you good people that they'll no longer care about their business making the best profits...?

An excellent argument for encouraging tax evasion. Of course you are right to an extent. But remember, Robin is not setting out to demonstrate a comprehensive economic case for an independent Scotland, he is merely adding his thoughts to the current debate on GERS.  

31 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Because Scotland.

PMSL

ORDER YOUR KEEP CONTROL SAMPLE PACK

 

Order your free Discreetly Packaged Keep Control sample pack today by selecting your sample of choice, and you are well on your way to getting back in control of things.

 

With TENA Men you can stay in control of urine leakage and get back to focusing on all the good stuff in life

https://www.tena.co.uk/men/products/free-sample?gclid=Cj0KEQjw2fLGBRDopP-vg7PLgvsBEiQAUOnIXFTl946T4WL7958RnUK03PyjpKrhTEN-YIqX41N_tK0aAmAh8P8HAQ

31 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

All based on assumption that every single penny the Dutch govt spends would be spent within the Netherlands.

Which they don't.

No he isn't - he is pointing out that a proportion of the money spent by Scotland is spent in London & benefits the economy of London & the South East

31 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

The UK's overseas spends are not exceptional given our world standing.

I agree - if you want to han=g on to the illusion of being a world power it costs a lot of  money.

31 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Comparing with Holland would be nuts.

  But comparing Scotland's desire for a great World Standing is not likely to be similar to the current UK's ,comparison with the Netherlands is very sensible indeed.

 

31 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

France was the very first country he mentioned by he chose not to make that comparison, because that wouldn't show UK overseas spending in a bad light, it would show it as unexceptional for a country in its position.

And yep, iScotland wouldn't be a country in the same position, it would have little world standing, so could downgrade on some of that overseas spending and save a few quid (note: save, not cause it to be spent in Scotland!), but it will also lose some economies of scale too, and ultimately there's not going to be a huge amount to be saved.

But there will be some & we are not like France or the UK. Good.

31 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

And Salmond and his panel of experts (I always laughed, but you rated them, remember?) couldn't find these mystical savings, and even matey-boy here isn't actually following thru. He's just proclaiming huge amounts to be saved or 'recovered' but never saying where it will come from and how-come Scotland is guaranteed the prefection he's suggesting.

As i said, he is not  "setting out to demonstrate a comprehensive economic case for an independent Scotland." I appreciate that you believe every person who supports indy should include a fully costed economic plan with every comment they make, so I can see why you are so regularly disappointed.

31 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The deficit is about spending more than revenues. That only changes if you change the spending or increase the revenues. It doesn't happen by magic, it happens when you say where you'll spend less and how you'll raise more.

No one ever does.

Instead it'll be magic.

 

[LJS]

20 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I think the best for poor and vulnerable in Scotland would be a labour government and remaining in the united kingdom. The first looks a long way at present, but things change in politics. I remember in 1997 people saying the conservatives were finished.

since I first voted 38 years ago, despite my country voting consistently Labour for most of that time and never voting Tory I have had 25 years of Tory Governments. Two thirds of my adult life. 

20 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Nobody has a crystal ball, but my assumptions are based on the snp seeming apathy when it comes to raising tax. Are you predicting that after a divorce and losing Barnett Scotland could just carry on as they are now?

I am predicting that after Scotland departs from the UK, it would be up to the Scottish electorate to choose who forms the government. We won't get it right all the time, but if we do we will get it wrong in a way that those who live in Scotland have decided for themselves.

[LJS]

5 hours ago, gary1979666 said:

I think the 'right' may have been disguised somewhat in Scotland with the rise in nationalism.  I'm not saying you and Comfy are right wingers, but I would think that the same righty element in England who like UKIP / Tories could have been taken in with the SNP's desire for indy.  Could be that post indy when it happens, there'll be a drift back to the red/blue/yellow parties.

I think its hard to make the stats back that up The SNP made no real electoral progress between 1979 & 2010 in terms of % share of the Westminster vote. you might argue that they picked up a maybe 5% or so towards the end of the Thatcher/ Major governments as the Tory vote all but disappeared in Scotland. But there real breakthrough came at the expense of the Labour party and, to a lesser extent the LibDems in 2015. They are probably the most openly pro EU & pro immigration mainstream party in the UK, not attributes that are generally though t to attract the right wing vote. Its terribly easy to lump the SNP & UKIP together. It's also terribly lazy and ignores the gulf between what the two parties represent.

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

Devolved powers

the ones we're talking about here are currently held by the EU and not Scotland.

Therefore they cannot have been devolved to Scotland, can they? 

I see on the front page of the herald that Sturgeon thinks it's an outrage - an outrage, fancy that  - that powers she's never had aren't hers.

Which funnily enough is the same thing she was saying in 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, etc, etc, etc.

Brexit. What a bastard that it's changed everything, eh?

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

do you want to try reading  the article now?

I've read it.

I'd read it before I replied.

Unlike you, when you first posted the link (tho i'll credit you with having read the headline, you do normally manage that much(.

It's a long page of self-serving guff, based on the most tentative speculation,  and which followed thru on would make Scotland as insular as North Korea.

Oh, and not once does he mention the exceeding important fact - stated as true by your own FM (I can show you the video, if you need it?) - that Scotland costs a significant amount extra to run, because of it's geography.

So I guess geography must also become meaningless after indy...?

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

But it affects how much revenue is generated and which parts of the country benefit most

Scotland receives a higher proportion of tax revenues than the UK average, because Scotland costs more to run. I know a Scottish woman who'll confirm that.

Which parts of the country benefit most? The parts that cost the most to run.

Like Scotland.

Next?

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

No it doesn't. It implies people (who may or may not be Scottish) in Scotland would struggle to do worse at setting a tax regime for Scottish circumstances than that currently in existence at |Westminster.

No, it claims Scots in Scotland would do better.

FFS.

It's a whole article about how GERS is meaningless because Scots would run things better than they're currently run.

Which isn't impossible of course because small variances happen. Just as Scots running things worse is just as likely - which means no benefit from 'better' can be factored in, unless it's *certain* that Scots would run things better, and such certainty requires a belief in exceptionalism.

Next?

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

An excellent argument for encouraging tax evasion. Of course you are right to an extent. But remember, Robin is not setting out to demonstrate a comprehensive economic case for an independent Scotland, he is merely adding his thoughts to the current debate on GERS.  

It's just a statement of fact, so much so that you've even managed to accept that fact yourself.  It's a special day, LJS has accepted a fact.

The 'thoughts' he's adding are that everything will be brilliant after indy, just because that's his thought.

Now, how about you or him actually say how it will be, rather than just assuming it will be because of the exceptional abilities of Scots?

[pink_triangle]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

 They are probably the most openly pro EU & pro immigration mainstream party in the UK, not attributes that are generally though t to attract the right wing vote. 

Although our last pm and chancellor were both pro eu, pro immigration and conservative. I think it's a mistake in trying to lump all right wing voters in having uniform opinions. I think there is a decent amount who couldn't care less about Europe, but would like taxes to be as low as possible. I am sure snp target these type of voters.