The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

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.

Yeah, but the comparison with The Netherlands wasn't being made on that basis, it was being made to paint the UK as incompetent for its unexceptional 'world power' spend. It's in his words. 

If you want to sensibility discuss a comcomparison with The Netherlands, you'll have to find one not driven by hatred and bias as its starting point.

(and I do wish you'd stop putting forwards stuff clearly driven by hatred, seeing as you claim nothing hatred-driven of yourself. It's odd that someone so free of hatred finds so many good answers in other's hatred).

Meanwhile, Scotland is paying less than 10% of the cost of the UK doing its 'world power' thing. Given that I think it's reasonable to think that Scotland would have representation in more than just 10% of the countries the UK currently does, this looks like an extra expense for iScotland and not a saving. 

(OK, Scotland might manage to half the costs in the places it does have representation, so it could do 20% of the current countries for the same costs. Is 20% of current representation enough? Probably not in the opinion of the many Scots leading the indy campaign who believe Scotland is super-special).

There's a few quid to be saved by Scotland not doing military on that 'world power' level, but the potential savings from that have already been costed by a hardcore Nat, and there was just £500M to be saved there ... tho only by including that rUK would continue to pay for lots of stuff to benefit iScotland (it's in the white paper) which might be described as 'over-hopeful' or simply 'a lie'.

The extra costs of the loss of economies of scale kicks in quite hard in some areas.

And back to the "we'll spend every penny in Scotland" thing he's suggesting, perhaps you can tell me who the world-class Scottish military aircraft manufacturers are, who the gun and other weapons makers are, and how a piddly nation like Scotland might fund world-leading research in the most expensive area of all so that Scottish-built military hardware wasn't as effective as cork gun. Simple fact is iScotland wouldn't even manage to sustain the current military ship-building expertise that's based in Scotland (tho it might manage to sustain the shipyards themselves).

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

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

The amounts are, in the scheme of things, piddly.

Set against that sort of thing is Scotland having a dis-proportionate number of UK public sector employees, so Scotland might gain from some stuff moving from London, while losing from some stuff moving out of Scotland. There might be a saving to Scotland - but there might be a loss too - but either way it's no great shakes.

I remind you again, the most comprehensive review of such things - of everything - found just £600M of savings (and only managed that by saying the UK would happily carry some costs for iScotland).

iScotland needs to find around £9bn of savings.

[lost]

26 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

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.

Agree with this. Free movement of goods, services and people i.e. free market capitalism should be at home more on the right than left . Some on the right put self determination above trade and others put trade first.

Personally I think the left reinvented itself from socialist to liberal after the berlin wall came down, So many younger voters don't know any different. Now labour has swung back to socialist its support has collapsed with younger "liberals" who think they are socialist being drawn to a pro-eu party like the SNP in Scotland (though I think they are just being pro-eu because it suits at the moment) and I also expect the lib dems to do well in the south.

Edited March 31, 2017 by lost

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

As i said, he is not  "setting out to demonstrate a comprehensive economic case for an independent Scotland."

I know.

He's setting out to deny GERS.

And you've bought it.

Care to say how come the real economists don't?

[LJS]

15 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

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.

That may be historically true, indeed there was a time when the SNP were frequently referred to as "tartan Tories" however in the 70's and 80's they moved to the left. 

The reality is that there were never enough Tory votes up for grabs, they always had to go after labour voted if they wanted to win elections.

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

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. 

Funnily enough. it's exactly the same for me. Fancy that, eh? Living in Scotland is not required for that to have happened, proving that Scotland is not being shat on.

It's called "being on the losing side in a democracy".

There's still be a majority on the losing side in Scotland after indy, just as there is in the SG today.

FFS. :lol: 

Talk about a false narrative built on bullshit.

[LJS]

30 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

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.

What "fact" have I accepted?

30 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

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

Nope, he quite clearly did not say that. In fact he said quite the opposite. You did say you read the article?

30 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

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?

 

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

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.

so what you're saying is that everyone who votes for indy isn't voting for a particular result from indy apart from indy, and it doesn't matter if those who vote indy don't get the version of indy they've voted in the hope of getting?

Cos funnily enough I know of another vote like that, where someone not far away claims the vote is invalid because those who voted in support of the winning vote might not have voted for the exact outcome that vote will lead to.

There's no bias, prejudice or hatred around here, definitely not.

[LJS]

10 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The amounts are, in the scheme of things, piddly.

Set against that sort of thing is Scotland having a dis-proportionate number of UK public sector employees,

Can you substantiate this?  I looked for figures a while ago & couldn't find any.

10 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

so Scotland might gain from some stuff moving from London, while losing from some stuff moving out of Scotland. There might be a saving to Scotland - but there might be a loss too - but either way it's no great shakes.

I remind you again, the most comprehensive review of such things - of everything - found just £600M of savings (and only managed that by saying the UK would happily carry some costs for iScotland).

iScotland needs to find around £9bn of savings.

 

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, LJS said:

What "fact" have I accepted?

Sorry, my mistake.

You're still not accepting any facts.

 

4 minutes ago, LJS said:

Nope, he quite clearly did not say that. In fact he said quite the opposite. You did say you read the article?

I read the article.

And more, I understood it too, and wasn't holding a free pass when I read it either.

He said GERS is meaningless but not so meaningless as for him to know that it understates everything about Scotland, and Scotland is much richer than GERS says.

It's a laughable crock of shite, 100% GERS denial and 0% economics.

 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

Can you substantiate this?  I looked for figures a while ago & couldn't find any.

It was certainly true in 2014.

I'm pretty sure I provided the evidence for you back then.

Not doing it again.

[gary1979666]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

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. 

 

I feel your pain too.  In the 20 years that I've been voting Conservative, there's been 13 years of a Labour government (about 2/3 as well), and of the 7 years of Tories in power, they had to share 5 of those with them pesky LibDems.  I demand my bedroom to have it's own country!   Actually, I don't, I accepted the democratic result and got on with it.

Adding to another earlier point - I'm rightward leaning, but am pro-EU and pro immigration - think being part of a larger community is the best way forward, which is why I find it a bit odd for people who claim to have similar views, still want to split their nation off as a separate entity....the logic just doesn't hold for me.

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, gary1979666 said:

I demand my bedroom to have it's own country!   Actually, I don't, I accepted the democratic result and got on with it.

Some people don't get democracy, do they?

What's amusing is that those most driven by a want of self-satisfaction are the ones trying to claim themselves as better democrats.

[eFestivals]

54 minutes ago, LJS said:

Can you substantiate this?

Can anything in the doc you've presented by substantiated? Nope. 

But you want comment against it to do what it doesn't do?

I've always fully accepted there might be some things on which an independent SG might save itself a few quid, but the point is that the savings it might find simply won't be enough.

Within the money that Westminster 'spends on behalf of Scotland' - which (from next week) is the minority of money for Scotland - is all defence, pensions and all welfare, where those things total up to the vast majority of that spend, leaving only around 10% (the 'London spend') of all 'Scottish money' to find those savings within.

That 10% is around £6.5M, while the 'deficit gap' is £9Bn - and only a proportion of that 10% might be saved. Perhaps (tho I doubt it) there might be as much as 20% of that 10% that can be saved, but that would only total up to £1.3Bn.

So add that £1.3Bn saving to the £600m that Salmond found, and you're still around £7bn short to fund current spends. That's about the cost of all Scottish education. Perhaps that could be ended to sort the deficit problem?

(would iScotland find that £1.3Bn saving? Not a fucking chance. It would have all of its own govt institutions to create and fund, and without the economies of scale they could end up costing more and not less ... Salmond actually did things sensibly, and didn't presume savings just by inventing a self-serving scenario to claim everything would be fantastic.)

[eFestivals]

I'm loving Angus Robertson at the mo.

To follow on from his moronic "if you don't let the SNP break up the UK, stopping the SNP breaking up the UK will break up the UK" thing, he's now said he's ...

"yet to be convinced by Theresa May’s government".

Cos I'm sat here wondering when it was that the SNP were convinced by any govt except their own?

[eFestivals]

PS: I also love how Sturgeon likes to appear important by signing bits of paper.

Which isn't her being anything like Trump, oh no. 

Tho at least Trump has some friends to watch him in action with with a pen. 

While Sturgeon makes a point of flashing her legs, again, tho she doesn't want anyone to comment on what she's done for people to comment on, of course.

Edited March 31, 2017 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Poll finds most Scots back Holyrood for independence referendum decision

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/poll-finds-most-scots-back-holyroods-independence-referendum-decision/

[eFestivals]

30 minutes ago, LJS said:

Poll finds most Scots back Holyrood for independence referendum decision

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/poll-finds-most-scots-back-holyroods-independence-referendum-decision/

Of those that did back the idea of Holyrood being able to call it, plenty will be thinking like me, that (as generality) it's counter-productive to obstruct it.

And that poll is asking a slightly different thing as to whether the Scots back Holyrood's decision to call one now, and I reckon plenty as starting to realise the consequences of calling one now, and how it's not about Scotland but about trying to fuck over the rest of the UK and save Sturgeon's career.

Threats of "we're going to beat you up, but you can choose to have that beating now or later" are a right laugh, something to *ALWAYS* be ignored. 

Hadn't you realised that's what Sturgeon was trying to set up, so she could play people in Scotland for mugs? She doesn't want a ref, and she's fooling you.

[kaosmark2]

A nationalist trying to drive up tensions and stoke grievances.

Whodda thunk it?

[lost]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

PS: I also love how Sturgeon likes to appear important by signing bits of paper.

Which isn't her being anything like Trump, oh no. 

While Sturgeon makes a point of flashing her legs, again, tho she doesn't want anyone to comment on what she's done for people to comment on, of course.

I did like Davidsons tweet:

 

 

[eFestivals]

17 minutes ago, lost said:

I did like Davidsons tweet:

 

 

the imitation is more Farage than Thatcher, tho.

The same trying to be everything to everyone, and actually being none of them.

[LJS]

10 hours ago, gary1979666 said:

I feel your pain too.  In the 20 years that I've been voting Conservative, there's been 13 years of a Labour government (about 2/3 as well), and of the 7 years of Tories in power, they had to share 5 of those with them pesky LibDems.  I demand my bedroom to have it's own country!   Actually, I don't, I accepted the democratic result and got on with it.

Adding to another earlier point - I'm rightward leaning, but am pro-EU and pro immigration - think being part of a larger community is the best way forward, which is why I find it a bit odd for people who claim to have similar views, still want to split their nation off as a separate entity....the logic just doesn't hold for me.

I have never ever ever complained about not getting the government I voted for. I don't expect that for a minute. 

So what you voted for and what you got are entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

Just in case you missed it, here's what I said

 

Quote

"despite my country voting consistently Labour for most of that time and never voting Tory I have had 25 years of Tory Governments

I've highlighted two words to help you understand. 

Now, there is a longstanding discussion around whether Scotland has a different status to Shropshire or Neil's (or gary's) bedroom. I would suggest that therein lies the root of our disagreement.

I believe that Scotland with a parliament, a separate and distinctive legal and education system is not directly   comparable to Neil's bedroom with its distinctive sock arrangement system. Sadly, Gary, I have no insight into how you arrange your undergarments. Unlike Neil, you have never invited me into your bedroom.

Feel free to take a different view. I'm all for diversity 

[LJS]

11 hours ago, eFestivals said:

It was certainly true in 2014.

No it wasn't unless you can prove it

11 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I'm pretty sure I provided the evidence for you back then.

pretty sure you provided evidence for something that was certainly true.

11 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Not doing it again.

Well its not "certainly true" then

simple.

[LJS]

3 hours ago, lost said:

I did like Davidsons tweet:

 

 

two women sit on a settee.

Astonishing!

I mean let's face it no woman had ever sat on a settee until the Blessed Margaret swept aside centuries of oppression & discrimination to ... sit on a settee.

And sturgeon has the bare faced cheek to try and follow in the arse cheeks of the Blessed Margaret (may God bless her arse cheeks) by placing her unworthy and uncouth Scottish arse cheeks on a settee.

what a cheek!

Edited March 31, 2017 by LJS

[LJS]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

the imitation is more Farage than Thatcher, tho.

The same trying to be everything to everyone, and actually being none of them.

Neil, she sat on a settee. Even you are struggling to make that into SNP baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad