The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Do you think all local govts have a right in law to tax commercial enterprises on their profits?

Just to return to this briefly, the reason I said you were talking rot was that Shetland doesn't and never has taxed the profits of oil companies. They negotiated a flat rate per barrel payment. I'm pretty sure these payments stopped a few years back meaning the charitable trusts income now consists mainly of interest & dividends.

Quote

FFS.

The Shetland oil fund is a matter of UK law, written in Westminster. A law that Westminster allowed and Westminster has honoured.

A law that iScotland might not honour.

Which is irrelevant as there is no longer contributions coming from the oil companies. 

Quote

 

But it's not really been discussed about how Sturgeon might nick their money. 

As PT said, it only takes a charismatic politician to work something up around it.

It's as likely and as legal as the government confiscating your money.

Edited April 3, 2017 by LJS

[LJS]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

that's what a leading indy-ist suggested, and LJS recommended as the deficit solution.

If you don't like what your own side it suggesting take it up with them.

You are particularly mad today. 

[LJS]

2 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Greece ?

I don't see the similarities. North Korea, nazi Germany, Greece...

lol 

I agree that an Indy Scotland will need to take a different path and that the debt etc is out of control. Not sure this can all be covered by  snp bad though.

It's like Stars in your Eyes on here the day. Tonight, Matthew we will be North Korea, no wait a minute, Greece.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

It's as likely and as legal as the government confiscating your money.

Both of which happen in all countries. If the govt passes a law to take something, that's legal.

A recent example from Westminster was Westminster's attempt (I'm not entirely sure what happened to it in the end) to 'steal' the assets of the registered charities or not-for-profit companies that are housing associations.

So there you go, it happens. In that case it was about directly enriching 'the people' (but only some) via the taking of the assets of another.

In an iScotland which has just cut absolutely fuckin' stonking amounts of public spending while Shetland lives it up on its oil fund I can't see Shetland's oil fund remaining untouched by Holyrood. They'll be too many people saying "why should they be rich from Scotland's oil but Scotland isn't rich from Scotland's oil?" for it to hold.

Perhaps i'm wrong about that, but I don't reckon I am (you cannot give an honest answer towards this because you can't be honest about the deficit which would be the trigger for stealing it). 

So Shetland will be left with a choice of risking their wealth or ensuring they keep their wealth.

They only have to be like you to want to keep their wealth. After all, its you wanting to keep your wealth that has you deny how the deficit will impact (not that it actually keeps your wealth, tho it does allow you to believe that you will keep it).

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, LJS said:

It's like Stars in your Eyes on here the day. Tonight, Matthew we will be North Korea, no wait a minute, Greece.

meanwhile your idiocy continues. 

"tonight Matthew, we'll be rich beyond our wildest dreams. It's oor oil." © Alex Salmond 2014, believed by LJS.

[LJS]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Both of which happen in all countries. If the govt passes a law to take something, that's legal.

A recent example from Westminster was Westminster's attempt (I'm not entirely sure what happened to it in the end) to 'steal' the assets of the registered charities or not-for-profit companies that are housing associations.

So there you go, it happens. In that case it was about directly enriching 'the people' (but only some) via the taking of the assets of another.

In an iScotland which has just cut absolutely fuckin' stonking amounts of public spending while Shetland lives it up on its oil fund I can't see Shetland's oil fund remaining untouched by Holyrood. They'll be too many people saying "why should they be rich from Scotland's oil but Scotland isn't rich from Scotland's oil?" for it to hold.

Perhaps i'm wrong about that, but I don't reckon I am (you cannot give an honest answer towards this because you can't be honest about the deficit which would be the trigger for stealing it). 

So Shetland will be left with a choice of risking their wealth or ensuring they keep their wealth.

They only have to be like you to want to keep their wealth. After all, its you wanting to keep your wealth that has you deny how the deficit will impact (not that it actually keeps your wealth, tho it does allow you to believe that you will keep it).

You're really funny today, Neil.

You have entirely fabricated a theory out of thin air and then speculate on how likely it is to be true.

The answer is of course that it is completely fictitious invented bollocks.

[Comfy Bean]

10 minutes ago, LJS said:

You're really funny today, Neil.

You have entirely fabricated a theory out of thin air and then speculate on how likely it is to be true.

The answer is of course that it is completely fictitious invented bollocks.

In case he's onto something, we should maybe send the nuke subs up to do a couple of laps of the island. Show them who's boss etc

[eFestivals]

21 minutes ago, LJS said:

You're really funny today, Neil.

You have entirely fabricated a theory out of thin air and then speculate on how likely it is to be true.

The answer is of course that it is completely fictitious invented bollocks.

I've simply pointed out that their fund isn't safe under Westminster - tho it's been safe enough for 40+ years - and the same is true in an iScotland.

The difference is that iScotland will have a stonking deficit unless it cuts spending &/or increases revenues. One of the ways it can increase revenues is by having Shetland's oil fund.

It's worth about the same as a 1% income tax rise for a year. As Scotland was dead keen on increasing taxes on itself to look after its poor, there won't be any need to nick Shetland's oil fund, will there?

And of course, as no one in Scotland cares about the oil or an oil fund, it's safe as houses.

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

In case he's onto something, 

as you always are.

You start the day with a lie, and then go brain dead.

Scotland's glorious future is assured.

Edited April 3, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

29 minutes ago, LJS said:

The answer is of course that it is completely fictitious invented bollocks.

 

36 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

you cannot give an honest answer towards this because you can't be honest about the deficit

 

[Comfy Bean]

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

as you always are.

You start the day with a lie, and then go brain dead.

Scotland's glorious future is assured.

Have you always held the view that Spain wouldn't block an iscotland in the eu ?

Please be specific.

Scotlands future is assured. It's you who keeps mentioning glorious. 

[eFestivals]

Just now, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Have you always held the view that Spain wouldn't block an iscotland in the eu ?

I'm not entirely sure. I quite probably saw it suggested that Spain would veto iScotland in all circumstances before I became aware of the more nuanced real version, so it's certainly not impossible that i've said that in the past .... tho it'll have been a long time ago now, quite possibly before indyref1

But if you want to play he said she said....

Have you ever expressed the view that iScotland would be fast-tracked into the EU or would be 'parked' (and so be a member in all but name)?
(if it wasn't you it was LJS, it's defo been raised in this thread before now)

Oh, and as we're playing he said she said, has Sturgeon's brexit twazzock ever told lies about the Spanish position, so much so that Spain has officially rebuked him for his lies about their position?

I'm glad Spain have said it again and it's been widely reported. It means the truth is out there and unarguable, and it means that none of the snippers bullshit from last time can be used to con people into supporting indy.

So that's 10+ years outside of the EU from independence as that's the timescale in the last two decades.

And it's unlikely that EFTA or EEA membership would be allowed in the meantime as they're both subject to EU approval anyway, and one of them (I forget which it is) has to be revoked on joining the EU anyway.

(EFTA/EEA aren't meant to be 'in the meantime' organisations, but are meant for intended-permanent members in just the same way as the EU is. It's unlikely both those organisations or their members would want an iScotland that intended to join the EU, and unlikely the EU would approve the membership)

I'm all for facts and the truth. They don't scare me.

 

[Comfy Bean]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I'm not entirely sure. I quite probably saw it suggested that Spain would veto iScotland in all circumstances before I became aware of the more nuanced real version, so it's certainly not impossible that i've said that in the past .... tho it'll have been a long time ago now, quite possibly before indyref1

But if you want to play he said she said....

Have you ever expressed the view that iScotland would be fast-tracked into the EU or would be 'parked' (and so be a member in all but name)?
(if it wasn't you it was LJS, it's defo been raised in this thread before now)

Oh, and as we're playing he said she said, has Sturgeon's brexit twazzock ever told lies about the Spanish position, so much so that Spain has officially rebuked him for his lies about their position?

I'm glad Spain have said it again and it's been widely reported. It means the truth is out there and unarguable, and it means that none of the snippers bullshit from last time can be used to con people into supporting indy.

So that's 10+ years outside of the EU from independence as that's the timescale in the last two decades.

And it's unlikely that EFTA or EEA membership would be allowed in the meantime as they're both subject to EU approval anyway, and one of them (I forget which it is) has to be revoked on joining the EU anyway.

(EFTA/EEA aren't meant to be 'in the meantime' organisations, but are meant for intended-permanent members in just the same way as the EU is. It's unlikely both those organisations or their members would want an iScotland that intended to join the EU, and unlikely the EU would approve the membership)

I'm all for facts and the truth. They don't scare me.

 

Fair enough but I would replace the couple of unlikelys near the end with unclear.

I'm unclear where your getting 10 plus years without any doubts.

I don't remember expressing any specific view on our future in the Eu but I know how 62% voted.

Its all up in the air and I don't have a crystal ball.

I have said I think Sturgeon is playing the long game. She doesn't need that much of a swing and recent events could help her with the numbers. Remember we've got a couple of years of this to go.

I think Mays - now is not the time - line was clumbsy. Sturgeon doesn't want it now as you know. Time will tell.

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I'm unclear where your getting 10 plus years without any doubts.

from every other new member who's joined the EU or applied for membership within the last 20 years. No one has become a member in lesser time than 10 years.

Remember, Scotland does *NOT* meet the terms of membership, and is further away from meeting the terms of membership that those other applicants were at the time of their applications. They were, at least, already-up-and-running sovereign states with all of the institutions of a sovereign state, and (the important thing as far as the EU is concerned) a history of satisfactory operation of those institutions.

On the basis of those other applicants and the lack of history around the operation of a sovereign Scotland, it's quite reasonable to assume 14+ years before an iScotland might become a member, tho I'm happy to settle for saying 10+ years to avoid the long winded explanation for why longer.

Edited April 3, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

30 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Fair enough but I would replace the couple of unlikelys near the end with unclear.

Sturgeon could ask for clarity, just as Salmond could have asked the EU himself in 2014.

There's a reason why they don't.

Which puts an end to the unclear you claim for it.

Edited April 3, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Its all up in the air and I don't have a crystal ball.

who needs a crystal ball?

All that's needed is an acceptance of facts and an acceptance that Scotland is not exceptional and therefore will not be treated in an exceptional manner.

You accept neither.

[eFestivals]

16 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I have said I think Sturgeon is playing the long game. She doesn't need that much of a swing and recent events could help her with the numbers. Remember we've got a couple of years of this to go.

ahhhh, the familiar Corbynista strategy of "we'll win because the other side will be even shitter than we are".

You might be right and that's how* you get your victory - after all, the case for indy can't be made to stand up on its own merits - but that  will merely be the start of far greater problems.
(* unlike with Corbyn I do recognise you're in a place where it's possible to win)

To win such an important thing on the basis of being really really shit is never going to work out well after that victory.

[eFestivals]

20 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I think Mays - now is not the time - line was clumbsy. Sturgeon doesn't want it now as you know. Time will tell.

What? PMSL

You'd have to be mentally subnormal to think May's use of 'now' was May thinking that Sturgeon wanted indyref2 tomorrow.

What's laughable is how Sturgeon is clinging onto that 'now' bit as tho she believes that's what May was saying.

It shows how very deep the desperation is, with Sturgeon to have to use it in the first place and you having to push it like it's true.

[Comfy Bean]

23 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

who needs a crystal ball?

All that's needed is an acceptance of facts and an acceptance that Scotland is not exceptional and therefore will not be treated in an exceptional manner.

You accept neither.

I accept that Scotland might not even vote to be independent.

[Comfy Bean]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

What? PMSL

You'd have to be mentally subnormal to think May's use of 'now' was May thinking that Sturgeon wanted indyref2 tomorrow.

What's laughable is how Sturgeon is clinging onto that 'now' bit as tho she believes that's what May was saying.

It shows how very deep the desperation is, with Sturgeon to have to use it in the first place and you having to push it like it's true.

She said now is not the time.....about 100 times.

Sturgeon and I agree with her. I think Sturgeon could move a bit in the 18 month thing as long as it's within the lifetime of the current Scottish parliament. Pure speculation on my part and of course there could be consequences with a slight delay. Could be better for all sides instead of parking this in court.

 

[Comfy Bean]

Mentally subnormal :-)

[eFestivals]

25 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

She said now is not the time.....about 100 times.

Yes, with the 'now' meaning in the middle of brexit stuff.

As I said, you'd have to be mentally subnormal to think otherwise.

 

25 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Sturgeon and I agree with her.

You want to put the mentally subnormal in charge of your country? Oh, that's cos you're mentally subnormal yourself.

Really, you're just not that stupid. No one is. It's not possible.

So drop the bollocks, eh? It only makes you look stupid.

 

25 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I think Sturgeon could move a bit in the 18 month thing as long as it's within the lifetime of the current Scottish parliament.

That makes me laugh.

Cos you think it's reasonable for her to move a bit, but only a bit, which means it would be quite reasonable for the Scottish people to vote about something even if it wasn't clear what they're voting about.

Because Sturgeon's timetable is more important than people knowing what they're voting for or against.

 

25 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Pure speculation on my part and of course there could be consequences with a slight delay. Could be better for all sides instead of parking this in court.

Court? PMSL. :lol:

There's no court option. The only option Sturgeon has used already, which ruled Scotland gets no distinct say in the brexit process, while Scotland Act 1998 & subsequents make clear that constitutional issues are not in the SG's remit.

If Sturgeon goes to court that's only to piss your money up the wall to try and save her career. 

What's the rush anyhow? According to you lot, May blocking a ref makes indy a certainty. As your Man With No Brain, Angus, said "if you don't let us break up the UK, you'll be causing the break up of the UK".

So it seems very odd that you don't want May to continue, cos she's doing what no Scot working from Scotland in Scotland's best interests (© SNP) is able to do, and that's make indy more popular than it was.

[eFestivals]

37 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Mentally subnormal :-)

it's the normal snipper thing, of trying to make the discussion about something the discussion isn't about, because the actual discussion is not in their favour and they know it.

[Comfy Bean]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Yes, with the 'now' meaning in the middle of brexit stuff.

As I said, you'd have to be mentally subnormal to think otherwise.

 

You want to put the mentally subnormal in charge of your country? Oh, that's cos you're mentally subnormal yourself.

Really, you're just not that stupid. No one is. It's not possible.

So drop the bollocks, eh? It only makes you look stupid.

 

That makes me laugh.

Cos you think it's reasonable for her to move a bit, but only a bit, which means it would be quite reasonable for the Scottish people to vote about something even if it wasn't clear what they're voting about.

Because Sturgeon's timetable is more important than people knowing what they're voting for or against.

 

Court? PMSL.

There's no court option. The only option Sturgeon has used already, which ruled Scotland gets no distinct say in the brexit process, while Scotland Act 1998 & subsequents make clear that constitutional issues are not in the SG's remit.

If Sturgeon goes to court that's only to piss your money up the wall to try and save her career. 

What's the rush anyhow? According to you lot, May blocking a ref makes indy a certainty. As your Man With No Brain, Angus, said "if you don't let us break up the UK, you'll be causing the break up of the UK".

So it seems very odd that you don't want May to continue, cos she's doing what no Scot working from Scotland in Scotland's best interests (© SNP) is able to do, and that's make indy more popular than it was.

I think you have misunderstood. Would be daft to have a ref now or in the middle of the brexit stuff as you suggest. I think towards the end makes more sense.

I think NS could compromise as long as the date still covers the current term as I'm pretty keen on this manifesto / mandate stuff.

I disagree that there is no court option.

I quite like Angus.

[Comfy Bean]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

it's the normal snipper thing, of trying to make the discussion about something the discussion isn't about, because the actual discussion is not in their favour and they know it.

I was attempting to discuss the timing of the next ref.

You decided to go with personal insults.