The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, LJS said:

https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/10726/robin-mcalpine-economy-isnt-scotlands-problem-its-everyone-londons-problem

He points out that only London & SE are growing above average.

I can point out why: immigration. The extra numbers from immigrants is causing extra growth to serve the extra numbers.

Now, care to tell me how an indy Scotland will attract greater immigration than its doing now? Will it send secret agents down to London to put a gun to the head of immigrants and march them to scotland? No?

Then why will indy Scotland suddenly become the go-to place for immigrants, more popular than current brexit London?

It's clearly not going to become a more-popular place for EU-ers than now (else it would be that already), so the only option for an increase is from non-EU-ers .... which comes with its own problems...

firstly, the UK 'common travel area'. If iScotland has immigration not wanted to be risked for walk-thru by rUK, that's iScotland bringing a hard border on itself

secondly, economic value,. The best (tho still not very good, it's true) research says that non-EU-ers are an economic burden and not (as EU-ers are claimed to be by the same research) an economic gain ... so there'd be no benefit from those non-EU-ers anyway, but the opposite - an increase in the deficit via it, not a decrease.

(interestingly, this also shows something else: that added-value per head of population is decreasing not growing, so even if London-growth was matched by iScotland it grows the deficit rather than reduces it)

[LJS]

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Back to Kev vs Murphy....

I see snippers are claiming victory over Kev. They're claiming victory for Kev (essentially) saying "if spending is changed after indy the numbers in GERS will change". No shit sherlock.

Meanwhile the snippers keep on telling us that spending will change, but they never say what spending they'll change - where 'change' means 'cuts'.

As for Murp, he's ended up without much snipper support, after he pointed out that Scots can get the fully-accurate export numbers they crave if Scotland imposes a hard border with England so that all ins & outs can be tracked, and even went on to say "I don't understand why Scotland doesn't want accurate numbers".

Meanwhile, GERS are numbers to full international standards for national counts. If the methodology for GERS is flawed there can be no accurate numbers for anything.

I'll let Murphy speak for himself...

"The debate was a curious experience. I sought to make three points. The first was that the data in GERS is fine if you’re sitting in London and think Scotland is just another region of the UK that has no control over its economy or taxes but you wish to know, quite approximately, what its overall share of UK Government income and spending might be. As I said on air, such an attitude was commonplace a decade ago, even (perhaps) in the Scottish administration, and so GERS fulfilled a useful role at that time. But times have changed.

And now Scotland is anything but “just a part of the UK”.

Secondly, with that in mind, I made the point that politicians of all parties who want to govern Scotland, whether it is in or out of the UK, need better data to do so: GERS is now well past its use-by date for anyone who wants to make the types of decision Scotland now needs to make. And thirdly, I made clear that alternative data is not just possible, but in the last couple of weeks the UK Office for National Statistics has said data of the sort I have suggested, based on real tax income, should now be used for UK-wide decision-making. So why should that not be the case in Scotland as well, I argued.

I would have thought anyone who values good government would agree with what I said. What I offered was my professional opinion as a chartered accountant and professor of political economy (which is a pretty rare combination) on what might make for the best decision-making for the benefit of the people of Scotland. The result may show a deficit, or not. That was not my point. That point was we need to know using the best data available and we need to know what can best be done about it – GERS does not permit that."

http://www.thenational.scot/news/15221027.Professor_Richard_Murphy__Kevin_Hague_thinks_Scotland_should_know_its_place_____I_don___t/

[eFestivals]

26 minutes ago, LJS said:

I'll let Murphy speak for himself...

"The debate was a curious experience. I sought to make three points. The first was that the data in GERS is fine if you’re sitting in London and think Scotland is just another region of the UK that has no control over its economy or taxes but you wish to know, quite approximately, what its overall share of UK Government income and spending might be. As I said on air, such an attitude was commonplace a decade ago, even (perhaps) in the Scottish administration, and so GERS fulfilled a useful role at that time. But times have changed.

And now Scotland is anything but “just a part of the UK”.

The data is the best there is. The data shows that Scotland spends more than it raises in revenues. That only changes if the spending or revenues change.

So come on then snippers, tell us what spending will be reduced, or how revenues will be increased.

Becoming independent changes zero of those things in itself.

Saying "we will cut spending" or "we will increase revenues" is guff without saying what will be cut and how *exactly* revenues will be increased.

No one ever does.

There's a reason why.

 

Quote

Secondly, with that in mind, I made the point that politicians of all parties who want to govern Scotland, whether it is in or out of the UK, need better data to do so: GERS is now well past its use-by date for anyone who wants to make the types of decision Scotland now needs to make. And thirdly, I made clear that alternative data is not just possible, but in the last couple of weeks the UK Office for National Statistics has said data of the sort I have suggested, based on real tax income, should now be used for UK-wide decision-making. So why should that not be the case in Scotland as well, I argued.

I would have thought anyone who values good government would agree with what I said. What I offered was my professional opinion as a chartered accountant and professor of political economy (which is a pretty rare combination) on what might make for the best decision-making for the benefit of the people of Scotland. The result may show a deficit, or not. That was not my point. That point was we need to know using the best data available and we need to know what can best be done about it – GERS does not permit that."

http://www.thenational.scot/news/15221027.Professor_Richard_Murphy__Kevin_Hague_thinks_Scotland_should_know_its_place_____I_don___t/

Real tax income numbers are only available if extra information is collected - by doing things such as implementing a hard border with rUK so that it's possible to get that extra information at a level of accuracy to satisfy Murph.

Murph stated categorically yesterday (after the debate, on twitter I think) that there should be a hard border to get that better info. Go for it if you like.

(Scotland does, from now, get real income tax numbers - so it'll be interesting to see how they impact into GERS. My guess is that it'll show Scotland as even worse than previously, based on the snippers meme of all the well-paid jobs being in London, and the numbers used in GERS to date being based on a whole UK average).

For stuff like VAT and corp tax, it's even more complicated. They'd have to be VAT records done from every sales outlet in Scotland, massively increasing the bureaucracy burden to record that info. There's similar issues with corp tax, because corp tax is calculated for the whole corp and companies are not required to break their business into regions.

Put simply, it's impossible to satisfy what he suggests without screwing Scotland's economy even more than currently.

So this diversion is dead.

Meanwhile snippers still need to tell the world what spending they'll reduce and what revenues they'll increase and how to show how the deficit will be different post-indy.

The deficit doesn't change without someone saying they'll change the spending and revenues numbers that creates the deficit total.

Edited April 13, 2017 by eFestivals

[LJS]

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

He points out that only London & SE are growing above average.

Yup & If you compare Scotland with other regions of the UK, It is mid table rather than the basket case it appears to be when you compare it with the Entire UK where the figures are skewed by the London & the South east.

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I can point out why: immigration. The extra numbers from immigrants is causing extra growth to serve the extra numbers.

That is correct.

 

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Now, care to tell me how an indy Scotland will attract greater immigration than its doing now? Will it send secret agents down to London to put a gun to the head of immigrants and march them to scotland? No?

Then why will indy Scotland suddenly become the go-to place for immigrants, more popular than current brexit London?

It's clearly not going to become a more-popular place for EU-ers than now (else it would be that already), so the only option for an increase is from non-EU-ers .... which comes with its own problems...

 Why shouldn't we become a more popular place for EU-ers than now? Without reopening the "if & when Scotland can join the EU debate" an iScotland is likely to have a closer & more favourable relationship with the EU than rUK & will be free (with limitations) to set its own immigration policy. Although we attract a lower number of EU immigrants at present than the UK as a whole  -it's not a massive gap 3.4% against 4.9% and as always these figures are skewed by London which has by far the highest proportion EU immigrants  -Scotland has a higher proportion of EU migrants than the North East & Wales. Ireland has 8.1%. 

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

  .... which comes with its own problems...

firstly, the UK 'common travel area'. If iScotland has immigration not wanted to be risked for walk-thru by rUK, that's iScotland bringing a hard border on itself

So, we hear, the UK will bend over backwards to prevent there being a hard border between The UK & the Republic of Ireland but a similar arrangement with Scotland would be out of the question? That's not me saying it will be a piece of cake and it would clearly require some level of compromise. A hard border would not only harm iScotland  - it would harm rUK too - the scale is different but the damage is significant enough to make it in both countries' interests to cut a deal.

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

secondly, economic value,. The best (tho still not very good, it's true) research says that non-EU-ers are an economic burden and not (as EU-ers are claimed to be by the same research) an economic gain ... so there'd be no benefit from those non-EU-ers anyway, but the opposite - an increase in the deficit via it, not a decrease.

Funny you usually dispute the economic gain from all immigrants but I guess it suits you to take a different position here. I haven't seen the research you refer to although as non EU migrants will include refugees who, almost inevitably lead to greater expense, they don't appear unreasonable. However as I don't accept that we will only be able to find immigrants from outwith the EU, I don't see this as a major problem. 

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

(interestingly, this also shows something else: that added-value per head of population is decreasing not growing, so even if London-growth was matched by iScotland it grows the deficit rather than reduces it)

 Yup it does & he makes the following point...

" What if Scotland could manage immigration for growth just like London and the south-east has?

But it also raises a seldom-raised question – why are we not using GVA per capita as our primary measure? If wealth doubles but it is shared by exactly twice as many people, wealth per person has not changed at all. Surely it's wealth per person that indicates policy success? The London economic miracle looks less miraculous when you take into account the number of people it is meant to be shared between."

If GVA per head continues to grow, I fail to see how that leads to a higher deficit.

London is the problem here - and it is a problem for every part of the UK  - not just Scotland as is clearly demonstrated by the economic recovery being driven by 4 out of 5 new jobs being created in London.

This is bad news not just for Edinburgh & Glasgow but for Cardiff, Belfast and Bristol too. Sadly, there is precious little you can do about this in practice - in Scotland we can do something about it - we can choose to live in a country that doesn't have London in it. Hopefully we will shortly.

 

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, LJS said:

Yup & If you compare Scotland with other regions of the UK, It is mid table rather than the basket case it appears to be when you compare it with the Entire UK where the figures are skewed by the London & the South east.

Scotland's figures are screwed by the extra that Scotland costs to run, and by fuck all else. 

That means to have the same levels of wealth as now it need to significantly outperform the rest of the UK - and it never will, unless it has another oil-like miracle.

16 minutes ago, LJS said:

Why shouldn't we become a more popular place for EU-ers than now?

You tell me. Why aren't you now?

It's pointless saying the future will be different. If you can't do it now you won't do it then.

 

16 minutes ago, LJS said:

Without reopening the "if & when Scotland can join the EU debate" an iScotland is likely to have a closer & more favourable relationship with the EU than rUK & will be free (with limitations) to set its own immigration policy.

It won't have a closer relationship than the UK does now, it'll be the same ... and the same as now means the same as now. If you can't do it now you won't do then.

It's easily possible to increase the non-EU numbers, but that comes with side consequences (of a hard people-border between iS & rUK), which would quite possibly be worse than the benefit from those non-EUs.

That is, *IF* there's a benefit from those non-EUs. The best research says they're a burden not a benefit (even before those unwanted side consequences).

[LJS]

As you are no doubt aware we have local elections coming up next month. Unlike the rest of the UK, we ahve all our local elections in one go and then leave then for five years. Its super fun because we use  STV which means we can vote for everyone which is fantastic. (we use four different voting systems in Scotland! It's what makes us exceptionally sophisticated) 

Anyway, I digress: Local councils, as I am sure you are aware are responsible for emptying my bins, teaching my kids & taking them off me & putting them into homes and other such stuff so you'd imagine that's what the campaigns would concentrate on. 

The Daily Record asked the main parties to make their case...

Here's what happened...

Quote

 

Scottish Tory local government spokesman Graham Simpson said: “There is a distinct choice for voters – elect strong local voices who will direct all their energy on bettering local services or vote to return to divisions of the past.

“Scottish Conservatives believe in empowering local government, whereas the SNP have been on a mission to erode what councils can do.

“Every SNP councillor elected will use their position to agitate another unwanted referendum, whereas the Scottish Conservatives will fight tooth and nail against one.”

Scottish Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie said: “Unlike the SNP and the Greens, we will put local communities first, not another divisive independence referendum.

“With Liberal Democrats you get a champion for your area not a cheerleader for independence.”

Scottish Labour deputy leader Alex Rowley, who is masterminding his party’s campaign, said: “Voters have an opportunity to send Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a message that Scotland doesn’t want another referendum.

“Instead, she should be focused on the job of governing – getting our schools back on track, stopping closures to our NHS services and working to get more jobs into our communities.

“If you vote Labour, you will elect a local champion; if you vote SNP, you will elect a councillor who is only interested in a second independence referendum.”

However, the pro-independence parties made their case without referencing the constitution.

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said: “The council elections are about local communities and local services. We have a record number of candidates, with nearly double the number of women standing, and much-improved participation from disabled people.

“All our candidates are dedicated local campaigners who believe passionately in protecting public services from the worst of Tory cuts.

“Every SNP vote is a vote to protect the vital services we all depend on, with our priorities focused firmly on transforming childcare, investing in our schools, increasing affordable housing and supporting local jobs and small businesses.”

Kim Long, the Green hopeful for Dennistoun in Glasgow, said: “As candidates, we’re all dedicated local campaigners. We’re determined to put power in the hands of our communities.

“Our councils need more Green voices. We will speak up to protect public services, give our schools 
the resources they need, support our care staff and tackle the housing crisis.”

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/indyref-2-dividing-issue-battle-10215961

 

Yet again it is the parties who continually accuse the SNP of being obsessed with Independence .... who turn out to be the ones who are ....obsessed by independence.

Makes sense i suppose - I mean we all know that in an independent Scotland my bin will never be emptied.

 

 

 

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, LJS said:

As you are no doubt aware we have local elections coming up next month. Unlike the rest of the UK, we ahve all our local elections in one go and then leave then for five years. Its super fun because we use  STV which means we can vote for everyone which is fantastic. (we use four different voting systems in Scotland! It's what makes us exceptionally sophisticated) 

so exceptionally sophisticated that 23% of Scottish voters haven't noticed they are voting for people to wield greater powers?

I'm impressed with such high levels of sophistication.

 

Quote

Here's what happened...

... you attempted to blame others for the damage the SNP are doing to Scotland?

Same old same old.

 

[LJS]

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Scotland's figures are screwed by the extra that Scotland costs to run, and by fuck all else. 

That means to have the same levels of wealth as now it need to significantly outperform the rest of the UK - and it never will, unless it has another oil-like miracle.

You've changed the subject - we were talking about growth  - I know you struggle to go 3 sentences without bringing up the deficit - but do try & resist the temptation. You have said nothing here that is at all relevant to the point I made. 

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

You tell me. Why aren't you now?

It's pointless saying the future will be different. If you can't do it now you won't do it then.

Maybe because we have no control over immigration policy. Or all sorts of other policies that help to determine where jobs are created - like the fact that between 2008 & 2014 Scotland lost 9.1%  of its public sector jobs whilst London lost 3.1%. 

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It won't have a closer relationship than the UK does now, it'll be the same ... and the same as now means the same as now. If you can't do it now you won't do then.

See above & people who previously went to the UK might not find themselves so welcome post Brexit - so it's perfectly possible we can do much   better.

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It's easily possible to increase the non-EU numbers, but that comes with side consequences (of a hard people-border between iS & rUK), which would quite possibly be worse than the benefit from those non-EUs.

That is, *IF* there's a benefit from those non-EUs. The best research says they're a burden not a benefit (even before those unwanted side consequences).

I still haven;t seen that research & I'd imagine there's a wee bit more to it than all EU  immigrants benefit the economy & all non EU  immigrants are a burden. 

I'm not sure there will be a distinction in rUK between EU & non EU  migrants. are you?

And I have already covered the "hard border" bit  - you just chose to ignore it ...

 

here it is again

"So, we hear, the UK will bend over backwards to prevent there being a hard border between The UK & the Republic of Ireland but a similar arrangement with Scotland would be out of the question? That's not me saying it will be a piece of cake and it would clearly require some level of compromise. A hard border would not only harm iScotland  - it would harm rUK too - the scale is different but the damage is significant enough to make it in both countries' interests to cut a deal."

[eFestivals]

27 minutes ago, LJS said:

You've changed the subject - we were talking about growth  - I know you struggle to go 3 sentences without bringing up the deficit - but do try & resist the temptation. You have said nothing here that is at all relevant to the point I made. 

Same subject  ... you *need* the growth to deal with the deficit.

But when that need of growth is a need to be 20% more productive than the rest of the UK to cover the 20% extra cost of running Scotland, it's never going to happen.

Only a moron would think it might be. All of the GERS denial and all of the other bullshit is about trying to keep yes voting Scots as those morons.

 

Quote

Maybe because we have no control over immigration policy.

oh FFS.

The only greater control over immigration Scotland could have for EU-ers is if Scots came to England and put a gun to immigrant's heads and walked them to Scotland.

 

Quote

Or all sorts of other policies that help to determine where jobs are created - like the fact that between 2008 & 2014 Scotland lost 9.1%  of its public sector jobs whilst London lost 3.1%. 

i'll point out - again - that Scotland had and still has a hugely disproportionate number of both public sector and quango jobs.

(and given that only last week you admitted you didn't know this, you'll need to go find the facts before you start with bullshit  ... but if you find those facts you'll find the bullshit is in your claim that I quoted)

 

Quote

See above & people who previously went to the UK might not find themselves so welcome post Brexit - so it's perfectly possible we can do much   better.

only if you're picking up stays who don't give a fuck where they end up.

You might do I guess, but then you wouldn't be able to claim that they found Scotland an attractive place to live, only that it was better than the alternative shit they'd come from.

 

Quote

I still haven;t seen that research & I'd imagine there's a wee bit more to it than all EU  immigrants benefit the economy & all non EU  immigrants are a burden. 

True.

But the non-burdensome kind of non-EU-ers already have just about the same open door that all EU-ers do now anyway, and they have the same whole-world to choose from.

So it's back to the same thing as now, that if you can't get them now you won't get them then, unless you can tell me what you will do to increase Scotland's attractiveness to those potential immigrants.

 

Quote

I'm not sure there will be a distinction in rUK between EU & non EU  migrants. are you?

There is now, and there was before we ever joined the EU - so I *very* strongly suspect there will be. Even your own FM thinks there will be, she documented it back in December (and decided that rUK would do the admin for her, how nice of her to show how much she values sovereignty  ... it's rather like Alex's "rUK will register iScotland's cars, rUK will fuel iScotland's military, rUK will do iScotland's spying", etc, etc)

 

Quote

And I have already covered the "hard border" bit  - you just chose to ignore it ...

here it is again

"So, we hear, the UK will bend over backwards to prevent there being a hard border between The UK & the Republic of Ireland but a similar arrangement with Scotland would be out of the question? That's not me saying it will be a piece of cake and it would clearly require some level of compromise. A hard border would not only harm iScotland  - it would harm rUK too - the scale is different but the damage is significant enough to make it in both countries' interests to cut a deal."

get back to me when you have the first idea of what you're talking about.

Tho I do hope you have that spade ready, to build the ditch.

As it's clearly passed you by, the NI option is for NI to essentially be a foriegn country working to different rules and customs and border checks to the rest of the UK ... it is impossible - not 'difficult', but 100% impossible - to operate anything similar between iScotland and England.

It would require the hard border that will come into place between NI and rest of UK ... so a solution to avoid a hard border which is about putting hard border in place does not avoid that hard border, does it?

But that's all with Ireland still operating the CTA - which is the opposite to what I just talked about for non-EU immigration into iScotland.

If iScotland decides to not operate to CTA rules by operating immigration in a different way, that's iScotland choosing to erect a hard people-border. 

 

Edited April 13, 2017 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

36 minutes ago, LJS said:

As you are no doubt aware we have local elections coming up next month. Unlike the rest of the UK, we ahve all our local elections in one go and then leave then for five years. Its super fun because we use  STV which means we can vote for everyone which is fantastic. (we use four different voting systems in Scotland! It's what makes us exceptionally sophisticated) 

Anyway, I digress: Local councils, as I am sure you are aware are responsible for emptying my bins, teaching my kids & taking them off me & putting them into homes and other such stuff so you'd imagine that's what the campaigns would concentrate on. 

The Daily Record asked the main parties to make their case...

Here's what happened...

Scottish Tory local government spokesman Graham Simpson said: “There is a distinct choice for voters – elect strong local voices who will direct all their energy on bettering local services or vote to return to divisions of the past.

“Scottish Conservatives believe in empowering local government, whereas the SNP have been on a mission to erode what councils can do.

“Every SNP councillor elected will use their position to agitate another unwanted referendum, whereas the Scottish Conservatives will fight tooth and nail against one.”

Scottish Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie said: “Unlike the SNP and the Greens, we will put local communities first, not another divisive independence referendum.

“With Liberal Democrats you get a champion for your area not a cheerleader for independence.”

Scottish Labour deputy leader Alex Rowley, who is masterminding his party’s campaign, said: “Voters have an opportunity to send Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP a message that Scotland doesn’t want another referendum.

“Instead, she should be focused on the job of governing – getting our schools back on track, stopping closures to our NHS services and working to get more jobs into our communities.

“If you vote Labour, you will elect a local champion; if you vote SNP, you will elect a councillor who is only interested in a second independence referendum.”

However, the pro-independence parties made their case without referencing the constitution.

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said: “The council elections are about local communities and local services. We have a record number of candidates, with nearly double the number of women standing, and much-improved participation from disabled people.

“All our candidates are dedicated local campaigners who believe passionately in protecting public services from the worst of Tory cuts.

“Every SNP vote is a vote to protect the vital services we all depend on, with our priorities focused firmly on transforming childcare, investing in our schools, increasing affordable housing and supporting local jobs and small businesses.”

Kim Long, the Green hopeful for Dennistoun in Glasgow, said: “As candidates, we’re all dedicated local campaigners. We’re determined to put power in the hands of our communities.

“Our councils need more Green voices. We will speak up to protect public services, give our schools 
the resources they need, support our care staff and tackle the housing crisis.”

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/indyref-2-dividing-issue-battle-10215961

Yet again it is the parties who continually accuse the SNP of being obsessed with Independence .... who turn out to be the ones who are ....obsessed by independence.

Makes sense i suppose - I mean we all know that in an independent Scotland my bin will never be emptied.

 

 

 

Interesting post, hadn`t seen that article. I had noticed that the leaflets I`ve had through the door from the SNP don`t mention Indy once. They are fighting the local elections.

I have not yet had my Tory leaflet but will keep you posted. I`m willing to bet it will say nothing of Tory policies or priorities round my way as if they promote Tory ideals round here no-one will vote for them ( as usual ).

It will probably say something about our proud union and how we fought together so we must stay together which sadly will be enough to pick up some odd votes.

It`s easy to forget ( on here ) that indy doesn`t equal SNP. I still reckon that indy will bring Labour`s best chance of a revival and will see a stalling in the progress being made by the Conservative and Unionist party who are doing everything they can to hoover up the pro Union vote.

The Tories say nothing about what they want to do ( for obvious reasons ) and are only interested in talking about Indy ref 2 which their leader has dismissed anyway as now is not the time. Strange then that Ruth D is always banging on about it............

[Comfy Bean]

20 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

only if you're picking up stays who don't give a fuck where they end up.

You might do I guess, but then you wouldn't be able to claim that they found Scotland an attractive place to live, only that it was better than the alternative shit they'd come from.

 

 

 

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

 

Why do EU-ers prefer London to Glasgow, comfy?

[Comfy Bean]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Why do EU-ers prefer London to Glasgow, comfy?

Really ? Seems pretty obvious to me. London is a marvellous City.... as is Glasgow of course.

[eFestivals]

Just now, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Really ? Seems pretty obvious to me. London is a marvellous City.... as is Glasgow of course.

but one is more popular than the other. Are you saying that one is more marvellous than the other?

Me, i'd have gone for the more sensible, of better wages, of more cosmopolitan and less insular, and better weather. But if you just want to say that London is more marvellous, perhaps that's a factor too.

But anyway, if Glasgow is to become the more-popular than London to EU-ers that LJS is basing the whole future of his nation - your nation - on, either Glasgow has to beat London on that list of sensible things ('marvellous' included or not , you can decide ), or it's only hope is to pick up strays who don't give a shit where they live because it's better shit than the shit where they were.

Which is what i said, which you seemed to have an issue with. Care to share what you thought the issue was?

[Comfy Bean]

19 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

but one is more popular than the other. Are you saying that one is more marvellous than the other?

Me, i'd have gone for the more sensible, of better wages, of more cosmopolitan and less insular, and better weather. But if you just want to say that London is more marvellous, perhaps that's a factor too.

But anyway, if Glasgow is to become the more-popular than London to EU-ers that LJS is basing the whole future of his nation - your nation - on, either Glasgow has to beat London on that list of sensible things ('marvellous' included or not , you can decide ), or it's only hope is to pick up strays who don't give a shit where they live because it's better shit than the shit where they were.

Which is what i said, which you seemed to have an issue with. Care to share what you thought the issue was?

I'm agreeing with everything you say about London.

Its quite clearly more attractive to eu-ers as the numbers will show.

I was tickled by your ramblings about "strays" and in particular the words of yours I quoted earlier.   

You appeared to be arguing with yourself while taking a dig at Scotland. Same as it ever was :-)

 

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Why do EU-ers prefer London to Glasgow, comfy?

Why do EU-ers prefer Ireland to the whole of the UK except London, Neil?

[eFestivals]

30 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I'm agreeing with everything you say about London.

Its quite clearly more attractive to eu-ers as the numbers will show.

I was tickled by your ramblings about "strays" and in particular the words of yours I quoted earlier.   

You appeared to be arguing with yourself while taking a dig at Scotland. Same as it ever was :-)

 

Not at all. I've simply highlighting the size of the problems.

It's all very well saying "we'll increase immigration", but there's some real issues to that, which don't just disappear on iDay.

There has to actually be a plan for how it's going to be done, or it's just meaningless guff.

You want to believe indy is the answer, but nothing of the indy campaign has any answers to any of it. 

Just meaningless stuff like "GERS is wrong" and "we'll grow the economy", but never the detail of how which is needed to make it real.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, LJS said:

Why do EU-ers prefer Ireland to the whole of the UK except London, Neil?

Planning to be low-tax enabler for the rich running away with the money, are you?

In Ireland, they've followed their own money, which has only gone there because of the low tax deals the irish govt cuts with them.

But hey, if the latest SNP plan is to be more tory than the tories and with your support just come out and say it.

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Same subject  ... you *need* the growth to deal with the deficit.

Its not the same subject. We were having a discussion about growth & the excellent article by the Common Weal dude which points out that comparing Scotland to the UK as a whole when discussing growth is misleading due to the influence of London. What you need the growth for is an entirely separate issue which I no longer debate with you as you accuse me of believing the Scottish economy will grow faster than Jack's Chinese beanstalk or something like that 

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

But when that need of growth is a need to be 20% more productive than the rest of the UK to cover the 20% extra cost of running Scotland, it's never going to happen.

Only a moron would think it might be. All of the GERS denial and all of the other bullshit is about trying to keep yes voting Scots as those morons.

As predicted along comes the beanstalk

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

 

oh FFS.

Good band

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

The only greater control over immigration Scotland could have for EU-ers is if Scots came to England and put a gun to immigrant's heads and walked them to Scotland.

I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you telling me an independent Scotland will have no more control over immigration than we do as part of the UK? 

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

 

i'll point out - again - that Scotland had and still has a hugely disproportionate number of both public sector and quango jobs.

(and given that only last week you admitted you didn't know this, you'll need to go find the facts before you start with bullshit  ... but if you find those facts you'll find the bullshit is in your claim that I quoted)

The claim I quoted came from this 

http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Brief10-public-sector-employment-across-UK-since-financial-crisis.pdf

And I believe you are correct that Scotland has slightly more more Civil Service jobs than its population share would suggest although I would imagine that the disproportionate number of Higher grade Civil Servants in London mean the wage bill goes some way to counteract that. 

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

 

only if you're picking up stays who don't give a fuck where they end up.

You might do I guess, but then you wouldn't be able to claim that they found Scotland an attractive place to live, only that it was better than the alternative shit they'd come from.

I'm not aware that the UK has ever actively tried to persuade EU residents to come here. Clearly iScotland might take a different view.

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

 

True.

But the non-burdensome kind of non-EU-ers already have just about the same open door that all EU-ers do now anyway, and they have the same whole-world to choose from.

So it's back to the same thing as now, that if you can't get them now you won't get them then, unless you can tell me what you will do to increase Scotland's attractiveness to those potential immigrants.

Maybe we coudl try asking them? Come to Scotland it's a great place to live and work. 

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

 

There is now, and there was before we ever joined the EU - so I *very* strongly suspect there will be.

Yeah, but it is unlikely to be the unfettered freedom of movement they have now, is it?

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Even your own FM thinks there will be, she documented it back in December (and decided that rUK would do the admin for her, how nice of her to show how much she values sovereignty  ... it's rather like Alex's "rUK will register iScotland's cars, rUK will fuel iScotland's military, rUK will do iScotland's spying", etc, etc)

Oh look, we're back to the white paper now - (which think you are misrepresenting but I really can't be arsed going back to check - why? because this is 2017)

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

 

get back to me when you have the first idea of what you're talking about.

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Tho I do hope you have that spade ready, to build the ditch.

As it's clearly passed you by, the NI option is for NI to essentially be a foriegn country working to different rules and customs and border checks to the rest of the UK ... it is impossible - not 'difficult', but 100% impossible - to operate anything similar between iScotland and England.

It would require the hard border that will come into place between NI and rest of UK ... so a solution to avoid a hard border which is about putting hard border in place does not avoid that hard border, does it?

But that's all with Ireland still operating the CTA - which is the opposite to what I just talked about for non-EU immigration into iScotland.

If iScotland decides to not operate to CTA rules by operating immigration in a different way, that's iScotland choosing to erect a hard people-border. 

There are no CTA rules as far as Scotland is concerned - they would have to be negotiated, like many many things. I don't believe there is the level of certainty that you appear to have as to the post Brexit border arrangements between the UK & Eire but then I don't pretend to be an expert in the area.

I do understand there are conflicting interests at play here & not just for an iScotland. I have already said that there will need to be compromise but I believe it is in both sides' interests to cut a deal and that probably means that iScotland would not have absolute & total control over immigration but would still have more than we do now.  

However if the next referendum goes anything like the last one, it will be "your" side that is desperate to construct a border & if rUK wants to build a wall, we can't stop you  - as long as don't think we're going to pay for it.

 

[eFestivals]

16 minutes ago, LJS said:

I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you telling me an independent Scotland will have no more control over immigration than we do as part of the UK? 

To keep it simple, let's say that rUK remains in the EU and iScotland joins the EU.

The answer to your question is: nothing meaningful.

You only really get the ability to bribe (beyond the wage alone) people to come to Scotland, if you so fancied.

And I'm not sure I could see Scots happily paying for foreigners to come to iScotland and them have a better deal than the 'natives', but feel free to tell me I've got that wrong.

[LJS]

Just now, eFestivals said:

To keep it simple, let's say that rUK remains in the EU and iScotland joins the EU.

rUK remains in the EU? I'm not saying that is impossible but it doesn't seem likely.

It seems more likely that rUK won't be in the EU and even if iScotland fails to get into the EU there is nothing to stop it allowing EU citizens to join us.

Just now, eFestivals said:

The answer to your question is: nothing meaningful.

You only really get the ability to bribe (beyond the wage alone) people to come to Scotland, if you so fancied.

And assuming the economic Armageddon you predict does not come to pass, the wages alone are likely to be higher than those on offer in a number of EU countries.

Just now, eFestivals said:

And I'm not sure I could see Scots happily paying for foreigners to come to iScotland and them have a better deal than the 'natives', but feel free to tell me I've got that wrong.

 No, I'm sure you're right, but then no one is suggesting this so its kind of a squirrel.

[eFestivals]

25 minutes ago, LJS said:

And I believe you are correct that Scotland has slightly more more Civil Service jobs than its population share would suggest although I would imagine that the disproportionate number of Higher grade Civil Servants in London mean the wage bill goes some way to counteract that. 

It's more than just civil service and public sector, too.

Ever wondered why you have a company in Scotland to make loans to students (particularly as it's become clearly-in-the-wrong-place in the more recent years), as just one example?

 

25 minutes ago, LJS said:

I'm not aware that the UK has ever actively tried to persuade EU residents to come here. Clearly iScotland might take a different view.

Given what social attitudes surveys say, i can't see it, can you?

Not when the benefits are somewhat dubious anyway (cos growing the economy with a growing population doesn't necessarily make you richer).

At the moment you have an announced intention for indy because of leaving the EU where the indy leadership won't even say if iScotland would be leaving the EU or not.

When they're that uncertain about the EU when the numbers are decently in support of it, they're hardly going to be all-in for something far more hated and with much worse numbers in support.

 

25 minutes ago, LJS said:

Yeah, but it is unlikely to be the unfettered freedom of movement they have now, is it?

Freedom of movement is likely to be identical. Freedom to work probably won't be.

 

25 minutes ago, LJS said:

There are no CTA rules as far as Scotland is concerned - they would have to be negotiated, like many many things.

CTA is an international treaty. It might find its partners in that treaty willing to revise it, or not. Scotland can choose to be a signatory to the treaty or not. If not, there's an obligation on rUK via that treaty to enforce a hard border.

(much like there's an obligation on Ireland to enforce a hard border with brexited-NI via EU treaties, and would be on an iScotland within the EU with its brexited-rUK border)

 

25 minutes ago, LJS said:

 I don't believe there is the level of certainty that you appear to have as to the post Brexit border arrangements between the UK & Eire but then I don't pretend to be an expert in the area.

What I laid out if the best thinking anyone has for the island should there be no UK/EU deal - and which pretty much puts NI back inside the EU as part of Ireland.

The reason it couldn't happen between an iScotland and rUK is because it would still have to have a hard border, in the same way as they'd be a hard border between Great Britain and NI.

And anyway, the reason why it's considered so important for something to be agreed for ireland is for reasons of history, reasons which don't exist with Scotland/England - so it's just not the same.

With a bit of luck the UK will get an OK-ish deal from the EU, and for most people doing most things they probably won't even notice there's been a change, and it'll be waaay better than what Sturgeon suggested in her doc in december (where most people would have noticed a change, even in Scotland!). I don't think that's particularly unlikely, either.

 

25 minutes ago, LJS said:

I do understand there are conflicting interests at play here & not just for an iScotland. I have already said that there will need to be compromise but I believe it is in both sides' interests to cut a deal and that probably means that iScotland would not have absolute & total control over immigration but would still have more than we do now.  

So next we need some detail on what that 'more than we do now' actually means, because it remains as meaningless guff until the hows and whys are all covered.

 

25 minutes ago, LJS said:

However if the next referendum goes anything like the last one, it will be "your" side that is desperate to construct a border & if rUK wants to build a wall, we can't stop you  - as long as don't think we're going to pay for it.

Oh, Sturgeon is dead keen for stuff like that to be in play, it's why she's so keen for a sooner-ref. The more certainties there are the less room there is for her to bullshit, and the most likely a border looks the further away indy gets - and further away is what she wants, she can't afford to win.

 

[eFestivals]

19 minutes ago, LJS said:

rUK remains in the EU? I'm not saying that is impossible but it doesn't seem likely.

that was only to keep the hypothetical at it's simplest. I wasn't suggesting i think it's going to happen (not in name, anyway).

 

19 minutes ago, LJS said:

It seems more likely that rUK won't be in the EU and even if iScotland fails to get into the EU there is nothing to stop it allowing EU citizens to join us.

True.

But they're free to join you now, and don't. Brexit rUK doesn't make Scotland the automatic next pick.

 

19 minutes ago, LJS said:

And assuming the economic Armageddon you predict does not come to pass, the wages alone are likely to be higher than those on offer in a number of EU countries.

True - tho those higher wages are on offer right now too, and they don't come in enough numbers.

 

19 minutes ago, LJS said:

 No, I'm sure you're right, but then no one is suggesting this so its kind of a squirrel.

So there you go. they're not going to be bribed, so it remains as it is now - an open door for those who want it.

Unfortunately for your hopes for the future wealth of your country, not enough want to come, and indy doesn't change that.

[Comfy Bean]

13 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

Unfortunately for your hopes for the future wealth of your country, not enough want to come, and indy doesn't change that.

I think it's worth reflecting on your words here.

The future of an Indy Scotland will rely on a great number of things and immigration is certainly one of them.

We have already agreed that London which will remain in the Uk has always been more of a draw while it has been an option. 

What do you mean when you say Indy doesn't change that. Don't you think that a pro immigration iscotland might start to look attractive ?

Some people are more open minded about the potential of a new life in Scotland than others. Some of them are English and all of them are most welcome :-)

NS is way ahead of us here already talking about the type of Country we want to live in. Of course there is a bit of politics at play in her words as she looks to compare her vision with one of a hard Tory brexit uk. I know which one i prefer !

[eFestivals]

Just now, comfortablynumb1910 said:

What do you mean when you say Indy doesn't change that. Don't you think that a pro immigration iscotland might start to look attractive ?

Indy by itself doesn't change that.

The different factor of brexit might change it, tho as even Davis is taking about more from the EU and not less, I wouldn't go holding your breath on that one either.

Why not have a think of the sorts of places you've sometimes thought of emigrating to, and why. Have a think too about other people, and what they might have at the top of their list.

Are many of the things on that 'why' list applicable for Scotland and only Scotland, or might some other countries be in with a shout of being the top attraction for the people you've thought of?

You might tweak it 5 or 10% better by a poster campaign in Romania & other eastern countries by telling them how much you love them, but the big dreams require much bigger growth than just that.

6 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Some people are more open minded about the potential of a new life in Scotland than others. Some of them are English and all of them are most welcome :-)

Open minded means looking at all possibilities, and not rejecting some because they don't suit your prejudices.

Open minded means arriving at conclusions via a reasonable thought process, rather than saying "everyone will love us just because we're indy and we're Scotland".

Etc, etc.

8 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

NS is way ahead of us here already talking about the type of Country we want to live in. Of course there is a bit of politics at play in her words as she looks to compare her vision with one of a hard Tory brexit uk. I know which one i prefer !

It's the one area of the indy campaign where indy is actually offering something, and it makes a handy diversion from the much more important and more difficult stuff she has no answers for.

And you suck it up.