The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

29 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

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).

 

True.

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

 

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

 

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.

Like I say, maybe we should invite them - you may not have noticed but Scotland is quite small - not everyone will be familiar with it  -maybe a wee bit of money spent promoting Scotland as a great place to live (some of the world's best caves) might make a difference. I think the notion that there is nothing we can do to attract people here is fanciful.

The problem is much more likely to be what we do with these people once they are here. Can iScotland create enough jobs for the immigrants we all seem to agree that it needs? That's the real challenge  - if there are jobs, people will come for them. If there aren't jobs, then extra people are a burden not a bonus.

 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

Like I say, maybe we should invite them - you may not have noticed but Scotland is quite small - not everyone will be familiar with it  -maybe a wee bit of money spent promoting Scotland as a great place to live (some of the world's best caves) might make a difference. I think the notion that there is nothing we can do to attract people here is fanciful.

The problem is much more likely to be what we do with these people once they are here. Can iScotland create enough jobs for the immigrants we all seem to agree that it needs? That's the real challenge  - if there are jobs, people will come for them. If there aren't jobs, then extra people are a burden not a bonus.

 

yep, all these things that have to be done and have to be done right if you're going to be no worse off, and no one has a plan for any of them. You don't even have replacement numbers to work from from the ones you say are crap.

Yet you're all utterly convinced it can only be perfect. :lol:

 

[LJS]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

yep, all these things that have to be done and have to be done right if you're going to be no worse off, and no one has a plan for any of them. You don't even have replacement numbers to work from from the ones you say are crap.

Yet you're all utterly convinced it can only be perfect.

 

Except no one on here has ever said it will be perfect...is that a cue for a song?

 

[Comfy Bean]

30 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

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.

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.

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.

 

Can you please explain to me what my prejudices are ?

and why did you put " everyone will love us just because we're Indy and we're Scotland " in quotes when you were replying to my post ?

I think an Indy Scotland will be outward looking. You know about the 62% thing, we need to encourage immigration hence NS and others spending time in meetings with eu members amongst others. She represents the 32 counts who all voted to remain as you know.

[Comfy Bean]

30 minutes ago, LJS said:

Like I say, maybe we should invite them - you may not have noticed but Scotland is quite small - not everyone will be familiar with it  -maybe a wee bit of money spent promoting Scotland as a great place to live (some of the world's best caves) might make a difference. I think the notion that there is nothing we can do to attract people here is fanciful.

The problem is much more likely to be what we do with these people once they are here. Can iScotland create enough jobs for the immigrants we all seem to agree that it needs? That's the real challenge  - if there are jobs, people will come for them. If there aren't jobs, then extra people are a burden not a bonus.

 

This is a non starter.

The caves will be packed full after Indy.

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

Except no one on here has ever said it will be perfect.

but plenty - including you at times - have said it won't be a poorer or worse Scotland.

For it to not be that poorer worse Scotland, all of these loose ideas (grow the economy, increase immigration, cut spending, increase tax revenues, etc) that are used to hold up the idea of indy as a positive thing and not a financial disaster that affects people far-worse than the tories will do will have to come in good.

And for them to come in good there would have to be a plan that is more than the big hopes which is all that anyone is able to give.

No one offers a plan, they only talk big. Might that big talk be bullshit?

It's bullshit till there's a plan.

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Can you please explain to me what my prejudices are ?

that indy will be great, because you say it will be.

It's not based on any facts, just a faith that because Scotland will be run by Scots from Scotland, it cannot fail to be better than now.

The facts of GERS? They don't suit your prejudices so you reject GERS .

Tho just a few years ago, you could fit GERS into your prejudices, and said Salmond's plan would come in just as he predicted (I argued it will you at the time).

Etc, etc, etc.

Your prejudices are what has you accept or reject something as a fact. Not intelligence, or counter arguments that can stand up to analysis, just a rejection of facts that don't suit, based *ONLY* in prejudices.

 

12 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

and why did you put " everyone will love us just because we're Indy and we're Scotland " in quotes when you were replying to my post ?

Because it's the best argument anyone on the indy side ever presents.

According to you, what you posted just yesterday, just being indy *will* make Scotland more attractive to immigrants (I had to point out that rUK's brexit might, but not indy by itself).

 

12 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I think an Indy Scotland will be outward looking.

I refer you to the doc on Common Weazel that LJS recommended a few weeks ago and recommended again yesterday where the answer to the economic issues is given as being insular

While I don't doubt there's many who would like it to be outward looking, the reality of dealing with the big financial issues won't give the scope for that.

When the scenario will be dilemmas such as (say) maintaining the levels of pensions for Scots in Scotland or spending the money instead on something without immediate benefit for Scotland, I've no doubts which will win out each and every time.

 

12 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

You know about the 62% thing, we need to encourage immigration hence NS and others spending time in meetings with eu members amongst others. She represents the 32 counts who all voted to remain as you know.

NS might as well be talking to your cat. She has the same authority for it.

She can't even say if iScotland would be in the EU at the mo. Get back to us when she actually knows what the version of indy is that she wants, so that she's able to know the version of indy she wants is better than what Scotland has now.

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

This is a non starter.

The caves will be packed full after Indy.

With the plans give so far, caves is all the SNP and Scotland has to offer.

It only changes with a plan. Get back to us when you have one.

[LJS]

44 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

but plenty - including you at times - have said it won't be a poorer or worse Scotland.

For it to not be that poorer worse Scotland, all of these loose ideas (grow the economy, increase immigration, cut spending, increase tax revenues, etc) that are used to hold up the idea of indy as a positive thing and not a financial disaster that affects people far-worse than the tories will do will have to come in good.

And for them to come in good there would have to be a plan that is more than the big hopes which is all that anyone is able to give.

No one offers a plan, they only talk big. Might that big talk be bullshit?

It's bullshit till there's a plan.

 

28 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

With the plans give so far, caves is all the SNP and Scotland has to offer.

It only changes with a plan. Get back to us when you have one.

Now is not the time for a plan

 

When there is a referendum there will undoubtedly be a plan

 

It may have escaped your attention but we are not having a referendum

 

Because now is not the time.

 

 

[LJS]

31 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 I refer you to the doc on Common Weazel that LJS recommended a few weeks ago and recommended again yesterday where the answer to the economic issues is given as being insular

Complete and utter nonsense.

31 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

While I don't doubt there's many who would like it to be outward looking, the reality of dealing with the big financial issues won't give the scope for that.

 I disagree. Every country in the world deals with "big financial issues" Some of these countries are outward looking - some are insular. I completely fail to see how dealing with "big financial issues" stops you being outward looking.

31 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

When the scenario will be dilemmas such as (say) maintaining the levels of pensions for Scots in Scotland or spending the money instead on something without immediate benefit for Scotland, I've no doubts which will win out each and every time.

Oh I see - its all about the money ... again.  But then it always is with you.

 

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, LJS said:

 

Now is not the time for a plan

 

When there is a referendum there will undoubtedly be a plan

 

It may have escaped your attention but we are not having a referendum

 

Because now is not the time.

Dreams are only dreams.  You keep trying to claim those dreams as the possible - when no one knows if it's possible.

Just like Sturgeon you *know* indy is better without knowing anything about indy. How can you? You don't have a plan for indy.

It's the very opposite of rational intelligent thinking.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

Complete and utter nonsense.

he says GERS is crap and meaningless because money is spent outside of Scotland.

Which means he believes an alternative more-positive set of numbers will come about by being insular by spending more within Scotland. That's increased insularity.

 

4 minutes ago, LJS said:

I disagree. Every country in the world deals with "big financial issues"

Yeah, they do. Do you know what facts they use for everything around doing that?  It's something called national accounts to international accounting standards. 

To go that route you have to accept national accounts to international accounting standards. Do you accept national accounts to international accounting standards?

Or do you reject national accounts to international accounting standards, giving no starting point from which to deal with big financial issues?

6 minutes ago, LJS said:

Some of these countries are outward looking - some are insular.

and some are rich and some are poor. Yeah, I know.

It's all about what a country does, which needs a plan.

Until you have a plan, you can have no idea what your country might do.

But you say your country cannot fail to be at least as rich aas now.

 

6 minutes ago, LJS said:

I completely fail to see how dealing with "big financial issues" stops you being outward looking.

Then you reject what Common Weazel say, then.

I'm glad we've sorted that out.

[LJS]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Dreams are only dreams.  You keep trying to claim those dreams as the possible - when no one knows if it's possible.

Just like Sturgeon you *know* indy is better without knowing anything about indy. How can you? You don't have a plan for indy.

It's the very opposite of rational intelligent thinking.

I could not have been clearer what my hopes and expectations are for Indy.

I could not have been clearer why I believe an independent Scotland is financially viable.

You disagree which you are perfectly entitled to do. 

I have no problem with that.

It is not my job to come up with a "plan" for Indy which is just as well because I am not qualified to do so.

I have made it clear that, in my view, the success or failure of the next indyref will depend largely on the Yes campaign's ability to produce a "plan" which convinces enough people that an independent Scotland is viable.

You don't think they can. 

You are entitled to your opinion.

I am happy to wait until we are actually having indyref2 before I make that judgement.

 

[eFestivals]

Just now, LJS said:

I could not have been clearer why I believe an independent Scotland is financially viable.

Nigeria is financially viable. What it's not is as rich as Scotland. Are you saying that iScotland will be as rich - or as poor, from a western perspective - as Nigeria?

No? Then stop talking the meaningless of 'viable' and say something that shows you have some intelligence.

FFS.

[LJS]

Just now, eFestivals said:

he says GERS is crap and meaningless because money is spent outside of Scotland.

Which means he believes an alternative more-positive set of numbers will come about by being insular by spending more within Scotland. That's increased insularity.

It is a simple matter of fact that a lot of money currently spent in London, for example, on Scotland's behalf would clearly be spent in Scotland if we were independent. That's not insular- its how the world works. 

Just now, eFestivals said:

 

Yeah, they do. Do you know what facts they use for everything around doing that?  It's something called national accounts to international accounting standards. 

To go that route you have to accept national accounts to international accounting standards. Do you accept national accounts to international accounting standards?

Or do you reject national accounts to international accounting standards, giving no starting point from which to deal with big financial issues?

This has exactly what to do with the point i made which was...

"I disagree. Every country in the world deals with "big financial issues""

And of course Scotland's accounts will need to comply with whatever they need to complay with

Just now, eFestivals said:

and some are rich and some are poor. Yeah, I know.

It's all about what a country does, which needs a plan.

Until you have a plan, you can have no idea what your country might do.

But you say your country cannot fail to be at least as rich aas now.

Do I?

Just now, eFestivals said:

 

Then you reject what Common Weazel say, then.

I'm glad we've sorted that out.

I've dealt with your nonsense about Common Weal. 

[LJS]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Nigeria is financially viable. What it's not is as rich as Scotland. Are you saying that iScotland will be as rich - or as poor, from a western perspective - as Nigeria?

No? Then stop talking the meaningless of 'viable' and say something that shows you have some intelligence.

FFS.

You know exactly what I mean. 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

It is a simple matter of fact that a lot of money currently spent in London, for example, on Scotland's behalf would clearly be spent in Scotland if we were independent. That's not insular- its how the world works. 

Nope, it's unfactual made-up bollocks, until he shows how and where those extra spends in scotland would happen - cos all countries spend a chunk outside of their borders.

I pointed out a few things, remember? You chickened out of giving meaningful answers, which only shows that you know it's not possible to much of a degree, but here you are again claiming it's a game changer (cos that's what that CW article claims).

Salmond couldn't find these savings. Are you now admitting that you backed an utterly shit plan of Salmond's? It seems that you're saying you know he lied to you, while claiming it was all good.

So now you say there's something better, even tho the guy suggesting it can't say what the better is or how it would work or what actual benefits its brings - yet you know with absolute certainty it's better.

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, LJS said:

And of course Scotland's accounts will need to comply with whatever they need to complay with

except they already do, and you say they're meaningless.

 

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, LJS said:

I've dealt with your nonsense about Common Weal. 

Have you?

Then tell me what money - exactly - will be spent in Scotland post-indy and tell me the exact amount of financial benefit that will bring.

You never do, so you never deal with it.

You just say "matey said that, and i believe it" - and you believe it on faith alone, that a scot talking from scotland about scotland's future in a way that you want Scotland's future to be MUST be more right than anything said by the english because ... well, for no other reason than because they're English and they don't hold your pro-Scotland prejudices.

Edited April 14, 2017 by eFestivals

[LJS]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

except they already do, and you say they're meaningless.

 

Scotland is not currently a sovereign nation. Our "accounts" are an estimate. Once we are a sovereign nation we will know exactly what our revenue & expenditure is.

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, LJS said:

You know exactly what I mean. 

No I don't.  You said 'viable', when all countries are viable. That makes it meaningless.

So go on, say exactly what you mean.

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, LJS said:

Scotland is not currently a sovereign nation. Our "accounts" are an estimate.

An estimate based on the same methodologies as are used for the estimates made by sovereign nations - because there are only estimates for all countries!!!

 

Quote

Once we are a sovereign nation we will know exactly what our revenue & expenditure is.

Which is a claim they'll be different.

Will they be different in Scotland's favour or to its detriment?

By how much?

Edited April 14, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, LJS said:

Scotland is not currently a sovereign nation. Our "accounts" are an estimate. Once we are a sovereign nation we will know exactly what our revenue & expenditure is.

is your local council able to do meaningful accounts?

By the logic you use here for GERS rejection, the non-sovereignty of local councils means they can't produce meaningful accounts.

Can my business produce meaningful accounts? Nope, it can't, it's not sovereign, therefore it can't add up and subtract.

Etc, etc, etc. 

FFS.

 

Edited April 14, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

21 minutes ago, LJS said:

You know exactly what I mean. 

no I don't.

I've love to know what you mean. Why not say it, explicitly...?

[Comfy Bean]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

You just say "matey said that, and i believe it" - and you believe it on faith alone, that a scot talking from scotland about scotland's future in a way that you want Scotland's future to be MUST be more right than anything said by the english because ... well, for no other reason than because they're English and they don't hold your pro-Scotland prejudices.

Starting  bollocks like the above with " you just say " is becoming more and more common from you Neil.

Its crystal clear that no one on hear apart from your good self believes in all this Scots in Scotland guff and no one apart from you says anything about Scottish exceptionalism.

It could be viewed as you trying and failing to reflect your own anger, hatred, prejudices onto other posters. You accused me yesterday of having prejudices when I was talking about the clear need to encourage more immigration ?

You have previously accused me of being an anti English racist and thrown in the odd specific fascism or nazi reference.

Is it possible that when you think you may be on the losing side of a discussion you resort to making stuff up or childish insults ?

To acknowledge that last bit you would first have to accept that it's possible you may be wrong on occasion so maybe I'm flogging a dead horse here :-)

Your stuff about Scots being forced to live in caves with Indy would be one example. It's difficult to take that type of stuff seriously. The fact you see blood and soil and hatred of England in everything Indy related is also a bit odd.