The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

45 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

no I don't.

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

i've said it a gazillion times - I have given up repeating myself.

 

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, LJS said:

i've said it a gazillion times - I have given up repeating myself.

But you just said something different and meaningless. 

What's today's version of substance?

That you think £15bn will fall from the sky? Is that still where you are?

Anything else needs a plan, not worthless guff.

[LJS]

 

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

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.

NO idea mate - just as its not my job to produce an itemised budget for every government department in an iScotland. 

But I will give you a couple of small examples - we contribute towards the cost of running the Palace of Westminster and all its attendant nonsense  - that money is spent in London. We also contribute to the upkeep and staffing of the HQ of every governemnt department. That money is currently spent in London and the taces raised on the very high salaries of the nations top civil servants all contribute to English revenue (for Gers purposes)

It is a simple fact that governments tend to spend a lot of money in their capital city. That wouldn't necessarily change ... but our capital city would 

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

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.

Your making stuff up again. Nowhere have I ever said anything even vaguely resembling that nonsense.

I see you've changed the anti- English nonsense to pro-Scottish nonsense.

How terribly clever.

[LJS]

 

SNP’s secret plan for bank in independent Scotland
 http://www.scotsman.com/news/snp-s-secret-plan-for-bank-in-independent-scotland-1-4419549

 

Exactly the sort of thing Neil has said the SNP should be doing. So I await his total condemnation of it.

[eFestivals]

56 minutes ago, LJS said:

 NO idea mate - just as its not my job to produce an itemised budget for every government department in an iScotland. 

You've no idea about any of the details, but you're 100% certain in the idea that everything will be great.

Can you see what the problem is...?

Quote

But I will give you a couple of small examples - we contribute towards the cost of running the Palace of Westminster and all its attendant nonsense  - that money is spent in London.

The costs are minimal onto Scotland in the overall scheme of things. There's a few quid of benefit, but not much.

It's useful, like finding a fiver in back pocket, but that fiver won't pay the mortgage.

It's so minimal it doesn't really even count as contribution towards a solution, in the same way having an extra fiver doesn't really make paying your mortgage off any easier.

 

Quote

We also contribute to the upkeep and staffing of the HQ of every governemnt department. That money is currently spent in London and the taces raised on the very high salaries of the nations top civil servants all contribute to English revenue (for Gers purposes)

As you've already admitted, Scotland has a disproportionately-greater number of UK civil/public/quango workers, so some of that is cancelled out by that.

And when indy, they'll be a greater cost to Scotland for its own replacements for these currently-london staff, because the economies of scale will be lost.

But yep, you're probably right, and they'll be a bit more money paid out in wages in Scotland to these highly-paid people.

BUT ... what will those highly paid people spend the *extra* parts of their big wages on (the bits beyond their normal-person day to day expenses)? 

My guess is ever-flasher cars - not made in Scotland - and other luxury goods - not made in Scotland - and then a shit load of foriegn holidays too.

The amount of benefit to Scotland is fucking tiny, unless the money is spent & recycled solely within Scotland, and that's something you can't make happen (without going all north Korean, anyway).

The flood of money out of the UK for just the same reasons is one of the reasons we're in the shit. Indy doesn't change anything of that, without going all insular.

Quote

It is a simple fact that governments tend to spend a lot of money in their capital city. That wouldn't necessarily change ... but our capital city would 

The UK govt's spend is very well distributed for a western economy. How has that passed you by?

It's why you've got all those disproportionately greater civil/public/quango workers in Scotland.

It's why you've got the military shipyard in Scotland ... which raises the question of what spending will go the other way, as money is repatriated from London to Scotland in the way you say.

Even the BBC spend claims from snippers is a joke. You want the money in Scotland to spend from, but you'll *have to* buy in outside content. There';s a reason why the likes of Holland and Belgium aren't well-known worldwide for TV content.

(talking of which, I see the test card and the like are more popular viewing in scotland than dedicated scottish channels :lol:)

 

Quote

Your making stuff up again. Nowhere have I ever said anything even vaguely resembling that nonsense.

I see you've changed the anti- English nonsense to pro-Scottish nonsense.

How terribly clever.

if it's not prejudice that has you believing CW matey has a good enough suggestion to sort the whopping deficit on the basis of the no-facts and no-numbers he provides...

It's not the facts, because he doesn't give any that are meaningful towards what he says it cures.

So... care to tell me what it is instead?

It can only be prejudice or blind faith. It's not intelligence of rational thought.

Edited April 14, 2017 by eFestivals

[LJS]

38 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

You've no idea about any of the details, but you're 100% certain in the idea that everything will be great.

Can you see what the problem is...?

 

Yup.

The problem is I've never said I'm 100% certain in the idea that everything will be great.

 

 

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, LJS said:

The problem is I've never said I'm 100% certain in the idea that everything will be great.

So Scotland might be much poorer after indy...?

 

[Comfy Bean]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

So Scotland might be much poorer after indy...?

 

Who can say if people living here will be poorer in monetary terms. I`d guess that few would see much difference in their living standards. " Poorer " when used in a non monetary sense I would doubt but can`t say for certain.

We would likely have an Snp or Labour Govt and I`d speculate that as a Country we could be " richer* " away from Tory rule ( note - not English rule ). I have no interest in thinking anyone will get " richer " in monetary terms. " Fairer " is a better word that I think you will find has been used by indy supporters on here.

What you have told us is that England will be much richer as the subsidy junkies will be gone and that Wales will be loaded cause the jocks will no longer be " shitting on the Welsh ".

I would be happy with both these outcomes.

* I don`t mean cash rich.

[LJS]

28 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Who can say if people living here will be poorer in monetary terms. I`d guess that few would see much difference in their living standards. " Poorer " when used in a non monetary sense I would doubt but can`t say for certain.

We would likely have an Snp or Labour Govt and I`d speculate that as a Country we could be " richer* " away from Tory rule ( note - not English rule ). I have no interest in thinking anyone will get " richer " in monetary terms. " Fairer " is a better word that I think you will find has been used by indy supporters on here.

What you have told us is that England will be much richer as the subsidy junkies will be gone and that Wales will be loaded cause the jocks will no longer be " shitting on the Welsh ".

I would be happy with both these outcomes.

* I don`t mean cash rich.

Couldn't have put it better myself, Comfy.

[eFestivals]

35 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Who can say if people living here will be poorer in monetary terms

GERS can.

It shows what the numbers are currently and how much how many things would have to change to make the numbers work.

 

35 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

. I`d guess that few would see much difference in their living standards.

That's funny, cos I've heard a lot of screams about the pain of 'tory austerity' - yet the cuts &/or tax hikes necessary to make the numbers work would be much MUCH more wildly felt.

Oh look, there it is again....

42 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

be " richer* " away from Tory rule

... when the cuts for indy will have to be MUCH greater.

 

35 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

What you have told us is that England will be much richer as the subsidy junkies will be gone and that Wales will be loaded cause the jocks will no longer be " shitting on the Welsh ".

I would be happy with both these outcomes.

It's true that you'd stop shitting on the welsh - which had your full approval, I'll remind you -  and that will be a good thing.

But you'll instead be shitting on your own beds, the part you never want to think about.

I've not said England will be richer, as far as I recall. I've said Scottish indy would be cash positive with an upfront number (the barnett money) but I'm not so stupid as to think the split can be done without causing negative impact to both the Scottish and English economies & costs of govt.

 

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, LJS said:

Couldn't have put it better myself, Comfy.

Yep.

It starts with outright GERS rejection, because 'who knows?'

It then follows thru with building myths on top of that fact denial.

It think it would be fairer on the poorest if they were even poorer.

It then expresses happiness at some outcomes but refuses to face others.

That's you that is.

In fact it's everything about indy. A hope and prayer.

[Comfy Bean]

42 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

GERS can.

It shows what the numbers are currently and how much how many things would have to change to make the numbers work.

 

That's funny, cos I've heard a lot of screams about the pain of 'tory austerity' - yet the cuts &/or tax hikes necessary to make the numbers work would be much MUCH more wildly felt.

Oh look, there it is again....

... when the cuts for indy will have to be MUCH greater.

 

It's true that you'd stop shitting on the welsh - which had your full approval, I'll remind you -  and that will be a good thing.

But you'll instead be shitting on your own beds, the part you never want to think about.

I've not said England will be richer, as far as I recall. I've said Scottish indy would be cash positive with an upfront number (the barnett money) but I'm not so stupid as to think the split can be done without causing negative impact to both the Scottish and English economies & costs of govt.

 

You have said England will be richer.

I put a little star next to richer in my post you've quoted and explain what type of richer I was referring to.

Shitting on Wales is of course your line and doesn't have my approval.

Id like to see an end to the Barnett formula. I respect the wishes of the no voters in Scotland who preferred the status quo.

gers are a useful estimate of how we are currently performing as part of the uk. I'm talking about a time in the future still to be determined when we will not be governed by the Tories from Westminster. Unlike you I cannot predict the future. I've guessed that few would notice much difference in their current living standards.

[Comfy Bean]

I don't reject the gers estimates. I've already said they are useful and if the methodology is consistent then we can compare performance year on year.

When talking about an Indy future there is an obvious flaw which you either don't see or are keen to ignore :-)

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

You have said England will be richer.

with up-front money. Just as the UK will be from leaving the EU.

It doesn't mean it'll actually work out as a net gain. There's extra costs via a split - for both rUK and Scotland.

5 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Shitting on Wales is of course your line and doesn't have my approval.

says the man who think his demands of money from the UK has no effect on wales. :lol:

 

5 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Id like to see an end to the Barnett formula. I respect the wishes of the no voters in Scotland who preferred the status quo.

That you're able to do, when you're not egging on Sturgeon to extract every last penny. Which you did.

Not because you were respecting anyone else's views, but because you were demanding every last penny for yourself.

 

5 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

gers are a useful estimate of how we are currently performing as part of the uk.

It is a set of national accounts, that details revenues and expenses.

If the numbers are going to be different post indy you need to say what spending would be changed &/or how govt revenues would be increased.

Becoming indy changes nothing of those numbers by itself.

 

5 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I'm talking about a time in the future still to be determined when we will not be governed by the Tories from Westminster. Unlike you I cannot predict the future. I've guessed that few would notice much difference in their current living standards.

Oh, how i love the shit that comes from your "indy is inevitable" mouth.

[Comfy Bean]

Apologies, I understood that the estimated figures within gers have changed year on year whether Indy or not.

As you know I am not egging on Sturgeon to extract every penny from the Welsh or English. Quite the opposite in fact.

Ideally every Country involved will benefit from Scotland going its own way.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Apologies, I understood that the estimated figures within gers have changed year on year whether Indy or not.

Yep, that's correct. It's what the numbers do for the sovereign state called the UK do too, to cause the numbers in GERS to change.

So it's nothing to do with indy or not, it's what numbers in national accounts do. They're only ever as good as the best information available.

And, it's worth noting, although they do change, they rarely change by very much. The difference between a first 'estimate' and the final 'estimate' - which is as good as accurate there'll ever be - tends to not be much.

The deficit shown in GERS will not be wiped away because they're 'estimates'. At very most more accurate numbers might alter the deficit by a billion - tho that might be a billion worse for scotland and not better.

 

1 minute ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

As you know I am not egging on Sturgeon to extract every penny from the Welsh or English. Quite the opposite in fact.

at the point she was negotiating the new 'settlement for the latest Scotland Act changes you were demanding she extracted every last penny.

 

1 minute ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Ideally every Country involved will benefit from Scotland going its own way.

Scotland won't. Even you know it, which is why you have to lie about the deficit because you know indy won't happen if the truth is faced.

[eFestivals]

So..... May has thrown Sturgeon that bone she was desperate for.

Sturgeon's unspecified threats are on the back-burner for a while - would love to know what they are (I suspect some high comedy) - and there's the full opportunity to work up another different line, while all the time avoiding the indyref she never wanted anyway.

[LJS]

I see Montenegro which spends 1.66% of GDP on defence is expected to be admitted to NATO this week.

Funny that.

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, LJS said:

I see Montenegro which spends 1.66% of GDP on defence is expected to be admitted to NATO this week.

Funny that.

It's NATO membership was agreed in 2015 (with a joining time of now). The world has changed since December 2015.

BTW, did you also notice its currency issues and how that stops it becoming an EU member? 

[eFestivals]

You've got to laugh at the SNP/Sturgeon - who are accusing the tories of "selling out the Scottish fishing industry, again" when the SNP stated-want of remaining the EU is the same 'sell out' and more.

And talking of sellouts and laughter, rumour has it that Sturgeon never did formally ask Westminster for a ref, which seems a little odd for someone so determined to hold a ref. I wonder why that was?

 

Edited May 10, 2017 by eFestivals

[LJS]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

You've got to laugh at the SNP/Sturgeon - who are accusing the tories of "selling out the Scottish fishing industry, again" when the SNP stated-want of remaining the EU is the same 'sell out' and more.

Funny business fishing. It has long been claimed that the UK has not adequately represented Scottish fishing interests in CFP negotiations. (Fishing is proportionately far mor important to the Scottish economy than the UK as a whole.)

Meanwhile, if it wasn't for the CFP, and it's conservation measures, there would probably be precious few fish left to catch.

Meanwhile, whilst you might think leaving the EU & the CFP would be great for Scotland & our fishermen, there have been indications that access to our waters might well be a bargaining chip in brexit negotiations.

So, quite a complex picture, then and hard to be sure who the winners & losers will end up being.

Quote

And talking of sellouts and laughter, rumour has it that Sturgeon never did formally ask Westminster for a ref, which seems a little odd for someone so determined to hold a ref. I wonder why that was?

 

Maybe you shouldn't listen to rumours.

http://news.sky.com/story/nicola-sturgeon-writes-to-pm-requesting-a-second-scottish-independence-referendum-10818701
 

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, LJS said:

Funny business fishing. It has long been claimed that the UK has not adequately represented Scottish fishing interests in CFP negotiations. (Fishing is proportionately far mor important to the Scottish economy than the UK as a whole.)

Meanwhile, if it wasn't for the CFP, and it's conservation measures, there would probably be precious few fish left to catch.

Meanwhile, whilst you might think leaving the EU & the CFP would be great for Scotland & our fishermen, there have been indications that access to our waters might well be a bargaining chip in brexit negotiations.

So, quite a complex picture, then and hard to be sure who the winners & losers will end up being.

Yep, it might well be the case that access to fishing grounds might be part of a new deal, but if it is it will be as part of a deal that will (essentially) keep Scotland in the EU's single fish market (), allowing fish in Scotland to be easily sold into a big market for it. What's not to like from a remainer's point of view?

And funnily enough, the fishermen support that too, tho they do reject the more-stringent CFP which they want no part of ... and the person knocking the tory position wants them in the CFP. It's laughable.

Outside of the politics I suspect the fishermen really just want the end of quotas (after having sold them all to the spanish) so they can start fishing again for free, and will drain it dry of fish in about ten minutes if they're given the chance.

But with the politics? There's naff to criticise in the tory position as long as you're accepting that we're brexiting, as it's most in line with the people it affects (without going as far as saying the fishermen will be free of regulation). The fishermen are happy for there to be a deal done around the fishing grounds.

[eFestivals]

I see Salmond has claimed that Labour nicked their manifesto from the SNP, and sturgeon agrees. He even claims the renewal energy generated in Scotland as a Scotland-done thing and not the UK funded thing that it is.

So ... where's the SNP commitment to tax the rich? (tho I notice they've *again* suggested the'll do it - yet they wanted to give the richest a tax cut, and it was the Greens who stopped them).

So ... where's the nationalised public transport? Oh, not there, because the SNP's gay-hating funder needs to be tapped up, doesn't he?

Etc, etc, etc.

And some people i know will say how love;ly they think these policies are, but won't vote for them, instead they'll make a vote that'll be more-than cancelled out by the reaction it causes, and help cause a tory victory.

[russycarps]

I note the number of school leavers on the electoral roll in England has fallen by 25% since 2014. And a massive 33% in Scotland.

Which I find very strange, because throughout the independence referendum we had been lead to believe that scottish people are much more politically engaged than the english

Very odd indeed.

 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, russycarps said:

I note the number of school leavers on the electoral roll in England has fallen by 25% since 2014. And a massive 33% in Scotland.

Which I find very strange, because throughout the independence referendum we had been lead to believe that scottish people are much more politically engaged than the english

Very odd indeed.

 

I'm wondering how much Scotland is engaged with having an indyref because it's leaving the EU but without wanting to rejoin the EU.

Sturgeon is currently doing the "trying to be everything to everyone" thing by a hugely greater extent than the kippers ever did - and my take is that it's fooling no one apart from those who'll vote indy even if their grannie were sacrificed for it.