The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

PS: the GC report says it assumes "an annual debt servicing charge of £3 billion".

It also says...

Of course this sum would be subject to negotiation and agreement but we provide it as an initial estimate based on the best information available to us. This is not an unreasonable assessment of “Fair and Proportionate” but nor should it prejudice any future negotiation as the exact detail of asset valuation in particular should be subject to detailed and independent scrutiny.

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

And that is for both historical debt (owed to rUK) as well as any new debt iScotland takes on.

How is it for any new debt? Where does it say that?

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The UK is currently spending approx £50Bn servicing debt, which puts what the GC says at around a 6% share (if iScotland took on none of its own debt).

Fair share? Get out of here.

It takes into account assets which would be due to Scotland so your maths doesn't tell the whole story.

Now, in the real world one would not expect the 2 parties to agree initially on how much should be paid - that's simply not how negotiation works. Its also reasonable to assume that the figure the growth commission proposes is on the low side - frankly they'd be crazy not to go low - as to do otherwise would tie the hands of future negotiators.

But ultimately what is crystal clear (to anyone but you, it would appear) is that the division of debts & assets would be the subject of negotiation between the 2 countries. The SNP accepts this, the growth commission accepts this, I accept this.

[eFestivals]

why does it make that threat?

Because if Scotland is paying a fair share, its outgoings are higher which then changes the numbers in all of the report, and (with everything else being the same) turns a bonus into a loss.

 

[LJS]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Page 36.

When talking about the UK's debt, it says...
"The UK Treasury confirmed in 2014 that existing UK debt instruments remain the responsibility of the continuing UK government. The UK’s debt will therefore remain the responsibility of the UK Government after Scotland becomes independent. By definition, an independent Scotland will start with zero debt. The strength of that position should not be underestimated."

It's clearly talking about using a threat of not paying because it's rUK's debt, in order to get a better deal.

er, no its not.

that's you making stuff up again.

[eFestivals]

Just now, LJS said:

an initial estimate based on the best information available to us.

then their information is utterly shit.

Which means the rest of the report is, too.

[eFestivals]

Just now, LJS said:

er, no its not.

that's you making stuff up again.

then tell me why it mentions the irrelevance of legal obligations when moral obligations over ride that?

Then tell me why it talks about the strength a claim of no debt gives?

And tell me why it then claims a cost of just £3Bn when that cannot be contexted against easy facts or any definition of 'fair'?

Fucks sake. :lol: 

[LJS]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

then tell me why it mentions the irrelevance of legal obligations when moral obligations over ride that?

they don't override it - there is no legal obligation. That is a simple statement of fact -a fact acknowledged by the UK Government & by you.

The GC at no stage & in no way suggests that the lack of a legal obligation means Scotland shouldn't pay anything. To suggest otherwise is nonsense. It clearly recommends on numerous occasions that Scotland should make a reasonable contribution to servicing the UK's debts.

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Then tell me why it talks about the strength a claim of no debt gives?

I read it as a strong financial basis to start a country with - I certainly don't see any suggestion anywhere that Scotland would not or should not contribute. It would be madness to adopt such a policy.

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

And tell me why it then claims a cost of just £3Bn when that cannot be contexted against easy facts or any definition of 'fair'?

Fucks sake. :lol: 

because its not just a division of debt -its a division of assets too. 

If you understood anything about negotiations you would also understand that the figure is more likely to be on the low side. They would be crazy to do anything else. 

I understand your concern though - if the rUK's negotiations with iScotland are as efficient as their Brexit negotiations, you'll probably end up giving us money!!!

[eFestivals]

Just now, LJS said:

they don't override it - there is no legal obligation. That is a simple statement of fact -a fact acknowledged by the UK Government & by you.

there's a legal obligation, but it ceases to mean anything against the moral obligation - but only if the moral obligation is accepted.

 

Just now, LJS said:

The GC at no stage & in no way suggests that the lack of a legal obligation means Scotland shouldn't pay anything. To suggest otherwise is nonsense.

agreed.  I never did suggest otherwise.

I have highlighted its own words where it mentions no debt as a fact. It doesn't mention that for no reason, either.

 

Just now, LJS said:

because its not just a division of debt -its a division of assets too. 

No shit sherlock.

What assets do you think the UK has outside of Scotland where Scotland won't be wanting greater-than £80Bn's worth of its share?

 

Just now, LJS said:

If you understood anything about negotiations you would also understand that the figure is more likely to be on the low side.

there is nothing to negotiate with a moral obligation.

The very fact you talk of negotiation only underlines the rejection of that moral obligation.

With the EU the UK didn't say "we'll negotiate you down from what we're obliged to pay for". The UK said "we'll happily pay what we owe".

 

Just now, LJS said:

They would be crazy to do anything else. 

Or alternatively, more c**tish and immoral than the hated dastardly tories.

Actually, not an alternative. A true statement of fact, that again underlines your rejection of the moral obligation.

Cos you say it would be crazy if iScotland didn't lie about its moral obligations.

[LJS]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

there's a legal obligation, but it ceases to mean anything against the moral obligation - but only if the moral obligation is accepted.

no idea what this random collection of words even means.

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

agreed.  I never did suggest otherwise.

Oh yes you did. You have talked about Scotland threatening to welch on its debts.

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I have highlighted its own words where it mentions no debt as a fact. It doesn't mention that for no reason, either.

Yeah because its a fact. Even you admit that. 

Your assigning a reason is nothing other than your own interpretation based on your own blinkered assumptions.

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

No shit sherlock.

What assets do you think the UK has outside of Scotland where Scotland won't be wanting greater-than £80Bn's worth of its share?

no idea mate. It woudl be a matter for negotiation. If rUK thinks iScotland is being ungenerous, i'm sure you will mention it.

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

there is nothing to negotiate with a moral obligation.

Absolute bollocks.  You are truly in cloud - cuckoo land now. I guess your idea is that rUK would come up with a number which would of course be fair & reasonable & iScotland shoudl just agree to pay it. 

how droll! 

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The very fact you talk of negotiation only underlines the rejection of that moral obligation.

With the EU the UK didn't say "we'll negotiate you down from what we're obliged to pay for". The UK said "we'll happily pay what we owe".

And then negotiated about how much that should  be - this is exactly the position being outlined by the GC.

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

Or alternatively, more c**tish and immoral than the hated dastardly tories.

Actually, not an alternative. A true statement of fact, that again underlines your rejection of the moral obligation.

Cos you say it would be crazy if iScotland didn't lie about its moral obligations.

I think we have reached the point where you are so desperate to defend your position that you have entered a new universe where words hold a whole different meaning. I usually find that's a good time to bow out & leave you drooling & raving to yourself in the corner. 

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, LJS said:

no idea what this random collection of words even means.

Why is the legal statement there if iScotland is accepting its moral responsibility?

If Scotland is accepting it's share it doesn't matter a fuck what the legal situation is.

Is that a bit too complicated for you? 

Edited July 6, 2018 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, LJS said:

Oh yes you did. You have talked about Scotland threatening to welch on its debts.

Because the GC make clear they'll use that threat, when it says "The strength of that position [zero debt] should not be underestimated"

Nowhere did I suggest that Scotland would welch on its debts, only that it would use the threat of doing so to try to get the amount its liable for reduced. The GC makes clear that's its intention

Which is further made clear when it talks about debt servicing costs of just £3Bn.

Which is fine and dandy for the c**t who wants to try and use state power to welch on its moral responsibilities, but it is not an acceptance of those moral responsibilities.

[eFestivals]

15 minutes ago, LJS said:

Yeah because its a fact. Even you admit that. 

Nope, I made a post to dispute it. iScotland's legal obligation towards historical debt will come into existence at the same precise moment as iScotland does.

'Scotland' (today's Scotland) does not have an individual responsibility toward the debt. iScotland will have.

Edited July 6, 2018 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

16 minutes ago, LJS said:

no idea mate. It woudl be a matter for negotiation. If rUK thinks iScotland is being ungenerous, i'm sure you will mention it.

but that's what the GC and you are saying would happen, by claiming 'reasonable' and 'negotiation' and a servicing cost of just £3Bn.

So unless the GC has already identified the assets it plans to swap for > £80bn of debt reduction, it's all meaningless twaddle ... unless they don't really plan to pay a fair share after all.

[eFestivals]

19 minutes ago, LJS said:

And then negotiated about how much that should  be - this is exactly the position being outlined by the GC.

Nope, the UK did not do that with the EU.

The UK (well, May) said we'd pay what we owed, no quibbles. The quibbles that did happen were all before the EU presented the list to show what we owed, with guesses towards what that final amount might total up to be. 

When they presented the list the UK looked at it, said it was fair*, and said it'd pay.

(* the UK might have quibbled about a few things on the list, i'm not certain - but on a basis of fairness and not to negotiate it down. What I am certain of is that it was very quickly agreed once the list was presented which wouldn't have happened with a negotiation).

[eFestivals]

29 minutes ago, LJS said:

I think we have reached the point where you are so desperate to defend your position that you have entered a new universe where words hold a whole different meaning. I usually find that's a good time to bow out & leave you drooling & raving to yourself in the corner. 

yep, after you've dropped a lie and then used this 'defence' as a way to run away.

The UK accepted its debt obligations towards the EU on a moral basis. 

The GC report rejects iScotland accepting debt on a moral basis and says it will use the leverage it has to negotiate it downwards. And you defend it.

Which a position of lower morals than the tories.

Edited July 6, 2018 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

On 7/5/2018 at 7:12 AM, eFestivals said:

Nope, SNP supporters are not left leaning.....

That’s plenty :-)

[Comfy Bean]

On 7/5/2018 at 3:39 PM, LJS said:

Assets & liabilities would both be the subject of negotiation.

No one sensible is saying otherwise.

Spot on. I’m assuming Neil is only pretending to disagree with you on this. 

Our relationship with England will be hugely important after Indy. Hopefully both sides will be keen to get off on the right foot.

 

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, Comfy Bean said:

Spot on. I’m assuming Neil is only pretending to disagree with you on this. 

Our relationship with England will be hugely important after Indy. Hopefully both sides will be keen to get off on the right foot.

then it's probably best that the SNP don't deny the debt and say they'll use it as negotiating leverage - which the GC clearly suggests with it's claims of "strength" from "zero debt"..

[Comfy Bean]

On 7/5/2018 at 3:20 PM, eFestivals said:

 

Get back to me when Scottish youth can't find housing, your NHS is badly backed up, and all of the other consequences of big immigration without the money to spend on the infrastructure to match it.

Thought I’d accidentally clicked on a Daily Mail link there :-)

The Snp have, for a very long time made their position on immigration clear.

Would you like to live in Scotland ?

Thats the one and only question requiring an answer.

You know about their success over the past decade or so. Peolple going the other way is the problem that they often highlight.

They then recognise the need to break the uk tax mould which they have now done. This has been done in stark contrast to what Ruth D wants.

No point getting in to it again but rural or urban, all 32 regional council areas voted to keep free movement.....amongst other things in the eu ref.

I accept that this all doesn’t chime with your views on jockland or the Snp.

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, Comfy Bean said:

Would you like to live in Scotland ?

Thats the one and only question requiring an answer.

and the answer by too many is 'no', unfortunately for Scotland. Nothing is stopping hoards heading there now, Scotland's problem is that they don't want to.

Which is why Scotland doesn't have the social issues connected with high immigration, and the opinions towards numbers that change with those social issues (see also Italy, Germany, France, Sweden, Denmark, and elsewhere).

Meanwhile, you *DO* have the same general attitudes towards it as the rest of the UK - as proven constantly by social attitude surveys (we've done this before, so I'm not falling for your inevitable pretence of knowing nothing about that).

Edited July 7, 2018 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, Comfy Bean said:

break the uk tax mould which they have now done.

laughable.

It's tokenism, designed only to give suckers like you yet another reason to claim scottish exceptionalism.

Do something exceptional with your tax regime and I'll happily recognise that exceptional Scotland.

 

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, Comfy Bean said:

all 32 regional council areas voted to keep free movement

Bullshit. It wasn't on the ballot paper.

Meanwhile, where i live voted more strongly in favour of the EU than *ANY* part of Scotland. 

Edited July 7, 2018 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

and the answer by too many is 'no', unfortunately for Scotland. Nothing is stopping hoards heading there now, Scotland's problem is that they don't want to.

Which is why Scotland doesn't have the social issues connected with high immigration, and the opinions towards numbers that change with those social issues (see also Italy, Germany, France, Sweden, Denmark, and elsewhere).

Meanwhile, you *DO* have the same general attitudes towards it as the rest of the UK - as proven constantly by social attitude surveys (we've done this before, so I'm not falling for your inevitable pretence of knowing nothing about that).

The 32/32 trumps your survey mate as you know.

Fair points in the earlier paragraphs where you agree with what the Snp is saying. They are pro immigration. What’s your problem with that ? Especially in the current climate. The tone from the top up here is far from hostile on this. 

Remember all 32 regions includes rural and urban. Again I’m confused to why you want to ignore the eu results up here. 

[Comfy Bean]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Bullshit. It wasn't on the ballot paper.

Meanwhile, where i live voted more strongly in favour of the EU than *ANY* part of Scotland. 

Just keep telling yourself that :-)

Attitudes to immigration are clearly different. You have outlined some of the reasons for this as have I. 

Youre all over the place here. You are arguing with yourself !

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, Comfy Bean said:

The 32/32 trumps your survey mate as you know.

Nope. Willy waving about about "my area is better than your area" is what you did, and it's what I did too.

If you can pick and chose the bits that do count and the bits that don't, so can I. If it's valid for you it's valid for me.

3 minutes ago, Comfy Bean said:

They are pro immigration. What’s your problem with that ?

Nothing at all. It's a trait they share with UKIP, the tories, Labour, the LibDems, the Greens, etc, etc.

Just about everyone in fact - except the BNP, and quite a number of Scottish Protestants too who like to dress in Orange, only seen in England where... there's lots of Scots.

 

5 minutes ago, Comfy Bean said:

the eu results up here. 

there was no eu results up there.

It was a whole-UK vote, and a whole UK-vote that Scotland voted in favour of it being.

 

 

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, Comfy Bean said:

Attitudes to immigration are clearly different.

the effects of immigration are clearly different too.

Get back to me when Scottish youth can't find housing, your NHS is badly backed up, and all of the other consequences of big immigration without the money to spend on the infrastructure to match it.