The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

careful, you'll have Boris thinking you're from Merseyside. ;rolleyes:

It might occur to the thinking man that there's forces at sea, forces in the Falklands and other off-shore territories, bases in Germany & Cyprus (& Gib & elsewhere?), plus I think a carload (no more than that tho ) drove to Afghanistan.

But no, let's say instead that those outsiders have shafted us - that'll get the votes.

What's that? The SNP are nothing like UKIP?

very true*, but that's too insignificant to count - and a proportionate number will be on iScotland's payroll (or iScotland will have to pay them off)**.

* there's over 40 Admirals for around 20 warships. It's taking the piss.

** or a contra-deal will be done in the negotiations. The point is that a proportion will be at iScotland's cost somewhere.

we'll just be a wee country - the point is because we don't have to maintain all these bases around the world or have warships sailing the 7 seas - we can spend less money - employ roughly the same number of people & still have some money to spend elsewhere.

Of course if there is any spare money we will undoubtedly throw it to the rich

Edited May 7, 2014 by LJS

[eFestivals]

we have one Tory MP & UKIP have never won a thing. The other right wing parties, that have flourished (a little) from time to time in England - BNP EDL etc, have barely been a blip on the Scottish radar.

And that's because....?

Scotland already has a well established party that blames everything on outsiders as those parties also do, so none of those parties have the oxygen to operate within as the SNP have already swallowed all the air.

You can keep pretending there's nothing to this, but the fact of who the SNP blame shows the same method of operation, leaving those parties no leverage.

[eFestivals]

as previously stated we are all paying more than we contribute - it's called a deficit. Funnily enough this second part is often missed out for some reason.

yep, a deficit that iScotland will still have. Around £10Bn a year, which yes-ers tend to conveniently forget. But that's only part of the story.

The SNP myth says that Scots pay around £500 more into the UK than the UK gives back. The deficit proves that lie.

There's also the myth that Scotland gets back a lower proportion of UK expenditure than it contributes.

Some of that claim can't be proven either way. It's based on assumptions from years where there's good data being applied to years where there's not - and not everything is equal (for example banking: the massive profits of the 2000s is an anomaly, not the norm).

Some of that claim is correct. Some years Scotland did pay in a greater proportion in tax than the proportion it got back.

And some of the claim is not. In 2012 Scotland paid in less than it got back, and in 2013 Scotland paid in less than it got back, and in 2014 it'll be the same, and 2015, and 2016.

And then Alex will wave his magic wand, and iScotland will have so much money that the deficit will disappear, public spending will be increased, taxes will be cut, and there'll be so much left over that iScotland will have a sovereign fund.

But Alex isn't a fantasist, is he?

You say Scotland's deficit is larger per capita than the rest of the UK - others disagree.

Nope, i've said no such thing. The available evidence says that some years it's better and that some years it's worse, and that on average it's probably around the same (there is no solid indisputable evidence, because separate Scottish data doesn't always exist for everything that's applicable until around Devo in '98).

I'm merely pointing out that the claim of the opposite made by the SNP, that Scotland would be rolling in extra money, is a claim with no supporting evidence.

And yet a huge chunk of yes supporters are supporting yes on the basis of that claim. You'll find some just-published research which says just that.

[eFestivals]

you are being silly now

Nope, I'm pointing out the often stated stupidity of some yes-ers.

One of the stated supposed bonuses of indy is that Scottish youth will stop dying in misconceived Westminster foreign adventures .... yet Scottish youth will continue to sign onto rUK forces in the same huge numbers as they currently do, and so will continue to die as they do.

That's unless iScotland passes laws to stop it. Lots of countries have laws which make it illegal for their citizens to join a foreign military. There's no reason why iScotland couldn't do the same, unless that often-said claim is more yes bullshit.

[LJS]

And that's because....?

Scotland already has a well established party that blames everything on outsiders as those parties also do, so none of those parties have the oxygen to operate within as the SNP have already swallowed all the air.

You can keep pretending there's nothing to this, but the fact of who the SNP blame shows the same method of operation, leaving those parties no leverage.

I have no intention in continuing the futile debate about yourd delusional comparison between the Snp & ukip.

I was addressing Barry's claim that Scotland will inevitably lurch to the right.

[eFestivals]

here's what yes Scotland says

Hmmm ... there's over a £1Bn a year of military spending spent buying Scottish goods.

Oh what a surprise, the SNP have twisted the numbers and bullshitted you.

[eFestivals]

Like all other parts of the Uk we have been welcoming immigrants for years

you have, but "foreigners" (not from the rest of UK) far less than the rest of the UK.

iScotland wants more immigration but says it will do the UK Common Borders thing - an irresolvable contradiction. Which of those two is going to give, because one of them has to.

Which ever it is, it fucks up the SNP's projections.

And contrary to popular myth, we don't really hate the English

And yet you have a national political narrative that says all of Scotland's problems originate in England.

You even indulge in it yourself, having suggested in this very thread that the nukes in Scotland is some sort of punishment onto Scotland, and something else much more recently (the last few days) that I flagged up (the details of which I forget right now).

So you don't hate the English, it's just that all Scotland's problems are caused by the English and you love them for it. OK.

Edited May 8, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

we'll just be a wee country - the point is because we don't have to maintain all these bases around the world or have warships sailing the 7 seas - we can spend less money - employ roughly the same number of people & still have some money to spend elsewhere.

and more isolated.

Like it not, leaders all around the world love a military spectacle, and engaging with them via warships or whatever does have a pay-off.

You'll have greater costs in engaging with foreign countries anyway - because iScotland's new diplomatic service will be one of the far greater costs (in that area) that a sovereign Scotland will have to carry. You can't get the same representation for 10% of the fee.

Of course if there is any spare money we will undoubtedly throw it to the rich

that's already a firm promise, remember?

It's a firm promise even if there's no spare money, so might well be at the expense of the poorest.

It's ridiculous to claim (as many yes-ers do) that iScotland will look after it's poor better when the only firm financial promise of iScotland is tax cuts for the richest.

Edited May 8, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I have no intention in continuing the futile debate about yourd delusional comparison between the Snp & ukip.

Only because you hate the truth of it.

Does UKIP blame all the UK's problems on powers outside of the UK which have too much say over the UK? Yep.

Does the SNP blame all of Scotland's problems on powers outside of Scotland which have too much say over Scotland? Yep.

Truth. The inconvenient factor of the Scottish referendum.

Truth. The final frontier.

Edited May 8, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Time to throw in a comedy bomb and see what happens....

[russycarps]

yep, a deficit that iScotland will still have. Around £10Bn a year, which yes-ers tend to conveniently forget. But that's only part of the story.

The SNP myth says that Scots pay around £500 more into the UK than the UK gives back. The deficit proves that lie.

There's also the myth that Scotland gets back a lower proportion of UK expenditure than it contributes.

Some of that claim can't be proven either way. It's based on assumptions from years where there's good data being applied to years where there's not - and not everything is equal (for example banking: the massive profits of the 2000s is an anomaly, not the norm).

Some of that claim is correct. Some years Scotland did pay in a greater proportion in tax than the proportion it got back.

And some of the claim is not. In 2012 Scotland paid in less than it got back, and in 2013 Scotland paid in less than it got back, and in 2014 it'll be the same, and 2015, and 2016.

And then Alex will wave his magic wand, and iScotland will have so much money that the deficit will disappear, public spending will be increased, taxes will be cut, and there'll be so much left over that iScotland will have a sovereign fund.

But Alex isn't a fantasist, is he?

Yes this is the most fantastic part of the whole Yes campaign. I really feel sorry for the poor of scotland when the truth comes out and reality bites.

I have a sneaking suspicion the "socialist" scottish fellows posting in this thread are well insulated from any financial discomfort in the event that scotland actually suffers economically should the Yes vote win. That is why it is very easy for them to take a punt on independence.

Edited May 8, 2014 by russycarps

[LJS]

as i am fed up

I will only make a couple of points that I have made 1000 times before but are conveniently ignored.

1: this is not an election. It is a referendum. therefore we are not voting on what the rate of corporation tax will be post 2016. Neil may not like this as it doesn't suit his argument. But it is a FACT. & we know how much Neil likes his facts.

2: To the best of memory no one here has " suggested in this very thread that the nukes in Scotland is some sort of punishment onto Scotland"

Again I have said on many occasions that I do not believe there is any sort of Anti Scottish vendetta or conspiracy from Westminster. Only that inevitably, and correctly Scotland is not Westminster's first priority.

[eFestivals]

Yes this is the most fantastic part of the whole Yes campaign. I really feel sorry for the poor of scotland when the truth comes out and reality bites.

everything is so complicated and mixed up that maybe what the SNP say will be the truth - but they don't know that it will or won't be no differently to anyone else, so it's a punt.

The problem with taking that punt is that it's a forever punt, and so the potential losses are infinite. But likewise, so are the potential gains.

The only sensible line to take in light of that is to presume there's no financial benefit to indy, and to instead decide on the bigger less-personal issues.

But Alex can only win if he tells everyone they'll be rich, while also telling them that not a jot of anything will change. It's bullshit.

Even the changes that will be for the better (pick your own 'better', it matters not) have negative consequences in another place, because there's no free lunches. Not even in Scotland where the rest of the UK pays for free uni.

[eFestivals]

as i am fed up

I will only make a couple of points that I have made 1000 times before but are conveniently ignored.

1: this is not an election. It is a referendum. therefore we are not voting on what the rate of corporation tax will be post 2016. Neil may not like this as it doesn't suit his argument. But it is a FACT. & we know how much Neil likes his facts.

2: To the best of memory no one here has " suggested in this very thread that the nukes in Scotland is some sort of punishment onto Scotland"

1. the official vision for the future that you're voting in support of says that tax cut is a definite - it's about the only promise in the white paper that is possible for Scotland to meet.... and you're suggesting that not even that promise will be met.

How do you think the other promises might pan out?

2. I've pulled out your words to re-show you once already. That's what your words say, even if that's not what you meant.

Again I have said on many occasions that I do not believe there is any sort of Anti Scottish vendetta or conspiracy from Westminster. Only that inevitably, and correctly Scotland is not Westminster's first priority.

And no other single place is either.

That's what being sharey is all about. Sharing.

You know, the thing that Scotland doesn't want to do while having a campaign where it says it'll share better.

While promising only tax cuts for the richest.

can you work out which of those contradictions is going to hold true? Cos not all of them can.

Edited May 8, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

I have a sneaking suspicion the "socialist" scottish fellows posting in this thread are well insulated from any financial discomfort in the event that scotland actually suffers economically should the Yes vote win. That is why it is very easy for them to take a punt on independence.

I wouldn't be too sure. If some of what you read is true, I could well be out of a job & sadly I do not have thousands in the bank so, you are wrong about me. Of course very few jobs are secure whichever way the vote goes.

I will admit to experiencing a "Tory twinge" whereby I though I might be better off voting no. I'm glad to say, I resisted and will do what I have done all my life. I shall vote on what I believe to be best for my family, my country not for the next few years but for the next few generations.

As Neil says it is a punt. But it is a punt I am making with my eyes open. Staying in the UK is also a punt. You might argue the odds are better but it is still a punt.

I'll get off my soap box now.

[eFestivals]

As Neil says it is a punt. But it is a punt I am making with my eyes open. Staying in the UK is also a punt. You might argue the odds are better but it is still a punt.

I agree that staying in the UK is a punt, but it's also very likely to be the case that if rUK goes down the tubes in some manner, much of the same thing will happen within an iScotland - so that part of it isn't really a punt. It's about equal.

The punt is about whether an iScotland is richer or poorer than it's current position within the UK.

There's places where an iScotland can save* (say: nukes), but there's also places where it will have greater costs* (say: diplomatic service).

(* savings and extra costs, measured against the amount that is Scotland's current contribution towards those things).

What no one really knows is how everything comes out at the end of those big changes - changes that the white paper says no one will notice, and changes that will affect real lives for the negative in Scotland.

[LJS]

If I have at any stage suggested that England, the English or Westminster has deliberately acted to cause harm to Scotland I apologise. I haven't the time or inclination to trawl back through all my posts to check so I shall take Neil's word that I did say something to that effect.

(the imposition of the poll tax first on Scotland may be an exception - but as that is now history, I don't think it is of great significance to this debate)

[LJS]

I agree that staying in the UK is a punt, but it's also very likely to be the case that if rUK goes down the tubes in some manner, much of the same thing will happen within an iScotland - so that part of it isn't really a punt. It's about equal.

The punt is about whether an iScotland is richer or poorer than it's current position within the UK.

There's places where an iScotland can save* (say: nukes), but there's also places where it will have greater costs* (say: diplomatic service).

(* savings and extra costs, measured against the amount that is Scotland's current contribution towards those things).

What no one really knows is how everything comes out at the end of those big changes - changes that the white paper says no one will notice, and changes that will affect real lives for the negative in Scotland.

Agree with most of that. Change "will" to "may" in the last sentence and we would be even closer.

[eFestivals]

If I have at any stage suggested that England, the English or Westminster has deliberately acted to cause harm to Scotland I apologise. I haven't the time or inclination to trawl back through all my posts to check so I shall take Neil's word that I did say something to that effect.

(the imposition of the poll tax first on Scotland may be an exception - but as that is now history, I don't think it is of great significance to this debate)

Apology accepted.

All you need to do now is have the SNP and everyone who supports them say the same thing.

Every jot of this referendum has been cooked up in the idea that nasty outsiders are damaging Scotland, no different to how UKIP does it.

It's taken 30 years for the SNP's propaganda to become widely enough accepted to get the support for the referendum. Hopefully, the SNP getting sussed on this post-indy will be enough to kill-off UKIP before it gets a similar level of support for their own version of the same stupidity.

[eFestivals]

Agree with most of that. Change "will" to "may" in the last sentence and we would be even closer.

so you think changes can happen but effect nothing?

If there's someone gaining, someone else is taking the hit. That's a constant, even if every person in the world thinks that the change being made is for the better - there's always a negative impact somewhere as a consequence.

[LJS]

so you think changes can happen but effect nothing?

If there's someone gaining, someone else is taking the hit. That's a constant, even if every person in the world thinks that the change being made is for the better - there's always a negative impact somewhere as a consequence.

Broadly correct

[eFestivals]

No comment on the music I gave you?

In case it's passed you by, it was posted ironically. The song is actually anti-union but ended up getting adopted as a unionists anthem.

[LJS]

No comment on the music I gave you?

In case it's passed you by, it was posted ironically. The song is actually anti-union but ended up getting adopted as a unionists anthem.

I remember it well. It was mildly controversial at the time being perceived as anti trade union. If I remember correctly Dave cousins denied this although I think that is as plausible as John Lennon denying Lucy in the sky had to do with lsd.

I quite liked the Strawbs although Lay Down was a much better song than this. They also recorded an excellent album with Sandy Denny which I have on vinyl somewhere.

I was impressed that you found a pro union song by a band named after a common ingredient of jam.

[eFestivals]

I was impressed that you found a pro union song by a band named after a common ingredient of jam.

- I hadn't made the 'jam' link.

[Buff124]

SNP this

SNP that

Alex this

Alex that

Who had 200 canvassers out and about in Edinburgh housing schemes last weekend ? The SNP ? Nope.