The Dirty Independence Question

[russycarps]

yep - I agree. I fully accept that Scotland needs more money-per-individual to provide all of the same things as rUK has (and i'm happy for Scotland to have that extra), because of its geography.

But I don't accept it being able to give its residents things that cannot be afforded elsewhere in rUK when we all share the same tax regime & rates, because that very clearly says to me that Scotland is being granted too much money via the Barnet Formula. It's not like Scotland has had to make cuts in other areas to transfer money into free Uni places; instead, it's simply had so much extra money it's been done for no impact elsewhere.

Very well done Barry, you've managed to be an English version of an idiot cybernat.

Yes but dont forget not a single person in Scotland wanted Trident, or to be in NATO, or any kind of military at all, so all the money that the english fritter away on these little things would have been used to fund all the things like free uni places etc

it must be true, the yes voters told me.

[eFestivals]

Yes but dont forget not a single person in Scotland wanted Trident, or to be in NATO, or any kind of military at all, so all the money that the english fritter away on these little things would have been used to fund all the things like free uni places etc

it must be true, the yes voters told me.

the cost to Scotland of Trident (the next version) is about £300M a year at today's prices - which is a tiny tiny part of Scotland's money. There's so little there that no one will actually notice the benefit of that money - if there is actually any real benefit, because iScotland has extra costs (which Salmond hasn't bothered to look into despite the SNP having had 80 years to do so).

Edited August 14, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I see that LJS never did get around to commenting on the bullshit within the 'wee blue book'.

I wonder why that is?

Meanwhile, the Yes campaign for a better Scotland continues, with claims of how nasty horrible English Eton tories will damage Scotland's devolved-and-controlled-by-the-SNP NHS, which already performs at a lower rate than the English NHS that's controlled by nasty horrible English Eton tories.

Aside from the fact that Scotland is perfectly able to put as much money into its NHS as it wishes - with nothing of that controlled by England or tories - I'm wondering how many of those people spreading this NHS myth have actually considered the *REAL* consequences of indy - which is *massive* spending cuts to iScotland's public services in order for iScotland to bring its defiicit under control to the satisfaction of the money markets.

Those self-imposed cuts by an indy Scotland will be bigger than anything that Camoron/Osborne are imposing, but let's just pretend that indy Scotland will be perfection, eh?

[russycarps]

The yes-ers post less and less now. I can only assume because even they realise how absurd this version of independence really is.

It is impossible to argue logically for it anymore. All they have left is emotional reasons. Which is fair enough really.

How can you argue with someone who says "I dont care if Scotland and the people living there will be worse off, just so long as the people in charge are scottish"

[Comfy Bean]

The yes-ers post less and less now. I can only assume because even they realise how absurd this version of independence really is.

It is impossible to argue logically for it anymore. All they have left is emotional reasons. Which is fair enough really.

How can you argue with someone who says "I dont care if Scotland and the people living there will be worse off, just so long as the people in charge are scottish"

The use of quotation marks here made me smile

[Comfy Bean]

Have attached a couple of stories from either side as I`m still not convinced with how you see the NHS progressing down South. As always when i have raised this it is NOT a point scoring exercise as we should ALL be looking out for each other on this one. I`m not so sure that our NHS performs at a " lower rate " than in England. I`m sure there are figures that can / will make it appear that way but they are perhaps being "produced" to attract attention from the likes of Virgin Care. The Boards / Trusts difference that we have is subtle but in Scotland the boards are united and in control of things like procurement meaning savings are directed back into patient care.

I disagree with Neil that the continuing privatisation in England will not affect the cash that makes it`s way to Holyrood. Pointless as it is , I have included 2 links - one from each side - that cover this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28183860

http://www.sundaypost.com/news-views/uk/top-health-academic-england-has-abolished-its-national-health-service-1.446211

[Comfy Bean]

Neil, your our man in the media. What are your views on this article that was at the top of the BBC most read at lunchtime today. It`s from the impartial Beeb so I`m not suggesting they made it up but can you find any relationship between the article and the headline ?

I promise not to post anymore links !!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28739399

[LJS]

I see that LJS never did get around to commenting on the bullshit within the 'wee blue book'.

I wonder why that is?

glad you missed me.

& of course I haven't been back because the blue gospel according to Stu is Bullshit (or Blueshit?) & Neil has persuaded me I ought to vote no or Scotland will be down the toilet.

Truth is - I couldn't be arsed doing the legwork needed to respond to Neil's forensic dissection of the Lord of the Blues.

Neil & I have spent several months on here debating the minutae of how an Independent Scotland will or won't, can or can't, might or might not succeed. Neither of us has convinced the other & I guess we could go on for another few months and make not a jot of difference.

The Blue Book is an honourable entry in the long list of "facts tailor made to suit your argument" which both sides are EQUALLY guilty of. I said long ago & often that my yes vote is not dependent on me being a few pounds or Euro's or Unicorns better off; it's not about whether we are in or out of the EU; it's not about what currency we use.

It's about much more important things than that. It's about democracy & justice & fairness & the sort of country my children grow old in. It's also about living in a country with no Nuclear weapons & no desire to strut its stuff on he world stage.

Neil & I have debated these matters long & hard too & we don't agree on them either. Although I suspect he (grudgingly) gives me a wee bit more credit for my stance on these issues.

In short what I care about at the moment are the why's not the how's.

The how's will be sorted out if we vote yes. It will be massively in both county's interests to make iScotland work.

For me the Scottish electorate have a decision to make about the sort of future we want for our country. It is an amazing opportunity - I bet Neil & Russy wish they had the opportunity to have as much influence on the future of their country.

Of course that would all be madness & delusion if a yes vote were to plunge Scotland into some financial meltdown. But it won't & no one sensible is suggesting it will . At most we are talking about a few hundred pounds one way or the other - as someone beautifully said recently - it's the sort of difference you can make by changing your energy supplier.

Of course the polls are still against us but there are a few little twitches appearing there.

And its beginning to look like Darling's debate victory wasn't quite what it seemed.

Oh & a few noises from a number of sources are starting to cast serious doubt on the OBR's oil projections. Hard though it is to imagine Westminster trying to spin things in their favour there!

Still a huge task to turn things around ... but I haven't given up hope.

Oh & Russy....

"I don't care if Scotland and the people living there will be worse off, just so long as the people in charge are Scottish"

that is Bollocks

(& I sorted your punctuation & capitalization for you)

[OneLittleFish]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28827295

The claim was made by N-56, which describes itself as an "apolitical business organisation".

N-56 was founded by Dan Macdonald, who is a member of the advisory board for Yes Scotland, which is campaigning for independence.

Seems legit.

[LJS]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28827295

Seems legit.

The US Energy Department has issued a blistering indictment of the UK government’s tax raid on North Sea oil and gas revenues, warning that prohibitive costs threaten much of Britain’s energy industry.

Washington said the increase in Britain’s petroleum revenue tax to 81pc of profits for old fields and 62pc for newer ventures pushed through in 2011, along with other penalties and a cap on relief for winding down old fields, have choked North Sea exploration and paralysed a string of major projects.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10952376/Washington-blames-UK-tax-rises-for-collapsing-North-Sea-oil-hopes.html

BRITAIN'S leading investment magazine has claimed Westminster is deliberately downplaying the potential for oil and gas returns from the North Sea ahead of the referendum.

The latest edition of the weekly Investors Chronicle, published by the Financial Times group, gives its view in an article recommending readers buy shares in the independent UK oil producer, EnQuest.

Aimed at the UK's richest investors, the magazine says: "We think that Westminster has been deliberately downplaying the potential of the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS) ahead of September's referendum on Scottish independence.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/financial-times-investors-magazine-westminster-is-playing-down-potential-oi.24868958

ONE of Scotland’s most respected economists has questioned the UK Treasury’s oil and gas forecasts, arguing that Westminster’s calculations are ill-informed and “wide of the mark".

The extent of Scotland’s future energy revenues has become a key battleground in the independence debate.

Professor Sir Donald Mackay, a former chairman of Scottish Enterprise who advises Reform Scotland, a think-tank, said voters have been left confused by a welter of conflicting claims.

He says there is no hole in the Scottish government’s oil predictions, as Danny Alexander, chief secretary to the Treasury, has claimed.

In a column written for this weekend’s Sunday Times online, Mackay says there is evidence of a recovery in output over the next few years.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/scotland/article1431143.ece

[LJS]

The little fish has swum off.

Short memory span I guess.

[OneLittleFish]

The little fish has swum off.

Short memory span I guess.

No actually, I'm here. I'll take more convincing from links from the likes of the Herald (a paper who openly back the yes campaign).

Although here's an interesting article about a report from Sir Donald Mackay which found that an iScotland would have to cut spending, raise taxes or both. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/scotland_99/news/325149.stm

Edited August 18, 2014 by OneLittleFish

[OneLittleFish]

Still awake LJS?

Because I'm off to bed. Night!

Edited August 18, 2014 by OneLittleFish

[LJS]

Still awake LJS?

Because I'm off to bed. Night!

Night night.

The Sunday Herald supports independence. The Herald doesn't.

& only one of my links was from the Herald & it was quoting the international business Times.

Sweet dreams.

Edited August 18, 2014 by LJS

[eFestivals]

Have attached a couple of stories from either side as I`m still not convinced with how you see the NHS progressing down South. As always when i have raised this it is NOT a point scoring exercise as we should ALL be looking out for each other on this one. I`m not so sure that our NHS performs at a " lower rate " than in England. I`m sure there are figures that can / will make it appear that way but they are perhaps being "produced" to attract attention from the likes of Virgin Care. The Boards / Trusts difference that we have is subtle but in Scotland the boards are united and in control of things like procurement meaning savings are directed back into patient care.

I disagree with Neil that the continuing privatisation in England will not affect the cash that makes it`s way to Holyrood. Pointless as it is , I have included 2 links - one from each side - that cover this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28183860

http://www.sundaypost.com/news-views/uk/top-health-academic-england-has-abolished-its-national-health-service-1.446211

If the Scottish NHS is being made to look worse so it looks attractive to Virgin Care then it's the Scottish Govt who are doing it.

You do know the surest way to cut the block grant for the NHS, don't you? You know, voting yes.

I've not said that changes in the NHS in England won't affect NHS Scotland, I've merely pointed the economic truths - that Scotland cannot lose by what NHS England does. If (with everything else being equal) the block grant is cut then taxes will also be cut, leaving Scotland free to cover that reduction via the introduction of specifically Scottish taxes, leaving Scotland in an identical position.

If the NHS thing that Alec is banging on about is making anyone change their vote to yes, I'd be exceedingly worried about the intellectual abilities of a yes-voting Scotland.

[eFestivals]

Neil, your our man in the media. What are your views on this article that was at the top of the BBC most read at lunchtime today. It`s from the impartial Beeb so I`m not suggesting they made it up but can you find any relationship between the article and the headline ?

I promise not to post anymore links !!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28739399

it's a very fluffy and awful piece, but there's more substance within it to match the headline than there is in anything Alec has said lately about the NHS.

My guess for why the beeb has done that is that, with a month to go, this has now hit the heights of being an 'interest' story, where any angle onto it classes as worthwhile reporting in some editor's eyes.

The very fact of a month to go was one of the major headlines yesterday on the beeb, which whilst true is also a pointless headline to a rather pointless story. Anyone who knows the date of the indyref knows there's a month to go.

If you want to have a pop at dreadful, inaccurate and damn-right untruthful reporting, why no mention of the fake-Rev's fakery that's known as the wee blue book of bullshit?

[eFestivals]

Truth is - I couldn't be arsed doing the legwork needed to respond to Neil's forensic dissection of the Lord of the Blues.

It took me ten minutes to do the legwork to rip it's bullshit apart. It would take you the same to prove my bullshit wrong if I'm wrong.

But never mind, I won't go thinking I've got you on the ropes.

Neil & I have spent several months on here debating the minutae of how an Independent Scotland will or won't, can or can't, might or might not succeed. Neither of us has convinced the other & I guess we could go on for another few months and make not a jot of difference.

I've never once expected to change your mind. b:r4olleyes:

I have hoped that you'd have the integrity to call bullshit as bullshit, but no yes-er will.

The Blue Book is an honourable entry ....

PMSL.

The blue book is designed to steal people's votes thru bullshit.

It's about much more important things than that. It's about democracy & justice & fairness & the sort of country my children grow old in. It's also about living in a country with no Nuclear weapons & no desire to strut its stuff on he world stage.

But when you came into this debate, it was about a "better" Scotland. A better scotland requires the money to do tyhings in a better way.

Without extra money, better becomes impossible.

If you want to vote yourself shit, you're welcome to. But if Scotland is to be better, that's not done by bullshitting your countrymen nor stealing their votes from them as the Wee(ing) Blue Book tries to.

'Better' firstly requires honesty, the very thing that those who claim 'better' do not have.

Although I suspect he (grudgingly) gives me a wee bit more credit for my stance on these issues.

I've never had a problem with the honesty of "I want Scotland to be sovereign, and that might mean that Scotland is shit".

Where I have a problem is with that not being the argument that is used to turn people to yes. Instead, they're told they'll be richer, that nothing else will change, and that a sovereign Scotland has a "democratic" (laughable!) right to demand and get things of other sovereign states.

In short what I care about at the moment are the why's not the how's.

you cannot get the whys without the hows.

Better does not come to exist only by the fact of a yes vote. Yes has to deliver on its promises too, and it can't.

You know that, but not every yes-er does. Have you told them, or would you rather act like Westminster and con them of their vote?

The how's will be sorted out if we vote yes. It will be massively in both county's interests to make iScotland work.

Wrong. It's in the UK's interest to not allow Scotland to completely tank.

Everything between is fair game for any competing state to try and take from iScotland - and rUK will take an awful lot.

Like your biggest industry (finance), for example. The tax cuts will be nice, thanks.

[eFestivals]

I bet Neil & Russy wish they had the opportunity to have as much influence on the future of their country.

In theory, yep. Tho I'm not so stupid to think i'd get my dreams.

Cos guess what? Most of the electorate are like magpies, only seeing shiny things. And guess what? Scotland's elecxtorate is as daft as the UK electorate.

Your very refusal to call out anything about yes only proves the point.

Of course that would all be madness & delusion if a yes vote were to plunge Scotland into some financial meltdown. But it won't & no one sensible is suggesting it will . At most we are talking about a few hundred pounds one way or the other

Those who do maths get a different answer. Try reading just one bank's report, go on.

Of course the polls are still against us but there are a few little twitches appearing there.

the average of the Aug polls has yes lower and no higher than an average of the July polls.

And its beginning to look like Darling's debate victory wasn't quite what it seemed.

and the mass delusion continues.

Oh & a few noises from a number of sources are starting to cast serious doubt on the OBR's oil projections. Hard though it is to imagine Westminster trying to spin things in their favour there!

Those noises come from....? Alec's ex-personal assistant.

FFS.

The OBR have *OVER*-estimated Scotland's oil revenues in every year of the OBR's existence.

But you want to believe they've under-estimated, because someone on the central Yes committee says so.

[eFestivals]

The little fish has swum off.

Short memory span I guess.

(quoting against this, as there's nothing to quote against from LJS's own post)

What happens to tax revenue if oil extraction taxes were reduced to boost investment - when bearing in mind that investments can also be off-set against tax?

It's possible to increase the amount of oil that gets extracted via tax variations, but the increase in revenues is minimal compared to the increase in production. The maximum revenues over time will be gained via slowing extraction and not increasing it, because of the laws of supply and demand, and the (mostly) ever-increasing price of the finite resource that is oil.

[LJS]

In theory, yep. Tho I'm not so stupid to think i'd get my dreams.

Cos guess what? Most of the electorate are like magpies, only seeing shiny things. And guess what? Scotland's elecxtorate is as daft as the UK electorate.

Your very refusal to call out anything about yes only proves the point.

Those who do maths get a different answer. Try reading just one bank's report, go on.

the average of the Aug polls has yes lower and no higher than an average of the July polls.

and the mass delusion continues.

Those noises come from....? Alec's ex-personal assistant.

FFS.

The OBR have *OVER*-estimated Scotland's oil revenues in every year of the OBR's existence.

But you want to believe they've under-estimated, because someone on the central Yes committee says so.

I didn't quote Alex's ex. I have however quoted 3 other sources.

[LJS]

Some beautiful use of selective quotations in today's responses Neil.

Especially liked the honourable entry one.

Quality.

[LondonTom]

Especially liked the honourable entry one.

That's what she said!

[LJS]

https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/501825703395209216

The Scots are starting to get it..

I also think Scots need to realise the level of unhappiness our side of the border...

https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/501843169093623809

The Scots are starting to get what?

That uniquely on this planet an independent Scotland has no viable currency options?

And you are unhappy south of the border, are you?

Well lots of us are unhappy this side of the border Barry. Maybe you need to realise that. ..

or maybe its too late?

Edited August 19, 2014 by LJS

[eFestivals]

I didn't quote Alex's ex. I have however quoted 3 other sources.

And how do those three sources stand up, exactly?

If the first is true, then the SNP's claims of record investment levels that will soon result in record oil revenues HAS TO BE false.

The second is an investment mag suggesting - on the basis of only guessing - that it's worth their readers taking a punt that the UK govt is lying.

And the third one is proven wrong by the facts of the oil revenues of the last few years, that very definitely expose the hole in the SNP's forecasts, because the SNP's forecasts have been proven wildly wrong.

Meanwhile, the OBR which Salmond says is wildly underestimating revenues has only a record of wildly over-estimating revenues (tho less wildly than Salmond and his cronies).

Oh dear.

Edited August 20, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Some beautiful use of selective quotations in today's responses Neil.

Especially liked the honourable entry one.

Quality.

I engage with the facts, you do avoidance and snide.

The indyref in a nutshell. Don't mention the facts, they don't make indy sound so great after all.

Now, are we having a discussion or not? If not, I'll step back and only do the laughing at insanity as I do when I read the nutty cybernat comments in other places.