Jump to content

The Dirty Independence Question


Kyelo
 Share

Recommended Posts

We both know that whatever money comes in from the oil, obviously less than was predicted although a lot can happen between now and 2018, it will not be invested in jobs - just like the last few decades :(

and that's because?

The oil wealth is trying - tho failing, cos it's not enough - to support Scotland's spending which results in a massive deficit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Norway also has (or at least, had) shit more oil than Scotland ever did, too.

I know it's one of the nats favourite things to compare Scotland with Norway, but they're taking the piss out of you by doing so.

Tho if you've not yet wised up to the fact that SNP are happy for you to believe anything which does their bidding there's no much point in telling you that. :P

You could maybe show me where I said Scotland had more oil than Norway !

Here`s what I said :

" I think I`m right in saying that Norway`s economy is more dependent on oil ( % wise ) than Scotlands will ever be "

Are you suggesting this is wrong ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you define them, to see if what you maintain aligns with the facts?

Cos last week you were saying how there'd be savings for iScotland cos of no Trident - and yet the SNP's own white paper said there wasn't.

You also said there'd be savings from London train sets and sewers too, but that's not the case either (from within GERS).

So where are these savings coming from, that you maintain to exist?

Not just last week sir. For years I`ve been saying that, as well as set up costs, there would be savings as well from going Independent. It`s nonsense to say that there would be none, nil, zero savings just as it would be nonsense if anyone was claiming there would be no set up expenses.

Yip Trident, House of Lords, London infrastucture deemed by Westminster to be to the UK`s benefit, HS2............ I see NS is saying that there will be no coalition at Westminster with the Tories ( should the SNP win a fair amount of seats of course ) and that no deal will be done with Labour unless they drop the renewal of Trident as the SNP have always said they would. Perhaps we will be better off ( not just financially ) if the SNP secure some influence.

Would you not see this last bit as good news ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting this is wrong?

Nope, I'm saying the constant comparisons with Norway are as good as meaningless. Instead, why not say what iScotland would do, along with how it would?

Just because Norway has some things that Scotland might like doesn't mean that the same things are within realistic reach of iScotland.

'Norway' gets used as a way of suggesting something for Scotland's future via the continual references to it. It's being used to mug people with false perceptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of which - and more - is currently used to pay for the running of Scotland.

Resources mean fuck all. It's a suprlus any place needs to be rich.

I know what you mean but I posted a link showing Scotlands wind created 126% of the amount of electricity required last month. Thats a pretty decent surplus and technology is going in the right direction.

We are at the very early stages with the wave stuff. My point was that the tax from the remaining oil could and should be invested in the science and jobs in these types of areas. We should be looking to lead the way, as we have done in the past. Just see Dave`s video from yesterday if you don`t believe me :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not just last week sir. For years I`ve been saying that, as well as set up costs, there would be savings as well from going Independent. It`s nonsense to say that there would be none, nil, zero savings just as it would be nonsense if anyone was claiming there would be no set up expenses.

Yip Trident, House of Lords, London infrastucture deemed by Westminster to be to the UK`s benefit, HS2............ I see NS is saying that there will be no coalition at Westminster with the Tories ( should the SNP win a fair amount of seats of course ) and that no deal will be done with Labour unless they drop the renewal of Trident as the SNP have always said they would. Perhaps we will be better off ( not just financially ) if the SNP secure some influence.

Would you not see this last bit as good news ?

I've been against the UK having nukes for 30+ years, and I don't think I'll be changing any time soon. :P

Yes, there are no-doubt a few places were a few quid might be saved (tho hugely outweighed by the number of things where economies of scale will be lost), but the savings &/or benefits for an independent Scotland are less than what people tend to think.

As I keep saying, there is no windfall from Trident or HS2 for an independent Scotland.

Even within the UK losing Trident will have a nasty effect on Scotland, as it will lose its biggest employment site.

And the saving for the UK from cancelling Trident is not overly significant in the scheme of things (if they've not been telling porkies about the costs). It's quite possibly the case that an argument could be made for having Trident being an economic benefit, rather than a cost, too.

I'm quite happy to see parties of the left influence policy at Westminster, but things are not going to play out as simply as you're thinking. Scotland wanting Westminster to be of less importance has the same effect on Scottish influence at Westminster, and it'll be politically poisonous for an 'English' party to get too cosy with a 'Scottish' party.

And as i keep pointing out, Scotland voting SNP has a chance of Scotland causing itself to have a tory govt, when a different choice in Scotland would ensure the tories were not in power.

The SNP love you for it tho, cos they want a tory govt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gordon Brown's resignation is funny. He said going back on The Vow wouldn't happen on his watch. I suppose this is one way to ensure that this is true.

so far, everything of a vow has been fulfilled (much of it before the deadlines too).

I can't see what's going to stop it. It suits the tories as much as it does the SNP to divide and rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Labour will do all that they can to try and get less powers to Scotland, as they always have. Hence why they are dead in this country now. SNP will take a number of their seats.

You may be right about the Tories governing as a result, but this shouldn't and I hope WOULDN'T stop people doing the right thing. Which is voting for the party they want, rather than voting to keep another out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what you mean but I posted a link showing Scotlands wind created 126% of the amount of electricity required last month. Thats a pretty decent surplus and technology is going in the right direction.

You know when you go on about how Scotland pays for train sets and sewers and Olympics and stuff (but it doesn't really)?

Ever wondered were the money has come from for those wind farms, in poor ripped-off Scotland? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Labour will do all that they can to try and get less powers to Scotland, as they always have. Hence why they are dead in this country now. SNP will take a number of their seats.

Yep, Thatcher's Britain has finally saturated Scotland.

The individual over the collective. United we stand used to be, divided we fall we're fucked.

You may be right about the Tories governing as a result, but this shouldn't and I hope WOULDN'T stop people doing the right thing. Which is voting for the party they want, rather than voting to keep another out.

No matter how much you might want an SNP govt, in Westminster you're not going to get one.

The choice is tory or labour. You can vote to stop the tories or vote to help them.

That's how the system works, whether you like it or not. Voting as tho the system is different is just dumb if you're not going to like the result you cause yourself. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of which - and more - is currently used to pay for the running of Scotland.

Resources mean fuck all. It's a suprlus any place needs to be rich.

Now we are getting somewhere :)

A surplus would indeed be essential, how about 25%.

" The situation is different in Scotland, where the large amounts of wind power capacity already mean that it has an electricity generating surplus of some 25% ".

Nobody mentioned a desire to get rich, apart from your good self. Just look at the % increase in all our combined electricity and gas bills in the same article in the Ecologist. It`s a disgrace as is having oil plus food banks.

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2434503/government_hostility_to_renewables_and_scottish_independence_may_put_the_lights_out.html

Edited by comfortablynumb1910
Link to comment
Share on other sites

" The situation is different in Scotland, where the large amounts of wind power capacity already mean that it has an electricity generating surplus of some 25% ".

And the electricity generating surplus Scotland has has been funded by the UK, not by Scotland.

And the electricity generating surplus Scotland has is only there when the wind blows, which it very rarely does (enough).

And, for some better perspective, the electricity generating surplus Scotland has when the wind is blowing enough is only enough for (less than) 2% of the rUK's needs.

And, for some better perspective, if Scotland wishes to increase that surplus and financially benefit from it, Scotland will need to invest huge amounts of money that it does not have to get that electricity to a market somewhere else.

And finally, for real perspective, the situation is different in Scotland, where it doesn't have a surplus at all, but instead has the worst financial deficit in Europe. ;)

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now we are getting somewhere :)

A surplus would indeed be essential, how about 25%.

" The situation is different in Scotland, where the large amounts of wind power capacity already mean that it has an electricity generating surplus of some 25% ".

Nobody mentioned a desire to get rich, apart from your good self. Just look at the % increase in all our combined electricity and gas bills in the same article in the Ecologist. It`s a disgrace as is having oil plus food banks.

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2434503/government_hostility_to_renewables_and_scottish_independence_may_put_the_lights_out.html

I think Neil's dealt with most of this. You're just looking at one item. Yes, you may have a surplus of electricity....does that make up for the deficit in the whole money area?

You also seem to want to spend oil incomes on various science and development - sadly that cash is being spent on your NHS, Education and other costs. If you want to spend on new things, you need new money.....sadly if you have less money (say if the oil price were to drop) then you have to decide where to increase other tax / cut spending / borrow more money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's weird, isn't it?

The oil money can spent in four different ways, according to Alex (and everyone who fell for his guff) - what currently gobbles it *all* (day to day spending), but then spent again on paying down the deficit, and then spent again on creating a surplus, and then spent again on a sovereign wealth fund.

What was it Alex did at uni, again? I think he paid far more attention to the Medieval History part than the economics part. :P

And comfy keeps banging on about all the money that will rain on Scotland if Scotland wasn't paying for London train sets and the like, but never stops to think about the greater amount of money that goes in the opposite direction (for stuff like those wind farms, as one example).

Fantasy economics is always fantasy economics.

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's be fair - if the SNP mass vote does help the Tories back in, it won't be the first time that party has lead the Tories to power now, is it?

I just love this argument! It's like Scotland & the Snp have a special duty to save the UK from the evil Tories.

Bollocks!

The main reason we keep getting Tory governments is ...guess what? ... Selfish people voting Tory & electing Tory mp's. & we don't do much of that in Scotland (or to be fair in the north of England or Wales)

Flattering as it may be to be offered the role of the moral conscience of the UK: on behalf of the Scottish people, I will decline.,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just love this argument! It's like Scotland & the Snp have a special duty to save the UK from the evil Tories.

Bollocks!

The main reason we keep getting Tory governments is ...guess what? ... Selfish people voting Tory & electing Tory mp's. & we don't do much of that in Scotland (or to be fair in the north of England or Wales)

Flattering as it may be to be offered the role of the moral conscience of the UK: on behalf of the Scottish people, I will decline.,

But voting Labour is the best chance of keeping the Tories out of government, no? The SNP helped Thatcher into power, you can't hide that. As much as you'd like to, even Salmond and Sturgeon's collective ego can't hide the fact.

You vote SNP, you get the Tories. Again. So, are you happy with the Tories getting back in with the whole Sturgeon playing the rock star thing?

Edited by OneLittleFish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But voting Labour is the best chance of keeping the Tories out of government, no? The SNP helped Thatcher into power, you can't hide that. As much as you'd like to, even Salmond and Sturgeon's collective ego can't hide the fact.

You vote SNP, you get the Tories. Again. So, are you happy with the Tories getting back in with the whole Sturgeon playing the rock star thing?

Firstly, the Snp helped Thatcher into power? This trash is trotted out with depressing regularity as if no one else had any responsibility. The reason the Snp helped vote down Jim callaghan's government was because Labour had been unable to get their backbenchers to support the devolution bill without inserting the 40% rule. In any event , there would have been an election in a few months anyway & there is no reason to believe Thatcher wouldn't have won then. Oh, & Scotland took your advice: compared to 1974 the Labour vote increased by 5% to nearly 42%, the Snp vote fell by more & what did we get? .a Tory government.

Secondly. I am clearly not happy to get the Tories again, which is one of the reasons I favour independence. But unless we suddenly & unexpectedly start electing more than 1 Tory mp in Scotland, it is simple mathematics that we cannot bring about a majority Tory government no matter who we vote for. There is an increased risk of the Tories being the largest single party but they would have to find someone to team up with in some way to form a government & that will not be the Snp & there are unlikely to be enough lib dems, so that leaves Ukip. How long would that realistically last?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just love this argument! It's like Scotland & the Snp have a special duty to save the UK from the evil Tories.

not at all.

But according to most Scots, they want to save themselves from the evil tories. So you can save yourself from the tories, or you can have no-power SNP representation. The choice is yours.

There's only one way of voting that'll guarantee a no-tory govt Scotland.

So if Scotland votes SNP and gets a tory govt as a result, Scotland will only have itself to blame for the tory govt it gets via the choices Scotland has made.

Because no matter how much you might wish to shun the idea, the choice in a UK election is not about what Scotland wants, it's about what the UK wants - and if Scotland doesn't want to play a UK-wide game, they'll quite possibly have played the tories game.

The main reason we keep getting Tory governments is ...guess what? ... Selfish people voting Tory & electing Tory mp's.

No, it's because the tories are the most-popular party in the UK, no matter what you or I might want. One person, one equal vote. :rolleyes:

It's not an election about Scotland, it's an election about the UK. An election for the UK gets a UK result.

But if you want to think of it differently, you can vote Scotland, and get tory.

The choice - and consequences - are yours.

& we don't do much of that in Scotland (or to be fair in the north of England or Wales)

I just love this sort of ignorant bollocks. Look at a UK map of where the tories win, and perhaps reference the facts?

The north of England is just about as blue as the south of England. The differences are in the centres of cities, where the north has more cities.

Flattering as it may be to be offered the role of the moral conscience of the UK: on behalf of the Scottish people, I will decline.,

Then cheer in the tory govt Scotland's votes will have helped to create.

No one gets the result they vote for, everyone gets a a UK result. That's how voting works.

-----

Meanwhile, you seem to have no problem with the idea of St Alex being the UK's moral conscience. I've been laughing my nuts off this morning at the idiocy around what Alex will supposedly do at Westminster.

If any Scot thinks that there's electoral mileage in a British party selling out the British people to Scottish interests - and plenty in Scotland do, a huge number - then they'll be in for a big surprise.

At best, voting SNP will give Scotland nothing different to if it had voted Labour. At worst, it will give Scotland the tories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, the Snp helped Thatcher into power? This trash is trotted out with depressing regularity as if no one else had any responsibility. The reason the Snp helped vote down Jim callaghan's government was because Labour had been unable to get their backbenchers to support the devolution bill without inserting the 40% rule.

How evil of them, eh? Wanting to make sure that Scotland got what the majority in Scotland wanted. :lol:

The SNP version of democracy is where only the SNP get what the SNP want.

Stuff like that 40% rule is defined within the EU as modern democratic standards, as defined in the Vienna Conventions that are formally adopted by the EU. But just ignore that part, yeah? :P

Next up, will you condemn LibLabCon (ohhh, you'll sound just like every kipper :P) for supporting their own position, and claim it was done with lies - without reference to any of St. Alex's own lies in his attempt to win?

Secondly. I am clearly not happy to get the Tories again

then why vote in a way that stands a decent chance of you getting them?

which is one of the reasons I favour independence.

that has no relevance in a UK GE.

But unless we suddenly & unexpectedly start electing more than 1 Tory mp in Scotland, it is simple mathematics that we cannot bring about a majority Tory government no matter who we vote for.

BUT YOU CAN BRING ABOUT A TORY GOVT!!!

so that leaves Ukip. How long would that realistically last?

Long enough to see the UK exit the EU, and leave Scotland properly fucked forever with its indy dreams?

Cos there's not a chance in hell that Scotland would vote indy if that absolutely required for physical borders to be erected between it and England, if Scotland were in the EU and rUK was not.

But hey, I know that thinking things thru isn't any nat's strongpoint, so just keep on thinking how you are. :P

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Of the 158 seats that make up the three northern English regions, only 43 are Conservative: 86% of the partys seats are elsewhere in the country. Of the 197 seats in the three southern regions outside London, Labour now holds a mere ten. In the 2010 election Conservatives won 31% of the vote in the north and 47% in the south; Labour won 17% of the vote in the south but 38% in the north."

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21576418-diverging-politics-labour-north-and-conservative-south-make-england-look-ever-more

So, whilst it is certainly true that more folk vote Tory in the north of England than in Scotland, they are still never likely to "win" the north!

Edited by LJS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil, you missed out this point in your attempted rebuttal of my argument.

"it is simple mathematics that we cannot bring about a majority Tory government no matter who we vote for. There is an increased risk of the Tories being the largest single party but they would have to find someone to team up with in some way to form a government & that will not be the Snp & there are unlikely to be enough lib dems, so that leaves Ukip. How long would that realistically last?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...