The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

 Ah, I've missed you guys and your banter. I've been a bit ill but not ill enough to stop me posting here - but I realised that as i lay about on my bed & my settee, I could easily waste far too much time on here so decided to have a wee break and...

It's like i've never been away. Neil still banging on relentlessly about £8bn caves that will take 120 years to build: still  insisting he knows what we were voting for better than we did: still struggling with the definition of the word "fact"

 

I'm sure you will allow me some observations

On 1/24/2016 at 8:35 AM, eFestivals said:

Nope.

Facts are not opinions.

That's how dim you are.

& what you are talking about are neither - they are estimates - you know like the oil revenue estimates you love to bang on about. 

On 1/24/2016 at 11:51 AM, russycarps said:

Fantastic news. Great to see the union is working. Hopefully wages can start moving in the right direction too.

 

Better news ... they are 

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/14210378.Scottish_wages_are_now_higher_than_in_England__for_a_typical_worker/

please note, before you all go mental - I am not claiming that this is entirely an SNP triumph. The more devolution we have the more difficult it is to apportion blame/ credit when things go wrong/right.

On 1/25/2016 at 7:15 AM, eFestivals said:

 

 

Alex Salmond speculated on just that, and he said it would take Scottish companies and banks 120 years to make up the gap - *IF* everything went in iScotland's favour for that 120 years.

 

You endlessly repeat this although you know very well that Eck said no such thing ... so you are lying. I know exactly how you came to the 120 years figure so don't bother with your pathetic justifications of your lie. Alec Salmond did not say this & you are lying.

On 1/25/2016 at 7:21 AM, eFestivals said:

Don't ya just love St. Nicola?

I'm not quite sure why St Nocola has decided it's her job to speak for the Welsh and NornIrn's, tho she's done so anyway. But I think the Welsh and NI's should ignore her slur onto their intelligence.

As English i don't have to fight off any slur from her. She's rightly recognised our talents (), especially our ability to make two different considerations within a few weeks of each other.

But as leader of the Scots she's said that Scottish people aren't able to manage two different political considerations within a few weeks of each other, so now we have St Nicola saying the Scots are too stupid.

As I've pointed out before, it's only the nationalists who ever say the Scots are "too wee too poor too stupid". And thanks for proving it again Nicola.

 

Neil, sometimes you are an arse. Would they hold an EU referendum a few weeks after a UK general election  - no of course they wouldn't - so why should the same logic not apply in other parts of the UK?

On 1/25/2016 at 11:33 AM, tonyblair said:

so at what point does it become fact that they move out from Scotland? When they do it, or before? It's a fact that companies say they will move. It's not a fact that they will

At the same point as the fact that voting No would safeguard shipbuilding, steelmaking & civil service jobs - - guess what... it hasn't.

On 1/26/2016 at 7:52 AM, eFestivals said:

Not true.

 

 

Is that really what you think? I can only think your mother denied you dot-to-dot puzzles as a kid.

Indy might be hugely beneficial, or it might be a massive disaster, or it might land somewhere inbetween. At it's worse all of society might crumble and all that's left are caves for you to live in. There's a famous quote - from a senior SNP member, no less - about Swinney and how he'd live in a cave for indy.

 

 

Now: this "famous" "quote" from a "senior SNP member" is so famous that i'd never heard of it so i went to Mr Google.

& lo & behold, it appears to come from Neil's favourite bedtime reading - Chokkablog. 

Unfortunately - & astonishingly - given Neils respect for factual accuracy, it was not a "senior SNP member" but a 

"a quote that I have heard attributed to a civil servant" which is quite a different thing. 

 

Easy mistake... maybe there was a wee stain hiding some of the words...

 

I am sure Neil will rush to correct me if I have traduced him & he has a better source for this quote.

 

 

On 1/26/2016 at 8:12 AM, eFestivals said:

those job losses would be happening whether Scotland was indy or as it is.

It's a result of world prices, and not the result of unionist - or SNP - policy.

But just blame the world's economic realities on the nasty Eton tory English Westminsters, and then you can be just like the tories blaming Labour for the global economic crisis.

Yep, like any tory. That's what indy has made you.

Neil gets quite stroppy when "snippers" refer to labour as red "tories" even though none of us Natz on here do this. It is however apparently absolutely fine for him to call us tories ...double standards?

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, LJS said:

You endlessly repeat this although you know very well that Eck said no such thing ... so you are lying. I know exactly how you came to the 120 years figure so don't bother with your pathetic justifications of your lie. Alec Salmond did not say this & you are lying.

He didn't explicitly say it.

He outlined the supposed 'small nation advantage' and gave a % figure for what that advantage might do for Scotland.
(and peppered mentions of that 'small nation advantage' right thru the length of the IWP)

The numbers Salmond quoted showed that 'advantage' would take approx 120 years to make up the shortfall (and then a futrther number of years to cover the accumulated extra debts built up over that 120 years).

That's a 120 years of a worse Scotland, at the best guess of Salmond.

The lie is your denial.

 

9 hours ago, LJS said:

Neil, sometimes you are an arse. Would they hold an EU referendum a few weeks after a UK general election  - no of course they wouldn't - so why should the same logic not apply in other parts of the UK?

The person in power gets to make these decisions. The person in power over this decision is Fat Dave and not St Nicola.

(tho I should point out that it was the SNP who got to choose the date for their own pet vote, just as Fat Dave is getting to pick the date for his)

It's politically disadvantageous to other parties for that to happen, but until a few years ago the very basis of our democracy worked around the person in power choosing the most-politically disadvantageous time to others to hold an election.

It's only a freak occurrence that has changed that, and most people seemed to think back in May it would revert back to the old way during this Parliament (tho the election of Corbyn has now made it in Fat Dave's interests to leave it as it is for now).

Meanwhile, anyone with half a brain can deal with the two separate issues. If people in Scotland have special intellectual needs then I guess St Nicola should make her plea to Fat Dave on that basis rather than want to deny 'the people' a choice just because she personally might find a bit awkward.

I have a vote on the same day as you. I can cope with the two decisions even if you can't.

It's not an issue for 'the people' to have them close together. Sturgeon is merely trying to buy herself a political advantage at the expense of the people. That's everything different from the 'different politics' you used to claim of them (but haven't done much lately, as that lie has blown away).

9 hours ago, LJS said:

Now: this "famous" "quote" from a "senior SNP member" is so famous that i'd never heard of it so i went to Mr Google.

& lo & behold, it appears to come from Neil's favourite bedtime reading - Chokkablog. 

Unfortunately - & astonishingly - given Neils respect for factual accuracy, it was not a "senior SNP member" but a 

"a quote that I have heard attributed to a civil servant" which is quite a different thing. 

Easy mistake... maybe there was a wee stain hiding some of the words...

I am sure Neil will rush to correct me if I have traduced him & he has a better source for this quote.

Who cares for the origin of the words? That's a meaningless part of the real point.

The real point is about the potential costs of indy onto people. The costs might be something you'd accept, to be able to shout 'freeedumb', or they might not.

What's telling is that comfy says he won't accept any cost, but won't say what costs he'd accept.

What about you? Are you scared of indy too, or might you try addressing the question that scares the snippers?

Some in the SNP think that your take on things is 'economic suicide', but I guess the SNP are a unionist plot.

9 hours ago, LJS said:

Neil gets quite stroppy when "snippers" refer to labour as red "tories" even though none of us Natz on here do this. It is however apparently absolutely fine for him to call us tories ...double standards?

The double standards - which I was pointing out, while you use the squirrel of lies to hide behind - come from the mouths of snippers.

"the nasty Eton English Westminster tories are solely responsible for anything bad that happens in Scotland."

The same thing as the tories do about Labour and the global economic crash..

The smart people laugh at both the tories and the SNP. for spinning the same yarn from different places.

The unthinkers condemn the tories and lap-up the same idiocy from the SNP.

-----

Meanwhile, while you defend the mistakes of the past that you supported but which are indefensible, nothing is addressed for the future of Scotland to make it turn out how you'd like.

And that's because no one knows how to make it turn out how you'd like.

What exactly it is you're supporting? The answer is "a much more tory Scotland", cos it won't go any better way.

 

 

 

Edited January 31, 2016 by eFestivals

[grumpyhack]

Neil, can I ask why, as someone who lives in Bristol, your great passion over the Scotland issue?  Do you have a Scottish connection?

P.S. I'm not suggesting that someone who lives in Bristol can't have concerns about issues beyond the city boundaries.

Edited January 31, 2016 by grumpyhack

[Comfy Bean]

21 hours ago, LJS said:

 Ah, I've missed you guys and your banter. I've been a bit ill but not ill enough to stop me posting here - but I realised that as i lay about on my bed & my settee, I could easily waste far too much time on here so decided to have a wee break and...

It's like i've never been away.

Glad your on the mend sir 

I had assumed that you were at one of your winter retreat islands but was a tad concerned that your butler wasn`t keeping us updated 

Bloody snippers....a bed AND a settee  Wait till Edwina / Neil hears about this.

[Comfy Bean]

On 1/27/2016 at 11:11 AM, eFestivals said:

Fair enough, the facts have proven me wrong.

I'm quite happy to be put right by the facts. I'm not scared of facts.

 

 

12 hours ago, eFestivals said:

He didn't explicitly say it.

 

That`s you been caught out a couple of times ( not including the cave nonsense ) in the last few days. Standards sir standards 

[Comfy Bean]

On 1/26/2016 at 7:52 AM, eFestivals said:

Indy might be hugely beneficial, or it might be a massive disaster, or it might land somewhere inbetween. At it's worse all of society might crumble and all that's left are caves for you to live in. There's a famous quote - from a senior SNP member, no less - about Swinney and how he'd live in a cave for indy.

You've made clear that you wouldn't accept swapping the UK for life in a cave; fair enough, and I'm glad to hear it.

 

 

On 1/30/2016 at 8:28 AM, eFestivals said:

And yes, I know elections would have - supposedly - followed 8 weeks after indy, but they wouldn't have actually happened. iScotland would have already declared a national emergency due to the massive funding crisis, and elections would have been cancelled on the basis that they risked further destabilising a new nation that had sunk to its knees in a flash ... and so begins the wonderful new nation of iScotland.

 

If there is a shark......Neil has now jumped over it  

I like the way you called out my years of negotiating " bullshit " by talking about the deals done in 2012 that will be implemented in......2016. How long before 2012 do you think negotiations started. I gave you a clue when I mentioned 7 years.

Indy will not be liking flicking a switch. Negotiations over debt share and many many other things will take many years in my opinion.

I remember saying a long while back that IF we had voted YES the SNP would have no doubt swept to victory in the first elections ( that you now claim wouldn`t have happened ) and that 5 years down the line we would all want / need a strong Labour in opposition. With the SNP having achieved their main goal then the door would be open for Labour to return to power IF....the SNP didn`t continue to represent the working class folks of Scotland. If you don`t think they do that now then take a glance at the polls. Extraodinary when you look at our voting system and consider they are heading for a 3rd term. Even the haters must be impressed.

Can I ask if you were wearing a tin foil hat when you posted the stuff above in red ? 

" sunk to it`s knees in a flash " probably beats the cave stuff........maybe.

Edited January 31, 2016 by comfortablynumb1910

[Comfy Bean]

On 1/26/2016 at 8:26 AM, eFestivals said:

And Scotland will have to live on far less money - £1600 per person less.

 

 

Of course I dispute that your £1600 can be taken seriously as we could be talking about 5, 10, 20 years down so none of us can state this as a matter of fact but anywayz....just seen on the news that IF England votes to keep us in Europe then we will be £3000 better off. I`ve done the maths so now we are ahead of the deal lets get out of the Empire.

You never did get back to me on why ANY shortfall should mean £1600 or whatever should be covered by everyone equally. You may recall I suggested that the very richest ( who don`t move to Wales ) could pick up the majority and the folks unfortunate enough to not have work etc could pay nothing extra ? The slack could be picked up by those somewhere in between that could afford to pay more in tax, council tax etc.

[eFestivals]

15 hours ago, grumpyhack said:

Neil, can I ask why, as someone who lives in Bristol, your great passion over the Scotland issue?  Do you have a Scottish connection?

P.S. I'm not suggesting that someone who lives in Bristol can't have concerns about issues beyond the city boundaries.

I took an interest, in a way I take an interest in many current affairs issues.

And as I care about people being well-treated by govt, I was shocked how many reject the facts for an unachievable fantasy, which will severely hurt the people that snippers claim will have a better life if Scotland were indie.

There's no better treatment of the worse-treated in a diminished nation state. You cannot have the ends you want without the means to deliver them.

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

That`s you been caught out a couple of times ( not including the cave nonsense ) in the last few days. Standards sir standards 

Shoot the messenger.

You have my apologies for mis-presenting the source of the cave thing because I care little for the 'who' (and so didn't bother to remember properly), and instead am thinking of the attitudes behind what was said.

As far as I'm concerned, who said or did something is almost meaningless alongside the fact that someone did or said something. It's as meaningless as remembering the date of a happening in history but knowing nothing about what actually happened.

I read shit loads of history, but I care little for the who and when. What matters is the what and how..

But you think shooting the messenger is a victory.

Meanwhile.....

There's three possible outcomes from indy. Scotland is showered with cash; Scotland has no cash; or the new Scotland falls somewhere between those two extremes.

We all know things will fall somewhere between those extremes, and we can argue over where exactly things might fall.

But also in the mix are the personal attitudes to where it does fall, so I was merely trying to find out your personal attitudes around it by asking what would be too-high a cost as far as you're concerned.

And you continually swerve the question, clearly because it scares you to face up to the possibilities.

But you think shooting the messenger is a victory.

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

If there is a shark......Neil has now jumped over it  

I like the way you called out my years of negotiating " bullshit " by talking about the deals done in 2012 that will be implemented in......2016. How long before 2012 do you think negotiations started. I gave you a clue when I mentioned 7 years.

I called your "years of negotiating" bullshit on the basis that your glorious leader said it would be done and dusted in 18 months.

Now that indy scares the shit out of you, you're looking for things to obfuscate the issue with.

Now you're shooting your own messenger - Salmond.

 

9 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Indy will not be liking flicking a switch. Negotiations over debt share and many many other things will take many years in my opinion.

You know more than Salmond?

The debt-share issue is already agreed. Scotland takes it fair share.

The Barnet part is also agreed. Scotland gets nothing from day one of indy.

On day one of indy, Scotland is required to survive on its own resources ... and that's at least £8Bn less than it has now, with (near enough*) all of the same expenses.

(* Salmond could find just £0.5Bn of savings in the IWP).

 

9 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I remember saying a long while back that IF we had voted YES the SNP would have no doubt swept to victory in the first elections ( that you now claim wouldn`t have happened )

I've pointed out that before iScotland had the chance of elections, iScotland would be facing a massive national funding crisis.

The cancellation of elections when in a dire national crisis is pretty commonplace all around the world. Why do you think having those elections would be so important when the wages of Scottish public servants wouldn't be able to be paid?

Perhaps I've got that wrong and there would be elections, who knows (you can only guess, just like me)?

The part I haven't got wrong is the national funding crisis, because 120% spending doesn't equal 100% income, and the gap is larger than can be sensibly borrowed for (just ask Greece!).

 

9 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

and that 5 years down the line we would all want / need a strong Labour in opposition. With the SNP having achieved their main goal then the door would be open for Labour to return to power IF....the SNP didn`t continue to represent the working class folks of Scotland. If you don`t think they do that now then take a glance at the polls. Extraodinary when you look at our voting system and consider they are heading for a 3rd term. Even the haters must be impressed.

That part may or may not be right.

The part you've missed is the very changed Scotland those elections would be held within, where just about everyone would be now wishing they were only having tory cuts and not nutty-nat-imposed-MUCH-BIGGER-cuts.

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

" sunk to it`s knees in a flash " probably beats the cave stuff........maybe.

Care to let us all in on the secret of how you make 100% of income cover 120% of expenses?

Until you do, the *only* possibility is a national crisis for iScotland.

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Of course I dispute that your £1600 can be taken seriously as we could be talking about 5, 10, 20 years down so none of us can state this as a matter of fact but anywayz

If the vote had been 'yes' in Sept 2014, it would have been a matter of fact.

Until the funding gap has been closed (which no one has a clue how to do, don't forget!), it remains a matter of fact.

Get back to me when someone - anyone - has a plan for closing that gap.

I know Sturgeon spoke some laughable lies on Marr last week which idiots (the Rev, for example) think covers it, but it only exposes just how empty their thinking is.

What did Salmond outline again? That it would take 120 years of an exceptional Scotland being exceptional to cover the difference.

That you believe will be sorted in "5, 10, 20 years" but you (and everyone else) doesn't have a clue how. 

 

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

You never did get back to me on why ANY shortfall should mean £1600 or whatever should be covered by everyone equally.

I've not seen you ask that question before, but if you have I apologise for having missed it.

(and firstly, I'll apologise for my error of saying £1600. I believe from something I read yesterday the difference is a little less than that, more like £1300. But whatever it is, it's a huge amount in public services funding, and the precise amount doesn't make much difference against my general point)

Firstly, don't forget that that £1600 is for every man woman and child, and not every tax-payer. As tax-payers are roughly half the population, that doubles it up; let's call it £3000 per tax-payer.

Have you noticed how the SNP and their supporters have rejected a measely 1% in rise in income taxes, comfy?

Why do you think that the SNP and their supporters would support the *average* rise of roughly 40% in taxes that would be required to cover that funding gap?

Do you really think that 40% average rise could be dumped on 'other people' without any of those people heading south and leaving iScotland in even deeper shit than it was before it made that tax rise? You're insane if you think it could be.

 

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

You may recall I suggested that the very richest ( who don`t move to Wales ) could pick up the majority and the folks unfortunate enough to not have work etc could pay nothing extra ? The slack could be picked up by those somewhere in between that could afford to pay more in tax, council tax etc.

The very richest wouldn't and couldn't cover the shortfall. You're an economic numptie if you think it could.

 

[eFestivals]

I see Swinney is hinting that it's no deal on the new Scotland Act financials unless Barnet is reconfigured to guarantee Scotland even more than it's getting now.

So a country that comfy believes can easily self-fund is demanding even more money sent from outside Scotlland so that Scottish standards of living can be maintained.

Yep, that looks like a country that's happy and able to self-fund.

Unfortunately for Swinney it's going to be a no-deal. There's not a hope in hell that rUK will accept giving Scotland even more of rUK's money so that Scotland can have services that the rest of us can't afford because of the money being sent to Scotland.

Swinney's gambit risks opening up a debate in rUK about funding that will only turn out one way for Scotland - with Scotland getting less funding, not more.

If he was a smart politican he'd know when its wise to shut up. After all, while people in Scotland might pissed off at the refusal of rUK to do everything the SNP demands, to have snippers shouting "give us more of your money" will only wise those snippers up to the lies that so many have been living on up to now.

[Stash]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Swinney's gambit risks opening up a debate in rUK about funding that will only turn out one way for Scotland - with Scotland getting less funding, not more.

If he was a smart politican he'd know when its wise to shut up. After all, while people in Scotland might pissed off at the refusal of rUK to do everything the SNP demands, to have snippers shouting "give us more of your money" will only wise those snippers up to the lies that so many have been living on up to now.

It'd be nice to think that they'd wise up to the lies, but I think you underestimate just how difficult it will be to change some people's minds. No matter what evidence is available, some people, including those on this thread, will just not look at it. It's just too easy to pretend that everything will change in 5, 10 or 20 years and that everything will turn out right on the night. 

I think "Caveman Swinney" knows it too; 

- Demanding an increase in Barnett allows him to say he is looking after Scotland's interest.

- Being denied a Barnett increase lets him say that EVEL Westmonster is mistreating Scotland again. 

- Refusing to sign off the Scotland Bill and with it further devolution lets him say that those nasty Tories (both red & blue) broke their "vow", just like he said they would

After all, breaking up the Union is the only goal as far as the SNP are concerned, any bad policy can be justified in it's name. Anyway, it'll be very easy to spin it for the hard of understanding. The extra money will only be needed because of Tory cuts and it's Scotland's money anyway because of the oil, renewables, extra income tax, London train-sets, lets just call it Scottish exceptionalness. 

 

 

[eFestivals]

yep ... extra money needed from England, but not from Scots via higher taxes in the country that reckons it can self-fund.

Have you seen the Scottish LibDem proposals for a 1% increase in income taxes in Scotland? It means someone on £20k pa. would pay just 83p extra a month. People earning less would be better off (plus extra services via that extra money)

And the snippers are tearing into it, saying they'd never support such a thing, such a tiny income tax rise (not even a rise for many).

While comfy suggests that Scots will happily cough-up the massive extra taxes required to cover the Barnet money.

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, Stash said:

It'd be nice to think that they'd wise up to the lies, but I think you underestimate just how difficult it will be to change some people's minds. No matter what evidence is available, some people, including those on this thread, will just not look at it. It's just too easy to pretend that everything will change in 5, 10 or 20 years and that everything will turn out right on the night. 

I think "Caveman Swinney" knows it too; 

- Demanding an increase in Barnett allows him to say he is looking after Scotland's interest.

- Being denied a Barnett increase lets him say that EVEL Westmonster is mistreating Scotland again. 

- Refusing to sign off the Scotland Bill and with it further devolution lets him say that those nasty Tories (both red & blue) broke their "vow", just like he said they would

After all, breaking up the Union is the only goal as far as the SNP are concerned, any bad policy can be justified in it's name. Anyway, it'll be very easy to spin it for the hard of understanding. The extra money will only be needed because of Tory cuts and it's Scotland's money anyway because of the oil, renewables, extra income tax, London train-sets, lets just call it Scottish exceptionalness. 

I think there's no changing many people's minds away from indy, but there's already loads of positions those people have had to change along the way in order to maintain their allegiance to indy.

So it won't be too long before the SNP take up an anti-EU position, I reckon, particularly if the UK votes to stay in.

[Stash]

Another important thing to remember for the SNP is that if they scupper the devolution of further powers, and get the vast majority of their non-thinking supporters to scream & shout about how it's all Westmonster's fault, they can then fight the election in May on their favourite subject, the constitution, instead of discussing how they'll actually use the powers. 

Of course, there will be nothing to stop them accepting (not very graciously) the new powers in June or soon after without ever really having to make any manifesto promises on how they'd be used. 

I'd say that would be seen as a win-win for Sturgeon and co. 

[Comfy Bean]

59 minutes ago, Stash said:

It'd be nice to think that they'd wise up to the lies, but I think you underestimate just how difficult it will be to change some people's minds. No matter what evidence is available, some people, including those on this thread, will just not look at it. It's just too easy to pretend that everything will change in 5, 10 or 20 years and that everything will turn out right on the night. 

I think "Caveman Swinney" knows it too; 

- Demanding an increase in Barnett allows him to say he is looking after Scotland's interest.

- Being denied a Barnett increase lets him say that EVEL Westmonster is mistreating Scotland again. 

- Refusing to sign off the Scotland Bill and with it further devolution lets him say that those nasty Tories (both red & blue) broke their "vow", just like he said they would

After all, breaking up the Union is the only goal as far as the SNP are concerned, any bad policy can be justified in it's name. Anyway, it'll be very easy to spin it for the hard of understanding. The extra money will only be needed because of Tory cuts and it's Scotland's money anyway because of the oil, renewables, extra income tax, London train-sets, lets just call it Scottish exceptionalness. 

 

 

I think you are jumping the gun a bit here but you may be right and no deal will be made. I expect the Scottish Govt to get the best deal for Scottish taxpayers. Maybe it`s just me, but I reckon they have our interests at heart more than the Tories do ?

It`s pretty obvious that the population will grow faster down South but I`m hopeful that there will be movement from both sides and a fair deal can be made. It`s odd that we continue to read on here about how worse off Scotland will be ( think of the "poor" etc ) with Indy but when we may be worse off with this deal then a different view is taken. The majority of Scottish taxpayers voted to stay within the Kingdom they were promised lots of good stuff within the broad shoulders etc. Further cuts was probably not what NO voters were expecting. As I said at the start of the post, the Scottish Govt`s role here is to get the best deal for it`s taxpayers whatever their view on Indy. Not sure why the " Westmonster " banter ...Oh and I think it`s  "exceptionalism" 

[Comfy Bean]

15 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Have you seen the Scottish LibDem proposals for a 1% increase in income taxes in Scotland? It means someone on £20k pa. would pay just 83p extra a month. People earning less would be better off (plus extra services via that extra money)

And the snippers are tearing into it, saying they'd never support such a thing, such a tiny income tax rise (not even a rise for many).

 

The Scottish Lib Dems.............. ?

No-one up here really takes them seriously. Last seen propping up the Tory Govt and making stuff up about student loans and Sturgeon ......from memory.

I don`t imagine many SNP folk are " tearing into them " but I`m sure you will have heard about it on the Bristol grape vine or summit 

Personally I`d go with the SNP plan for a higher tax rate or " robbing the rich " as you put it.

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I don`t imagine many SNP folk are " tearing into them " but I`m sure you will have heard about it on the Bristol grape vine or summit 

I know nationalists are parochial and introverted, but perhaps you've heard of this thing called 'the internet'?

Edited February 1, 2016 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I know nationalists are parochial and introverted, but perhaps you've heard of this thing called 'the internet'?

ALL Nationalists ?  

My point could have been clearer. What I was trying to say was that I don`t think anybody bothers too much tearing into the Libs but fair enough if you have seen this in cyber land. I doubt we will be running with anything the Libs say anytime soon up here. They made their bed etc. 

[Comfy Bean]

Oh and I love the fact that your internet point was the only thing you picked up on from my post earlier 

Remember your wanting to stick up for the poor so I`ll assume your on side with not agreeing to a Tory deal that would see monies coming North cut ( further ). You have invested a lot of your time making the point that Indy would see Scotland worse off so lets not sit back and let the Tories play their smoke and mirrors trick. According to the various figures being discussed, a lot of money is at stake and we are still on board with the Empire. Better together you claimed 

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

ALL Nationalists ?  

I'm sure there's some exceptions, but those things have long been recognised as the nationalist-default.

 

9 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

My point could have been clearer. What I was trying to say was that I don`t think anybody bothers too much tearing into the Libs but fair enough if you have seen this in cyber land. I doubt we will be running with anything the Libs say anytime soon up here. They made their bed etc. 

There's plenty of reasons to not want to support the libdems.

But specifically over a very minor increase in taxes for those on the not-indecent-wage of £20k and upwards when a self-funding Scotland would need so much more?

(*I'm not pretending £20k is great, but it's not shit either. It's a long way above minimum wage).

What astounded me were the "fuck off, I'm not paying more taxes" attitudes from many vocal SNP supporters, in complete opposite to what you say about wanting ('others') to pay more in taxes for better public services.

Their opposition wasn't only because some had swallowed the "Scotland is gloriously rich" line (that's proven wrong by GERS, of course). It was an opposition to paying more taxes, full stop.

I'm not going to attempt to understand the reasons why they think differently to you, but what I know is that this sort of thing doesn't bode well for Scotland should it ever become self-funding..

[Comfy Bean]

On 24/01/2016 at 0:18 AM, kaosmark2 said:

What vision of independence were you voting on then?

I wasn`t voting on the vision of any party in particular. I didn`t agree with Darling ( now Lord ) when he was filmed with a bunch of pensioners in September asking them if they thought they would be able to spend their pensions in " Groat Land " from October. I think Neil is talking utter crap about there being no elections as we would have been on our knees in caves etc.

I also had my suspicions on this type of stuff from Dave......but we are where we are and I respect the result. The figures now suggest some people have already changed their mind and the numbers amongst the younger generations are massively in favour of us being Independent. Neil says this is because they are all too stupid and have swallowed the lies etc but I have more faith in them than he does. Below you can see how a NO vote would protect jobs and unlock billions. This hasn`t worked out as planned. The latest stuff that we have been discussing today " could " see billions more down the tubes. Better Together......I`m not so sure  

A Labour or SNP Independent Govt up here seems likely eventually. I look forward to that day coming.

 

HUNDREDS of billions of pounds worth of North Sea oil and gas revenues will be at risk if Scotland votes for independence, David Cameron will warn today as he brings the UK Cabinet north of the Border for only the third time in its history.

At a meeting in Aberdeen, ministers will agree to fast-track proposals experts say could unlock up to £200 billion in reserves over the next 20 years.

The Coalition Government will insist the windfall - which could see household energy bills drop - is only possible with the resources of a united UK.

The plans will also help safeguard the 450,000 jobs in the oil and gas industry in Britain, Downing Street believes.

[eFestivals]

Just now, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I also had my suspicions on this type of stuff from Dave......but we are where we are and I respect the result.

Dave might have talked bollocks about an oil boom (tho less bollocks about it than Salmond, let's not forget), tho the central part of the 'unionist' claim stands up today, while the central part of the indy claim is in shreds.

Because due to pooling and sharing, despite the downturn in the oil price and so also govt tax income, Scotland continues to receive money not dependent on itself, and is much much richer for it - the whole of the Scottish education sector richer for it, to put it into context.

While the indy claims that Scotland could self-fund at current spending levels are destroyed forever. Never again can the indy side present a one sided case of only too-optimistic projections. Next time they'll be required to also produce a "what if things don't go too well?" plan, because Scotland has seen their self-serving over-optimistic claims before.

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

A Labour or SNP Independent Govt up here seems likely eventually. I look forward to that day coming.

 

Why? Do you think Scots want much bigger cuts than the tories will give you?