The Dirty Independence Question

[Comfy Bean]

On 23/03/2016 at 7:24 AM, zahidf said:

scotland dodged a bullet

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/24/ifs-scotland-debts-three-times-greater-uk

For sure we would have inherited a right mess. The Financial position across the UK is not strong and the Tories continu to miss thei targets as they look to reduce the deficit off the backs of the poor and disabled 

An Indy Scotland would take a different path under a Labour or SNP Govt.

Found this part of your article ( pretty far down ) quite interesting....

It found other evidence that popular support for greater Scottish autonomy within the UK are growing too: it found 81% of Scots want Holyrood to control every tax and policy area except defence and foreign affairs.

The IFS did cautiously qualify its deficit forecasts, acknowledging that independence might improve Scotland’s finances. It could cut its debt costs by negotiating a favourable deal with the UK and could see its economy grow faster than within the UK, with greater freedom to tax and spend differently.

[Comfy Bean]

On 23/03/2016 at 8:01 AM, eFestivals said:

happy Independence Da ... oh. Hang on.

Happy Dependence Day.

That £15Bn? You're welcome.

 

Oh Neil 

I suppose you have waited for a while to be able to make the above post. To mock indy supporters with rubbish like this also shows a bizarre lack of understanding for who voted for what up here. In your rush to post this, I`m not sure you really thought it through  

Hopefully your proud of it though !

 

[Comfy Bean]

On 23/03/2016 at 9:15 AM, LJS said:

The point is not that it is wrong. It's that it is irrelevant. It attempts to show how Scotland did last year under the present arrangement. Scotland is unlikely to achieve independence for at the very least 5 years. A lot can change in 5 years.

I`ll see your 5 mate and raise you another 5. Obviously we are both guessing and anything can, or can`t, happen but I reckon enough Labour supporters plus the huge support among the yoof will seal it by then. This plus the continuing Tory agenda down South.

I realise Neil know`s exactly how the finances will be in a decade but in reality the world will continue to change and who knows what developments we will see around currency etc. For sure, the YES side will need to present better / clearer currency options but I`m sure they will have learned lessons. 

Wonder where the NHS down South will be by then not to mention things like Barnett consequentials that the Tories have their ( evil ) eye on.

I think indy is inevitable but we can only guess when.

[Comfy Bean]

On 23/03/2016 at 9:10 AM, gary1979666 said:

Playing devil's advocate, if the £15bn is wrong, then how wrong is it likely to be?  I'd say 20% is a pretty big margin of error (an arbitrary figure), and that would still give a range of £12-18bn.  It would take a massive swing to make the actual figure palatable...and the bigger that margin, then the higher it could swing in the other direction.

Hey Gary  Good to see you back mate.

What do you mean " IF " the £15bn is wrong. We are talking about a time in the future that might not even exist. No-one from the YES side on here has ( ever ) claimed we would be rolling in it with indy but it would be as credible as plucking £15bn out of the sky.

Anywayz, we`ve moved on since your last posts on here. Neil has been able to conclude that we want to quit the UK as we hate the English 

 

[Comfy Bean]

On 23/03/2016 at 10:25 AM, gary1979666 said:

 

What do you see changing in the next 5 years trhat will make the difference.  I know it's a crystal ball exercise, but surely you need a few things that will change over the next few years, otherwise it seems you are relying on dumb faith that things will be better.

 

Hopefully you have read about the changes to the Council Tax ( top 4 bands only ). we all agreed ( I think ) that this was a small step in the right direction.

Business rates exemption on hunting estates have now been lifted by the Scottish Govt. I think we all agreed that this was a small step in the right direction.

NS has announced that the recent Tory tax cut for the folk on £40 odd grand will not apply in Scotland. Not sure if we all agreed with that but I did.

NS has announced that she does NOT rule out a 50% higher tax rate but NOT in 16/17 as she claimed it could COST £30million ( I think - didn`t google ). She claimed that ways to implement this are / will be looked at to make it a positive revenue generator.

At the leaders debate last week, the Tories and UKIP were going bonkers about the fact that Scots will be paying higher taxes than folk in rUK ( Neil - that`s not just England  ). Ruth said something along the lines of not wanting to see a sign hanging at the border saying " higher taxes here ". Her aim ( and I mean no disrespect as I recall you are a supporter ) is to CUT taxes up here. I respect her view and appreciate her honesty. She is now pushing hard for the unionist vote and his always pushing the " Conservative and Unionist party " line.

With Labour now " allowing " their guys to back Indy, Ruth will maybe pick up some Labour Unionist types who don`t fancy the higher taxes. I suspect Ruth isn`t daft but she did get caught out over a u-turn with the IDS disability stuff.

[Comfy Bean]

On 23/03/2016 at 0:30 PM, russycarps said:

Happy god-bless-the-brave-55% day everybody!

Ruth Davidson has thanked the two million no voters in the referendum for keeping the UK together.

The Scottish Tory leader is targeting no voters, claiming her party is the only one still wholeheartedly committed to opposing independence.

 

She forgot " brave " 

[Comfy Bean]

On 23/03/2016 at 10:51 AM, eFestivals said:

1. Essentially, Barnett will always cause Scotland to 'over-spend' (against the revenue generated in Scotland)

You might be right Neil but if ( for talking`s sake ) we are looking at a decade then I suspect this or maybe the next Tory Govt will be looking at Barnett and more likely it`s consequentials - if that`s the correct way to put it.

As I mentioned above, the Tories and UKIP are doing their nut up here about the tax cut not being passed on. They want lower taxes. Lets see how these 2 get on in the upcoming elections and then compare it with the support they both enjoy down your way. To be clear, I`m not blaming you for this 

Edited March 29, 2016 by comfortablynumb1910

[Comfy Bean]

In the interest of fairness Neil, I`ll give you another day to get round to clearing up the T in the Park story you tried so hard to push over so many posts on here recently. 

From memory, some folk laughed at you when you were trying to make a story out of a few lines in the Perth Herald or whatever it was. I recall you advised us that you had " T in the Park " in your search function thingy for obvious reasons and had been following any stories for many many years. You appear to have missed the findings of Audit Scotland 

 

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

For sure we would have inherited a right mess. The Financial position across the UK is not strong and the Tories continu to miss thei targets as they look to reduce the deficit off the backs of the poor and disabled 

While the SNP say they don't look to reduce the deficit at all.

Which is better? Choosing to keep spending money you don't have, or trying to do something about it (even if it's not as effective as you might hope)?

But anyway, the SNP only 'say' they're against cuts - despite the SNP imposing cuts before Westminster did, and despite choosing to accept the tory cuts by not raising extra cash in Scotland for Scotland's benefit.

I've heard a (very) brief report of last night's debate, and I heard Nicola-the-cuts tried to label Kesia-the-extra-taxer the one who accepted Tory austerity. 

If people really swallow that, then those people are mindless.

 

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

An Indy Scotland would take a different path under a Labour or SNP Govt.

Of course it would.

Just as St Nicola is using the extra powers she demanded to fight austerity.

 

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Found this part of your article ( pretty far down ) quite interesting....

It found other evidence that popular support for greater Scottish autonomy within the UK are growing too: it found 81% of Scots want Holyrood to control every tax and policy area except defence and foreign affairs.

The IFS did cautiously qualify its deficit forecasts, acknowledging that independence might improve Scotland’s finances. It could cut its debt costs by negotiating a favourable deal with the UK and could see its economy grow faster than within the UK, with greater freedom to tax and spend differently.

Do that 81% also want English money to spend, or do they also want bigger-than-tory cuts?

You have to choose one. Care to say which one is your favourite?

 

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Oh Neil 

I suppose you have waited for a while to be able to make the above post. To mock indy supporters with rubbish like this also shows a bizarre lack of understanding for who voted for what up here. In your rush to post this, I`m not sure you really thought it through  

Hopefully your proud of it though !

 

Are you trying to tell me that Scotland hasn't lived it up with £9Bn of English money?

You and the SNP are welcome to send it back and have the self-financing you pretend you want.

So why don't you?

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I`ll see your 5 mate and raise you another 5. Obviously we are both guessing and anything can, or can`t, happen but I reckon enough Labour supporters plus the huge support among the yoof will seal it by then. This plus the continuing Tory agenda down South.

What do we hate? Tory cuts.

What do we want? Bigger cuts from self-funding.

Freedumb!

 

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I realise Neil know`s exactly how the finances will be in a decade but in reality the world will continue to change and who knows what developments we will see around currency etc. For sure, the YES side will need to present better / clearer currency options but I`m sure they will have learned lessons. 

The world will continue to change? Yep. Will it change so that Scotland has bigger growth than China? Nope.

Currency? There's a reason why Salmond wanted the "millstone" of the pound. Do you know what it is yet?

 

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I think indy is inevitable but we can only guess when.

It's only inevitable if you want bigger cuts than the tories give. Do you want bigger cuts?

As you seem to, can you please explain why tory cuts are evil but the far bigger cuts needed if Scotland self-funded are nice and fluffy?

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Hey Gary  Good to see you back mate.

What do you mean " IF " the £15bn is wrong. We are talking about a time in the future that might not even exist. No-one from the YES side on here has ( ever ) claimed we would be rolling in it with indy but it would be as credible as plucking £15bn out of the sky.

No one from the yes side here has claimed you'd be rolling in it with indy.

But your glorious leaders have, and 23% of Scots still believe that lie today.

When you're prepared to campaign on the reality of massive cuts and not the lie of everything will be the same you'll have an honest campaign and not One Big Lie.

Just out of interest, what do you think might happen to the support for indy if the delusions disappeared and the truth were widely accepted?

Edited March 30, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

You might be right Neil but if ( for talking`s sake ) we are looking at a decade then I suspect this or maybe the next Tory Govt will be looking at Barnett and more likely it`s consequentials - if that`s the correct way to put it.

There's an agreement in place until 2021.

That's Scotland sucking the English teat till then at least, and ensures that any move to indy or self-funding will be big SNP cuts on top of far smaller Tory cuts.

Unless Sturgeon sends the money back of course. She's welcome to. For someone so keen on self funding and so confident about Scotland's potential, why doesn't she?

Did you read the SNP's FFA amendment to the latest Scotland Act?

What do we want? FFA! When do we want it? Some unspecified time in the future, when the myths have become reality. 

 

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

In the interest of fairness Neil, I`ll give you another day to get round to clearing up the T in the Park story you tried so hard to push over so many posts on here recently. 

From memory, some folk laughed at you when you were trying to make a story out of a few lines in the Perth Herald or whatever it was. I recall you advised us that you had " T in the Park " in your search function thingy for obvious reasons and had been following any stories for many many years. You appear to have missed the findings of Audit Scotland 

SNP appointees clear the SNP.

Was the grant made outside of normal procedures? Yes it was.

Was the grant made in dodgy circumstances? Yes it was.

If the same had happened with a tory you'd be spitting feathers.

[Comfy Bean]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Are you trying to tell me that Scotland hasn't lived it up with £9Bn of English money?

You and the SNP are welcome to send it back and have the self-financing you pretend you want.

So why don't you?

Define " lived it up ".

Over the decades 100`s of billions has made it`s way South......as you know. Now we are pooling and sharing as you may remember.

It wasn`t what I voted for but you keeping pointing out about the " English money ". For a man who likes to join the dots your not really thinking through your jibes 

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Define " lived it up ".

Over the decades 100`s of billions has made it`s way South......as you know. Now we are pooling and sharing as you may remember.

If the world started in 1980, you have less than 7 years of 'credit' left.

(that 7 years is very interesting, cos it means that *IF* Scotland ever gets indy in the future it won't be able to say "you owe us", and so there's less chance of any decent financial assistance from rUK for iScotland to establish itself)

But the world didn't start in 1980, and the UK has been sending Scotland money since the 1880s at least (when the first version of a Barnett-type extra for Scotland was used).

Meanwhile, you say you're confident that Scotland can live without that money ... yet suddenly it's all about pooling and sharing.

 

Quote

It wasn`t what I voted for but you keeping pointing out about the " English money ". For a man who likes to join the dots your not really thinking through your jibes 

I'm simply stating the truth. Scotland benefits hugely from English money.

Scotland would be far poorer if you got your indy wish.

There's no escaping it. Your baseless dreams of Scotland having greater-than-Chinese levels of growth are laughable.

Edited March 30, 2016 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

54 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

SNP appointees clear the SNP.

Was the grant made outside of normal procedures? Yes it was.

Was the grant made in dodgy circumstances? Yes it was.

If the same had happened with a tory you'd be spitting feathers.

This is untrue but not unexpected. If you remember, I pointed out that the Wickerman festival regularly receives Govt cash and it is / was run by a Tory Cllr.

What I said was that while people are using foodbanks it seemed a bit vulgar to be paying money to T in the Park however, generally speaking, I had and have no real issue with some of my tax coin going on funding for things like sport, music the arts etc.

My point at the time was that various Scottish Govts over the decades had provided funds towards T in the Park and that there was nothing to see here despite you numerous attempts to give the story legs.

Neil : SNP Bad.

Audit Scotland : Cleared of wrongdoing. Acted within Govt guidelines. Had a clear rationale for approving the grant.

Neil : SNP Bad 

[eFestivals]

Just now, comfortablynumb1910 said:

This is untrue but not unexpected. If you remember, I pointed out that the Wickerman festival regularly receives Govt cash and it is / was run by a Tory Cllr.

What I said was that while people are using foodbanks it seemed a bit vulgar to be paying money to T in the Park however, generally speaking, I had and have no real issue with some of my tax coin going on funding for things like sport, music the arts etc.

My point at the time was that various Scottish Govts over the decades had provided funds towards T in the Park and that there was nothing to see here despite you numerous attempts to give the story legs.

Neil : SNP Bad.

Audit Scotland : Cleared of wrongdoing. Acted within Govt guidelines. Had a clear rationale for approving the grant.

Neil : SNP Bad 

I wasn't on about the grant of money itself, I was on about the outside-normal-procedures method that was used to make the grant.

I've said this every time the subject has come up, but you ignore it every time to post lies instead.

What is it about the truth that scares you?

Special access to ministers by businessmen, via which the businessman gets a grant of money - THAT'S the issue, nothing else.

If that had happened with a tory govt, you'd be spitting feathers, claiming corruption. It's undoubtedly corrupt, even if the grant of money itself would have been granted via normal methods.

[Comfy Bean]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

Meanwhile, you say you're confident that Scotland can live without that money ... yet suddenly it's all about pooling and sharing.

 

 

Suddenly !?

It was a joke  Perhaps not a very good one in fairness but I think you missed it. I was referring to a recent vote up here when the pooling and sharing argument won.

I voted for us standing on our own two feet and making our own decisions, fairer, greener society etc.

NS taking admittedly small steps to raise taxes and the unionists up here are going bonkers talking about hanging signs at the border saying " higher taxes here ". Do you have a view on that or is it all SNP bad ?

You keep on knocking those dependent NO voters sucking on the teat of english money as you like to put it 

Fiona Hyslop has been cleared of wrongdoing by Audit Scotland. I`m sure you will have another myth to run with shortly 

[eFestivals]

BTW, you'll like this....

On BBC Breakfast this morning (do you get a different one in Scotland? I'm not sure), there was a report about last night's Scottish leader's debate.

The voice-over reporting (there was none of the leader's own words to be heard) was about there having been a bit of a spat between Sturgeon and Dugdale, with Sturgeon supposedly calling Dugdale a supporter of austerity.

(which is laughable given the tax/spend positions of each, but that's a side point...)

Anyway, the pictures to it had all a brief shot of them all on stage, and then close-ups of Sturgeon and Davidson, like Davidson was actually Dugdale.

Dreadful dreadful reporting, but it does give you the chance to invent a new conspiracy theory to add to your bag of myths.

 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Suddenly !?

It was a joke  Perhaps not a very good one in fairness but I think you missed it. I was referring to a recent vote up here when the pooling and sharing argument won.

I voted for us standing on our own two feet and making our own decisions, fairer, greener society etc.

NS taking admittedly small steps to raise taxes and the unionists up here are going bonkers talking about hanging signs at the border saying " higher taxes here ". Do you have a view on that or is it all SNP bad ?

You keep on knocking those dependent NO voters sucking on the teat of english money as you like to put it 

It's not the NO voters I'm mocking. It's not them who scream "we don't need your money".

Yes, I have a view on Sturgeon's laughable tax raising - that she needn't have bothered.  Did you miss her promise of  tax cuts to the doing OKs, and the lack of anything at all for the poor? Blair couldn't have done it better.

 

2 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Fiona Hyslop has been cleared of wrongdoing by Audit Scotland. I`m sure you will have another myth to run with shortly 

And yet the grant was made outside of normal procedures.

Audit Scotland only validated that T met the criteria for a grant - and that's despite Hyslop not fulfilling the SG's own requirements for making a grant (she never read the paperwork to know it met the criteria before making the grant)

But don't let that stop you stretching the truth into a lie.

[Stash]

Quote

Quote

Fiona Hyslop has been cleared of wrongdoing by Audit Scotland. I`m sure you will have another myth to run with shortly 

And yet the grant was made outside of normal procedures.

Audit Scotland only validated that T met the criteria for a grant - and that's despite Hyslop not fulfilling the SG's own requirements for making a grant (she never read the paperwork to know it met the criteria before making the grant)

But don't let that stop you stretching the truth into a lie.

I hadn't seen that reported at the time. Interesting comments from the report on BBC though:

 

"There is evidence that the DF Concerts consultants' costs associated with gaining planning consent incurred in 2014 and 2015 for the 2015 event, together with the increase in venue costs, exceeded the grant Scottish government provided.

There is also evidence that Scottish government has taken steps to confirm that the money was spent in line with the grant conditions through its review of the final report provided by DF Concerts and related invoices.

We understand that Scottish government requires flexibility to react promptly to circumstances as they arise, but in our view this needs to be balanced with enhanced internal clarity and evidence to support decision-making."

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, Stash said:

I hadn't seen that reported at the time. Interesting comments from the report on BBC though:

 

"There is evidence that the DF Concerts consultants' costs associated with gaining planning consent incurred in 2014 and 2015 for the 2015 event, together with the increase in venue costs, exceeded the grant Scottish government provided.

There is also evidence that Scottish government has taken steps to confirm that the money was spent in line with the grant conditions through its review of the final report provided by DF Concerts and related invoices.

We understand that Scottish government requires flexibility to react promptly to circumstances as they arise, but in our view this needs to be balanced with enhanced internal clarity and evidence to support decision-making."

Yep. T was entitled to a grant, but the circumstances were dodgy. Just as I've always pointed out.

More interestingly....

I wonder if those consultants' costs happened to be the costs of employing a certain person with extremely strong links to the SNP hierarchy who arranged the meetings the resulted in the grant?  How very weird!

Of course, coincidences are not evidence of corruption, and Audit Scotland's brief was to check only if T was entitled to a grant.

Is the whole set-up corrupt? There's certainly good reasons to think it might be, from the various revealed facts. Whether it is or not hasn't been looked into so perhaps we'll never know.

Cue some people with free passes for the SNP, that they'd never grant the tories in similar circumstances. Rational, that's what they are.

Edited March 30, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

On 8/24/2015 at 8:32 AM, eFestivals said:

Well, apparently, if you want anything done in Scotland by the SNP, the best answer is to employ one of their bigwigs - cos that way you can make anything you want happen.

 

 

On 8/24/2015 at 5:31 PM, eFestivals said:

Special privileged access. In fact, money for access.

 

All a person needs to do to get free access to the SNP govt of Scotland is slip Angus Robertson's missus a few quid. That's certainly the fact for both of those meetings.

 

On 8/24/2015 at 6:43 PM, eFestivals said:

cash has changed hands, and the recipient of the cash has gained the payer of the cash special access to ministers.

 

 

On 8/27/2015 at 7:05 AM, eFestivals said:

 

DF concerts paid cash, and DF concerts got special access.

 

All above board, of course. Everyone in Scotland gets three private meetings with ministers after asking their mate to arrange it.

 

 

On 10/12/2015 at 10:51 AM, eFestivals said:

 

oh look, you seem to have given Hyslop a free pass for being a liar.

 

Aye, neil all you " was on about the outside-normal-procedures method that was used to make the grant. "

As the comments above show clearly you were on about a bit more the "outside normal procedures" Only when your accusations prove groundless do you start to try & wriggle out of them. Its also odd that, as someone who showed such intense interest in this matter last year, you showed absolutely no interest in the outcome of the enquiry.

 

As for your claims:

 

"Was the grant made outside of normal procedures? Yes it was.

Was the grant made in dodgy circumstances? Yes it was."

These are not borne out by anything other than your assertion. Even the Scottish media which came down pretty hard on Hyslop when the "story" first broke has reported the fact that she was cleared as fact. Only the below the lines Cyberbrits are keeping up the conspiracy theories.

You go on to claim " Audit Scotland only validated that T met the criteria for a grant - and that's despite Hyslop not fulfilling the SG's own requirements for making a grant  "

 

Well, let's look at how the BBC reported it 

 

"But Audit Scotland has now concluded there was a "clear rationale for the grant".

It said clear conditions had been attached to the money."

..." the watchdog said the Scottish government had the legal authority to make the grant.

And it said the decision to award the grant to DF Concerts had been a "legitimate policy decision" for Ms Hyslop, and was consistent with advice she received from Scottish government officials. There was also budget provision for the grant within the Culture and European Affairs budget for major events and themed years... "

"There is also evidence that Scottish government has taken steps to confirm that the money was spent in line with the grant conditions through its review of the final report provided by DF Concerts and related invoices."

All of which seems to go well beyond what you have claimed.

This is just another in a long list of anti SNP Baadwagons that you have gleefully leapt upon only for the wheels to come spinning off.

 

[LJS]

So, me & Neil had a bit of a chat about taxation policy  - with Neil accusing me of all sort of terrible things because I dared to doubt the practicality of Labour's claim they would lob £100 at the poorest to make sure they didn't lose out. I pointed out that labour had been unable to give any detail at all how this would work. Neil insisted they had

Now, lo & behold...

 

Quote

 

Scottish Labour has dropped their plans for an income tax rebate for those earning below £20,000.

The party announced the policy less than two months ago on February 2. Under the plans the rebate would have been used from their initial budget after coming to power until April 2017 when Holyrood could change individual income tax thresholds.

Those earning below £20,000 would have received a £100 payment to ensure they did not lose out from the party's plan to raise the 20p tax rate by 1p.

http://stv.tv/news/politics/1348275-scottish-labour-dump-income-tax-rebate-plan/

 

Could Neil have been wrong?