The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massie/2013/12/london-is-different-the-government-will-spend-money-there/

" the value of infrastructure spending in London comes in at a nifty £36 billion. Or, to put it another way, spending on infrastructure in London is equivalent to the total amount of infrastructure spending in every other part of England save the south-west. And the south-wests figure is chiefly so high because of a single project: the new nuclear power station at Hinckley Point."

[LJS]

Did I suggest anywhere that Thatcher invented rich people?

[eFestivals]

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massie/2013/12/london-is-different-the-government-will-spend-money-there/

" the value of infrastructure spending in London comes in at a nifty £36 billion. Or, to put it another way, spending on infrastructure in London is equivalent to the total amount of infrastructure spending in every other part of England save the south-west. And the south-wests figure is chiefly so high because of a single project: the new nuclear power station at Hinckley Point."

There's all sorts of angles on this, and that article uses a very selective angle.

Firstly, nothing of what that presents is proportional to population by region.

Secondly, nothing of what that presents is proportional to economic contribution by region.

Thirdly, nothing of what that presents considers anything of needs of any region.

And fourthly, you can come up for the same proportional result for any region of the country benefiting more than it should do (including Scotland), depending which years you choose to use to wrap around the question.

In other words, it's written to work to your prejudices. And it's succeeded.

[eFestivals]

Did I suggest anywhere that Thatcher invented rich people?

nope, you suggested that Scottish oil created rich people.

[eFestivals]

If the problem is rich people, then nothing of how rich they are is relevant.

If the problem is how rich they are, then nothing of the problem is that there's rich people.

So pick one, and keep to it.

[LJS]

There's all sorts of angles on this, and that article uses a very selective angle.

Firstly, nothing of what that presents is proportional to population by region.

Secondly, nothing of what that presents is proportional to economic contribution by region.

Thirdly, nothing of what that presents considers anything of needs of any region.

And fourthly, you can come up for the same proportional result for any region of the country benefiting more than it should do (including Scotland), depending which years you choose to use to wrap around the question.

In other words, it's written to work to your prejudices. And it's succeeded.

And nothing of the above addresses the fact that if you remove 1 nuclear power station infrastructure spending in London is higher than for the rest of England combined.

[eFestivals]

And nothing of the above addresses the fact that if you remove 1 nuclear power station infrastructure spending in London is higher than for the rest of England combined.

But if you removed that power station, the investment in the power station would still be invested in something - money ear-marked for investment gets invested. So that's a bullshit argument, sorry.

And of course, the disproportionate amount invested in the past in nuke power stations in Scotland counts for nothing.

And of course, the disproportionate amount being invested right now in wind farms in Scotland counts for nothing.

Etc, etc, etc.

Well done at being led by the nose like a sheep.

[eFestivals]

PS: the reason why London is currently getting the bulk of the money is actually due to massive under-investment over many previous decades.

What London is (and has) been recently spending money on is some massive investments in rail infrastructure - where nothing of much note has been spent for 100+ years.

HS1 (eurostar), Thameslink, Crossrail, Crossrail2. These are (or were) massive massive massive projects, of a scale not done since Victorian times - and VERY needed, which you'll know if you've been on London trains at any time in the last 30 years (at least).

(I've not been to London for nearly 10 years now. There's a reason for that - the trains!!!).

Meanwhile, Scotland currently has the UK's greatest road infrastructure spending. It's not fair.

[eFestivals]

Oh, isn't Glasgow underground also having a UK-govt paid-for upgrade right now too? I seem to remember reading something along those lines.

[eFestivals]

Ohhhh, and if you're screaming "it's not fair" like Violet Elizabeth Bott, perhaps you might like to factor in that Scotland has a disproportionate amount spent on it ALL OF THE TIME!!!!

[LJS]

Ohhhh, and if you're screaming "it's not fair" like Violet Elizabeth Bott, perhaps you might like to factor in that Scotland has a disproportionate amount spent on it ALL OF THE TIME!!!!

and raises a disproportionate amount of revenue.

And I am not screaming about anything - merely supplying some helpful information & suggesting that some of the allegations you make about Scotland may apply somewhat nearer home ( now I have no idea where you live so I'm sure you'll excuse any geographical inaccuracy if you happen to live in York or Newcastle etc!!)

I think the thing about the Glasgow Subway (to give it its correct name) is that an upgrade is to be partially funded by the £500million promised by Dave Wonka. By sheer coincidence this was announced shortly before the referendum and as it is spread over 20 years (£25m per year) pales into insignificance beside London figures.

[LJS]

interesting to see Better no together thanks still running this

Juncker Ends Salmond’s European Dream

Today the new Head of the European Commission has said there will be no EU enlargement for 5 years, ending Alex Salmond’s hopes of taking a separate Scotland into the EU quickly.

Nearly 24 hours after this...

Follow

James CookVerified account‏@BBCJamesCook

Jean Claude Juncker's spokeswoman says he was not referring to Scotland when he talked about a five year pause in EU accession. #indyref

Follow

James CookVerified account‏@BBCJamesCook

Jean-Claude Juncker spokesperson "At no point is Scotland mentioned, as this is an entirely separate issue." #indyref

#nothanks #pantsonfire

Edited July 16, 2014 by LJS

[eFestivals]

and raises a disproportionate amount of revenue.

if you wish to class what is currently without doubt UK assets as Scottish, yes it does.

Do you know that Grimsby is the most profitable part of the country if you count London money as Grimsby's?

Scotland by its own efforts contributes far less than it gets.

If you go "it's all mine" like any greedy tory to make people in poverty in rUK poorer, then yes you make that tory claim.

A social justice view cannot include that claim, which makes the claims of Scottish social justice so laughable.

And I am not screaming about anything - merely supplying some helpful information & suggesting that some of the allegations you make about Scotland may apply somewhat nearer home

thing is, it's not helpful, it's slanted.

It's designed to make a particular situation look like something that it isn't. It doesn't inform anyone of anything useful - unless your name is Alex and you don't care what lies people fall for as long as they vote yes.

Do you want a yes on any basis, or do you want a yes because the people of Scotland have genuinely chosen indy on the basis of truth and not lies?

One is democratic, the other is an undemocratic fraud and no basis on which to build a new nation.

I think the thing about the Glasgow Subway (to give it its correct name)

my apologies for being nine years out of date.

And of course that expensive rebranding by Scottish people in Scotland helped reduce Scottish poverty, eh?

is that an upgrade is to be partially funded by the £500million promised by Dave Wonka. By sheer coincidence this was announced shortly before the referendum and as it is spread over 20 years (£25m per year) pales into insignificance beside London figures.

and the other £500M is to be funded by what?

Money from Westminster (yes, via the SG).

Funny that, isn't it? Scotland has its own infrastructure funds, which no other region does. And those aren't included in the graph you presented as meaning something.

Edited July 16, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Jean-Claude Juncker spokesperson "At no point is Scotland mentioned, as this is an entirely separate issue." #indyref

#nothanks #pantsonfire

Jean-Claude Juncker spokesperson went on "at no point is Scotland mentioned, so Scotland cannot take anything from anything that was said".

[LJS]

LJS, on 16 Jul 2014 - 10:22 AM, said:

I think the thing about the Glasgow Subway (to give it its correct name)

my apologies for being nine years out of date.

And of course that expensive rebranding by Scottish people in Scotland helped reduce Scottish poverty, eh?

It matters not a jot but it has always been the Subway since 1896

Edited July 16, 2014 by LJS

[LJS]

if you wish to class what is currently without doubt UK assets as Scottish, yes it does.

Do you know that Grimsby is the most profitable part of the country if you count London money as Grimsby's?

Scotland by its own efforts contributes far less than it gets.

If you go "it's all mine" like any greedy tory to make people in poverty in rUK poorer, then yes you make that tory claim.

A social justice view cannot include that claim, which makes the claims of Scottish social justice so laughable.

thing is, it's not helpful, it's slanted.

It's designed to make a particular situation look like something that it isn't. It doesn't inform anyone of anything useful - unless your name is Alex and you don't care what lies people fall for as long as they vote yes.

Do you want a yes on any basis, or do you want a yes because the people of Scotland have genuinely chosen indy on the basis of truth and not lies?

One is democratic, the other is an undemocratic fraud and no basis on which to build a new nation.

my apologies for being nine years out of date.

And of course that expensive rebranding by Scottish people in Scotland helped reduce Scottish poverty, eh?

and the other £500M is to be funded by what?

Money from Westminster (yes, via the SG).

Funny that, isn't it? Scotland has its own infrastructure funds, which no other region does. And those aren't included in the graph you presented as meaning something.

The £500m is funded from the City deals programme which as you can see bellow originally excluded Scotland.

Can't think why they decided to chage their minds about that bit. Must be their innate generosity!!!

The city deals programme – launched by Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, in 2011 – was originally set up to strengthen and promote the economies of large city regions in England and not as a UK-wide initiative.

The £500m funding for Glasgow marks a further attempt by UK government ministers and no campaigners to kill off Salmond's quest for Scottish independence in the run up to September's referendum, with recent opinion polls suggesting the yes campaign's advance in public support has stalled.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/03/cameron-funding-glasgow-no-campaign-rally

[LJS]

Jean-Claude Juncker spokesperson went on "at no point is Scotland mentioned, so Scotland cannot take anything from anything that was said".

Can we not? You and BNTT have said Scotland would need to take its place alongside all the other States applying for membership. This clearly suggests Scotland will be treated differently.

Of course it does not say Scotland can waltz in - but it is also clear that BNTT's slant on it (which is still the lead story on their website) is a lie.

[LJS]

Neil,

How can both these statements (by you) be true?

Scotland by its own efforts contributes far less than it gets.

If you go "it's all mine" like any greedy tory to make people in poverty in rUK poorer, then yes you make that tory claim.

So Scotland getting independence & not needing the subsidy the UK kindly gives us will mean less money for the poor in England.

Aye, right!!!

Edited July 16, 2014 by LJS

[eFestivals]

It matters not a jot but it has always been the Subway since 1896

not according to the wiki page which i've read and I guess you haven't.

It's not only people in Scotland that know more about Scotland, which is a little unfortunate for how the narrative goes.

[eFestivals]

How can both these statements (by you) be true?

because they are both true.

So Scotland getting independence & not needing the subsidy the UK kindly gives us will mean less money for the poor in England.

Aye, right!!!

That's not what I've said.

Understanding the nuances makes a big difference to understanding anything.

[LJS]

not according to the wiki page which i've read and I guess you haven't.

It's not only people in Scotland that know more about Scotland, which is a little unfortunate for how the narrative goes.

I see from Wiki the council renamed it but we all carried on calling it the Subway - which is why I said it was always called the subway - suppose its a bit like the Sports Direct arena.

Anyway whatever the cooncil decided it was called, it is and always has been universally referred to as the subway - certainly throughout all my life.

A nice example of people power winning out in the end.

[LJS]

because they are both true.

That's not what I've said.

Understanding the nuances makes a big difference to understanding anything.

I'm afraid the only nuance I can see is you trying to have your cake & eat it.

[eFestivals]

The £500m is funded from the City deals programme which as you can see bellow originally excluded Scotland.

yep - and that's because....???

Scotland has it's own infrastructure funding within the "block grant".

(it might be "some of it's infrastructure funding" rather than all, but there's defo some of it).

Can't think why they decided to chage their minds about that bit. Must be their innate generosity!!!

give Scotland twice the money it should get its certainly generous!

You know, very different to the false narrative of Scotland being denied funding.

[eFestivals]

I see from Wiki the council renamed it but we all carried on calling it the Subway - which is why I said it was always called the subway - suppose its a bit like the Sports Direct arena.

Anyway whatever the cooncil decided it was called, it is and always has been universally referred to as the subway - certainly throughout all my life.

A nice example of people power winning out in the end.

Yeah, well, yes-ers like to claim that 2+2 = 12 when it comes to oil money, but just cos that's what they say it doesn't mean it's right.

Perhaps people outside scotland know better than the Scottish on that one too? Just a thought.

Edited July 16, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Can we not? You and BNTT have said Scotland would need to take its place alongside all the other States applying for membership.

I've never said that, but Spain has.

You know, the same Spain that will be required to allow Scotland's EU entry.

I've simply stated what the EU rules say - which say something very different to what Alex claims they say.

This clearly suggests Scotland will be treated differently.

Nope, it merely says that that statement is not a specific statement about Scotland.

Everything else you've made up out of nothing.

Of course it does not say Scotland can waltz in - but it is also clear that BNTT's slant on it (which is still the lead story on their website) is a lie.

It only becomes a lie when there are facts to be measured again.

On the same basis you're calling BT a liar over their EU claims, you can call Alex a liar too.

Are you calling Alex a liar, or are you used warped criteria for your 'liar' analysis?