The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

The risk of leaving the eu?

it's lesser in the Union than by voting 'yes'. By voting 'yes' you remove Scotland from the EU - guaranteed!!!!

[LJS]

The problem here is your ability to understand what was put in front of you, and not my accuracy.

roughly 35% of Scotland voted for the current UK govt, plus there's 20% more who voted for the neoliberal tartan tories. That's just about the same to-the-right vote as in the rest of the UK.

But as is the constant refrain from people like you: This is not an election.

It's only those ignorant of the facts who make that argument.

The tories own pollster says the game is up. All the tories know the game is up. Boris knows the game is up too - which is why he's positioning himself for a leadership contest.

You like to point out the differences that electoral systems make, yet on this you've suddenly stopped doing so. Why is that? Might it be because it's an inconvenient answer? ;rolleyes:

so please do tell me how the oil money gets spent three times over as Salmond says it will be in the new glorious 'better' iScotland?

Is that how iScotland is better, via a new improved version of maths?

(shhhh, the secret came out from the SNP's money man, who said borrowing will rise beyond on the Greek-level of deficit that exists in Scotland at this moment. And yes-ers take the piss out of the UK's [much smaller, and reducing] deficit, lol)

It does, but because UK has opened the doors (contrary to the wishes of the people of Scotland, if you care to check the social attitudes).

And the SNP plan to open it further, contrary to the wishes of the people of Scotland. And perhaps the UK, depending what basis Salmond will use, which will cause borders at Berwick.

Mind you, that could happen from your side, if the EU insist on iScotland being part of Schengen (a likely scenario, given that no new EU member has ever had any opt-outs). Schengen requires that the Schengen border states implement VERY strong border controls.

Nope - the kids themselves (not specifically your own kids, I know) think you're shitting on them. They fundamentally disagree with the shape of country you wish to make them live in.

Given that these kids will be those who suffer longest for your own dream, their opinions matter more than your own even if you each have equal votes.

Plenty on the yes side are insulting those who might vote no.

According to those yes voters, it's not possible to have honest support for the status quo - these people are instead "quislings", "traitors", "feart", "scared", "stupid", and a million other things. All true Scotsmen will vote yes.

And you're making up bollocks that none of these things are happening.

Because your own personal dreams are more important than those kids or the will of the people of Scotland.

That's fine. You're allowed your opinion.

But I'm not allowed mine, it's a personal attack on you.

Another example of the indyref in a nutshell - the yes-ers have given up all pretence of adhering to democracy.

As will be proven on the day after a 'no' vote, when the will of the Scottish people will be rejected by yes-ers as they launch their new campaign for another indyref ... meanwhile, all chances of another vote to reverse a 'yes' decision will be denied by yes-ers - it's only 'yes' that get endless votes until they get the right result, cos that's democracy in action.

and the fact is...?

That the majority of Scottish youth think that you'd be shitting on them with a yes vote.

But you just pretend otherwise and feel insulted. It's much better than facing inconvenient facts.

Have you checked the latest polling figures for young people?

[eFestivals]

I happen to believe Scotland is a Nation. I choose to believe that as a nation we will be better off (in the broadest sense) if we take responsibility for running our own affairs.

and yet you (and nearly all other yes-ers) won't take responsibility to challenge any of Alex's bullshit, to challenge absolute power for Alex via his self-written-to-give-himself-all-power constitution (that he solemnly promised he wouldn't write), or even to challenge the bullshit orf the WBB.

In fact, you're happy for bullshit to make the win for you - proving beyond all doubt that there is nothing better within Scotland.

And yet the claims of Scottish exceptionalism go endlessly on and on and on and on ... to leave only ethnic reasons for better. Civic Nationalism, eh?

[eFestivals]

The idea that Westminster would underplay oil reserves is just ridiculous isn't it?

They would never do such a thing would they?

But it's not just "Westminster", is it?

The whole oil industry fundamentally disagrees with Alex's oil claims.

But you won't address that, will you? You'll claim the liar is Westminster, and not perfect Alex - the man who has consistently proven he doesn't understand economic basics.

Either that, or he's deliberately bullshitting all of Scotland.

Take your pick.

Whichever it is, it's nothing "better".

[eFestivals]

Which independence will come a lot more responsibility and when you have to balance a budget

Rather laughably, yes-ers everywhere will point at the SG and say "they've always balanced their budgets".

But there's reasons why.

Firstly, the SG is not allowed to borrow - so it would be illegal if the SG did not balance its budgets.

And secondly, that's the only budget responsibility that exists in Scotland, because the SG is not responsible for any tax raising .... in fact, the SNP are so shit scared of tax raising powers they gave them back to Westminster!!!!

But it'll go very well after indy.

[eFestivals]

I have heard a lot about how us English NEED the Scots and a currency union because of the way Oil underpins Sterling

It's true, tho also laughable, both at the same time.

Sterling would have a better balance of payments with oil included (it's worth about £40Bn pa, I think).

But that makes fuck all difference to the rUK govt, because the rUK govt would still have that balance of payments deficit.

So essentially, iScotland is saying that rUK should exclusively grant it a £40bn a year credit towards its finances, when rUK can get itself a better deal on a global basis.

Giving iScotland a £40Bn a year credit is what is best for rUK, apparently.

[eFestivals]

I have already stated that independence will became opportunity for the Scottish conservative party freed from the thatcherite shackles of London.

and yet there's be no party that is freed from the neoliberal shackles - and it's neoliberalism which is the disease at the heart of global politics.

[eFestivals]

Have you checked the latest polling figures for young people?

Yep.

Last time I checked (about a week ago) there was no group (age or otherwise) in Scotland that was majority indy except the North East (or was it north west? I forget) of Scotland.

[eFestivals]

A point I made that he just ignored...

It seems to be all about democracy with him. He wants Scottish people to have more say but at the same time he wants to be in Europe which will mean they have to join the euro zone and see the Scottish people have even less say on their own affairs.

Its first class madness

You've got it all wrong Barry.

iScotland will be the first new EU member state to have even a single opt-out.

In fact, iScotland is going to have more opt-outs than any other EU member state, including some opt-outs from the EU's core principles.

Not only that, the financial markets will assume that giving iScotland opt-outs from the EU's core principles isn't anything to worry about, that it doesn't signal the death of the EU project and the Euro - those things will continue to be believed as continuing forwards despite a massive reverse in the principles that made the project viable in the first place.

[zahidf]

You've got it all wrong Barry.

iScotland will be the first new EU member state to have even a single opt-out.

In fact, iScotland is going to have more opt-outs than any other EU member state, including some opt-outs from the EU's core principles.

Not only that, the financial markets will assume that giving iScotland opt-outs from the EU's core principles isn't anything to worry about, that it doesn't signal the death of the EU project and the Euro - those things will continue to be believed as continuing forwards despite a massive reverse in the principles that made the project viable in the first place.

I'm sure Salmond will tell them the story of braveheart, say they are very rich, and the EU will do whatever they want...

Edited August 21, 2014 by zahidf

[LondonTom]

They still won't get my vote but if in the fullness of time they win an election it will be because the Scottish people vote for them. That's democracy.

So despite wanting to leave the UK because of the Tories getting elected, if you have a Scottish version of Boris Johnson win an election thats all fine and dandy? So much for the fairer society in Scotland then?

But if the UK votes Tory, its only the English and "London" who wanted that and the rest of the UK had no say what so ever in that vote. (Despite London voting mainly Labour and having a bigger population than Scotland..)

Edited August 21, 2014 by LondonTom

[eFestivals]

So despite wanting to leave the UK because of the Tories getting elected, if you have a Scottish version of Boris Johnson win an election thats all fine and dandy? So much for the fairer society in Scotland then?

But if the UK votes Tory, its only the English and "London" who wanted that and the rest of the UK had no say what so ever in that vote. (Despite London voting mainly Labour and having a bigger population than Scotland..)

I see you're tuning in to the yes campaign, where every idea has infinite flexibility and contradictions, and sense and consistency has no place.

[kaosmark2]

I think the most ridiculous thing about the "fed up of right-wing governments", is that if Scotland votes Yes, it will have 0 impact on the result of Westminster elections, while - because of the currency union, and maintaining of link to the monarchy, and all the other dependent bollocks Salmond is insisting will be kept - Scotland will be just as dependent on the result as before.

[gary1979666]

Doesn't it make it more likely that Westminster will have Tories in power, as Scotish MPs won't be diluting them.

[eFestivals]

I think the most ridiculous thing about the "fed up of right-wing governments", is that if Scotland votes Yes, it will have 0 impact on the result of Westminster elections, while - because of the currency union, and maintaining of link to the monarchy, and all the other dependent bollocks Salmond is insisting will be kept - Scotland will be just as dependent on the result as before.

I don't really see how the monarchy effects things, but a CU definitely does.

Realistically, it's not even independence that Salmond is offering to Scotland, but instead a Scottish-biased version of Devo-Max - where Scotland keeps all the good bits, and casts off all the bad bits. Back in the real world, the good and bad almost always come as a pair.

And then the bleats come from Scotland that their 'friends' from within the union are wanting to take Scotland at its word if it votes for indy and start to treat them as 'not-friends', as tho all of the niceties of the union should remain because Scotland says so (tho only if they're in Scotland's favour, of course). If Scotland chooses to compete - and it does with a yes - then competition it shall have.

Some even believe that as a result of the Edinburgh Agreement that 'England' is *required* to do everything that iScotland demands of it.

Actually, even Salmond has said that - it is the sovereign will of the Scottish people to have a CU, so Scotland shall have it - so it's not really so surprising there's so many intellectually-fucked-up yes-ers.

Until yes-ers and their leader actually understand what sovereignty is, how the fuck can they ask for it for themselves with a straight face?

Edited August 21, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Doesn't it make it more likely that Westminster will have Tories in power, as Scotish MPs won't be diluting them.

If everything were to remain equal (which I personally doubt) then history says only very slightly over a time period.

This govt would be a tory majority, for example. I think there's only two other occasions in the last 50 years where Scottish seats being excluded would have changed the result, and at least one of those was the very weak '74 Labour victory (I forget the other).

Personally, I don't think it much matters who gets elected in any country for all of the while its only neoliberals who get elected - and neoliberal is certainly going to be how iScotland will vote.

Dealing with an iScotland's deficit is one massive personal pain that very few yes-ers see coming. It'll make the nasty tories seem like a love-in in comparison.

[kaosmark2]

I don't really see how the monarchy effects things, but a CU definitely does.

Realistically, it's not even independence that Salmond is offering to Scotland, but instead a Scottish-biased version of Devo-Max - where Scotland keeps all the good bits, and casts off all the bad bits. Back in the real world, the good and bad almost always come as a pair.

And then the bleats come from Scotland that their 'friends' from within the union are wanting to take Scotland at its word if it votes for indy and start to treat them as 'not-friends', as tho all of the niceties of the union should remain because Scotland says so (tho only if they're in Scotland's favour, of course). If Scotland chooses to compete - and it does with a yes - then competition it shall have.

Some even believe that as a result of the Edinburgh Agreement that 'England' is *required* to do everything that iScotland demands of it.

Actually, even Salmond has said that - it is the sovereign will of the Scottish people to have a CU, so Scotland shall have it - so it's not really so surprising there's so many intellectually-fucked-up yes-ers.

Until yes-ers and their leader actually understand what sovereignty is, how the fuck that they ask for it for themselves with a straight face?

If an iScotland maintains the monarchy, the monarchy affects them as much as it affects us - ie. a lot but we're not allowed to be told exactly how because that would show that the monarchs aren't partisan.

As you say, Salmond's not offering independence. It's not even devo-max, as that would acknowledge the actual dependence his proposal has. It's just fucked up.

[eFestivals]

If an iScotland maintains the monarchy, the monarchy affects them as much as it affects us - ie. a lot but we're not allowed to be told exactly how because that would show that the monarchs aren't partisan.

I'm not actually sure that would apply. The constitutional set-up is something specific to the UK parliament, and most of it has evolved in the time when there was no sovereign Scottish body for the same rules to also apply to.

Probably the worst that could happen between iScotland and the monarchy is something similar to Australia's Gough-Whitlam crisis, where the monarch dissolved the govt for the (supposed) good governance of the country. That would involve what is likely to be such peculiar circumstances that many will happily go along with it (much as happened in Oz).

As you say, Salmond's not offering independence. It's not even devo-max, as that would acknowledge the actual dependence his proposal has. It's just fucked up.

Yep.

[eFestivals]

Yes-ers like to say they want substance for the 'no' arguments, but when it comes along they tend to choke.

Here's some of the substance I've come across, that even the most-decided yes-er should really be mulling over so things post-indy don't come as a huge surprise....

Scotland's finances - SURPLUS (+) AND DEFICIT (–) PER PERSON

including GEOGRAPHICAL share of oil revenues FOR BOTH Scotland and the rUK

in £

Notes: Years in which Scotland's budget balance was WORSE than the rUK's are shown in BOLD for ease of readinf

Adjusted for inflation (= in today's prices)

Year ... Scotland ... rUK

1980 ... +1,246 ... +1,065

1981 ... +3,145 ... –732

1982 ... +3,379 ... –868

1983 ... +3,202 ... –987

1984 ... +4,191 ... –1,083

1985 ... +3,907 ... –838

1986 ... +1,049 ... –493

1987 ... +1,008 ... –304

1988 ... +929 ... +194

1989 ... +201 ... +25

1990 ... –384 ... –190

1991 ... –949 ... –711

1992 ... –1,935 ... –1,377

1993 ... –1,963 ... –1,458

1994 ... –1,508 ... –1,225

1995 ... –1,036 ... –972

1996 ... –695 ... –739

1997 ... –324 ... –136

1998 ... –361 ... +159

1999 ... –327 ... +450

2000 ... +653 ... +996

2001 ... –199 ... –2

2002 ... –1,051 ... –552

2003 ... –1,496 ... –678

2004 ... –1,358 ... –849

2005 ... –569 ... –814

2006 ... –789 ... –658

2007 ... –923 ... –696

2008 ... –815 ... –1,900

2009 ... –3,052 ... –2,794

2010 ... –2,465 ... –2,494

2011 ... –1,507 ... –2,060

2012 ... –2,277 ... –1,889

Data: Scottish government's SNAP project.

Edited August 21, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

This one is particularly amusing....

NUMBER OF WEBPAGES ON THE SNP WEBSITE WHICH CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING WORDS (for webpages published in year 2013):

864 … Westminster
626 …Labour
360 … Tory
250 … EU
206 … Sturgeon
192 … Salmond
182 … bedroom tax
171 … oil
166 … England
144 … Cameron
126 … Trident
97 … scaremongering
81 … Yes Scotland
79 … Better Together
74 … debt
72 … Project Fear
64 … Ireland
61 … childcare
59 … Wales
58 … currency
57 … pound
57 … deficit
53 … Norway
28 … constitution
28 … debate & Cameron & Salmond
24 … euro
20 … myth
18 … NATO
17 … Scotland contributes 9.9% of UK tax revenues but receives 9.3% of public spending (several versions of sentence)
14 … McCrone
11 … Thatcher
8 … 1707
8 … Iceland
5 … Schengen

[eFestivals]

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EXTRA TAXES COLLECTED IN SCOTLAND VS EXTRA BARNETT SPENDING IN SCOTLAND; PER CAPITA

Notes: Scotland’s collected taxes include its geographical share of the oil revenues.

All figures are shown in today’s prices (= adjusted for inflation)

The years in which Scotland was subsidized by the rUK are shown in BOLD.

Year … Scotland’s balance in £ per person

1980/81 ... +2,311

1981/82 ... +3,877

1982/83 ... +4,247

1983/84 ... +4,189

1984/85 ... +5,274

1985/86 ... +4,745

1986/87 ... +1,543

1987/88 ... +1,312

1988/89 ... +735

1989/90 ... +176

1990/91 ... -194

1991/92 ... -238

1992/93 ... -558

1993/04 ... -506

1994/95 ... -283

1995/06 ... -64

1996/97 ... +44

1997/98 ... -188

1998/99 ... -521

1999/00 ... -777

2000/01 ... -343

2001/02 ... -197

2002/03 ... -498

2003/04 ... -817

2004/05 ... -509

2005/06 ... +245

2006/07 ... -131

2007/08 ... -227

2008/09 ... +1,085

2009/10 ... -257

2010/11 ... +28

2011/12 ... +553

2012/13 ... -389

[eFestivals]

SCOTLAND: EXTRA COLLECTED TAXES PER CAPITA AND EXTRA PUBLIC SPENDING PER CAPITA (compared to the rUK)

Taxes: Collected taxes per person in Scotland (including geographical oil revenues) minus collected taxes per person in the rUK (including geographical oil revenues)

Spending: the amount of money for which public spending per person is higher in Scotland (due to Barnett) than in the rUK

in £ per person

Year … Taxes … Spending

1980/81 ... 2,991 ... 680

1981/82 ... 4,490 ... 614

1982/83 ... 4,877 ... 630

1983/84 ... 4,775 ... 586

1984/85 ... 5,891 ... 617

1985/86 ... 5,358 ... 613

1986/87 ... 2,158 ... 616

1987/88 ... 1,925 ... 613

1988/89 ... 1,312 ... 577

1989/90 ... 857 ... 681

1990/91 ... 482 ... 677

1991/92 ... 386 ... 624

1992/93 ... 382 ... 940

1993/04 ... 381 ... 886

1994/95 ... 634 ... 916

1995/06 ... 872 ... 936

1996/97 ... 953 ... 909

1997/98 ... 756 ... 945

1998/99 ... 454 ... 975

1999/00 ... 228 ... 1,005

2000/01 ... 626 ... 969

2001/02 ... 896 ... 1,094

2002/03 ... 926 ... 1,425

2003/04 ... 715 ... 1,532

2004/05 ... 852 ... 1,361

2005/06 ... 1,787 ... 1,542

2006/07 ... 1,542 ... 1,673

2007/08 ... 1,460 ... 1,687

2008/09 ... 2,493 ... 1,408

2009/10 ... 1,033 ... 1,290

2010/11 ... 1,399 ... 1,371

2011/12 ... 1,926 ... 1,373

2012/13 ... 931 ... 1,319

SOURCES OF DATA

* Collected taxes and public spending:

Scottish government’s SNAP project http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Economy/GERS/RelatedAreas/LRfiscalbalances2013

[eFestivals]

There's an oil boom, yeah....?

Edited August 21, 2014 by eFestivals

[MichaelsBeard]

Yes-ers like to say they want substance for the 'no' arguments, but when it comes along they tend to choke.

Here's some of the substance I've come across, that even the most-decided yes-er should really be mulling over so things post-indy don't come as a huge surprise....

Have you got a link to this, I'd like to show a friend. This page specifically with the Scotland and rUK statistics side by side.

*edit - just seen your follow up post. My mate is determined rUK's deficit would be higher than iScotland's. Would like something official to prove my point.

Edited August 21, 2014 by MichaelsBeard

[eFestivals]

Having posted those tables of numbers and quoted a source sat the end of them, I guess I should come clean.... I have not checked the sources myself.

On the nutty side of yes there's the cybernats, but what's the opposite of that? A cyberrnot, perhaps?

Those tables of numbers come from an ....erm .. cybernot. Certainly a nerd (just look at those numbers!), and definitely anti the idea of Scottish independence, but neither a Brit or Scottish. From Slovenia, I believe.

From comments i've read at the Guardian where she posts as 'Abiesalba', she's a familiar commentor at other places too so perhaps LJS might have encountered her already?

Yes-ers certainly don't like her. I've seen her attacked for all sorts of different reasons, but never once have I seen her numbers called into question.

She's lived thru independence herself in her own country so knows it's not the painless process it's being sold as by Salmond, and from that experience is able to point out some stark differences between 'normal' independence of a country and what's going on in Scotland. By themselves those differences don't mean that Scotland shouldn't be independent but they certainly give food for thought.

From the 8 months i've been following things, she's made by far the most useful and interesting contributions of any single individual (including from the official campaigns) that I've seen, giving the facts that people say they want - but often refuse to accept.

If you want to see more of what she's revealed, you can do via her Guardian profile.

https://id.theguardian.com/profile/abiesalba/public

(as I've said, the most interesting are the tables of numbers and the like).

Edited August 21, 2014 by eFestivals