The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

So, none of my taxes went towards the Olympics? & none of them will go towards HS2? & I won't be paying a penny towards all the lovely infrastructure expenditure on London?

That's not quite what I said.

If you select just the convenient bits for comparison, you'll always get a convenient answer.

What i'm saying is that the numbers that get quoted (GERS) for Scotland's spending do not include any ANY spend by Scotland on the Olympics, HS2, etc, etc, etc - anything that Alex deems to be only to England's benefit.

This is explicitly stated by GERS where they explain what is included and excluded, etc.

Used against the GERS spending numbers are GERS tax revenue numbers - where every penny of tax collected within Scotland is included (tho with two versions: one that includes a population-proportional share of the oil revenues, and one with a geographic share of the oil revenues).

And then those numbers are used against each other, to come up with the level of Scotland's deficit (and it has been in deficit for every single year since 1990 with the oil revenues included, just in case that's passed you by).

So, for the only numbers available for the state of Scotland's financial health (GERS), no, none of your taxes went to pay for the Olympics, HS2, etc, etc.

Tho of course in reality they did. The real world doesn't work in the same way as Alex's made-to-look better numbers.

& I think you 'll find it was under a Labour government that we decided to bid for the commy games.

& I have not heard much griping about it.

I've not heard much griping about it either - tho the gripes I have seen have all come from yes-ers and only after the CW games didn't work as a big yes rally, as plenty of yes-ers (including you if i'm remembering rightly) had predicted that they would.

So Scotland seemed to support that spend - a spend on fluff for the establishment rather than tackling poverty for the better country you say (but the facts don't) Scotland wants.

It's for reasons like that, and how Scotland rejected Salmond's 'penny for Scotland' in a time of prosperity, and how easily Scotland has accepted Salmond's corp tax cut for the rich, that I don't buy into the narrative that an indy Scotland will deliver enhanced social justice (even if all economics stayed equal post-indy).

Edited August 31, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

It's Neil's favourite game ...pick a number out the air, treble it, add the number you first thought of & stick a Bn on the end & claim that is how much we will be worse off.

I give you facts and figures; you give back only empty bluster.

You are Alex Salmond and i claim my five pounds.

Now, if you fancy an actual debate using facts and substance, I'll give you the fiver back....?

(surely an offer no true Scot could refuse? )

Edited August 31, 2014 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

It's Neil's favourite game ...pick a number out the air, treble it, add the number you first thought of & stick a Bn on the end & claim that is how much we will be worse off.

I know you have taken a real interest in this debate LJS and have considered the pro`s and con`s on BOTH sides of the argument. You make it clear in your posts that you haven`t taken your decision lightly. I like to think I have done the same but our resident expert seems too entrenched now in NO and just ignores examples like the Ayrshire mining villages destroyed by Westminster who now have affordable energy bills etc. He is even defending Darling and his total contempt for other small countries who he sneers are " Bust " and ignoring all the warnings on the NHS etc. It is now ok apparantely that Darling takes the $$$ from private health companies etc. We know from this thread that he defends the right of the people we elect to tell us lies but I sense more and more that the folks up here are starting to question Darling and the Project Fear lies. I saw this earlier where the BT spokesman quotes an " expert ". Maybe he is a fellow efester

In fairness, I have no idea if this interview has been edited

[Comfy Bean]

I give you facts and figures; you give back only empty bluster.

You are Alex Salmond and i claim my five pounds.

Now, if you fancy an actual debate using facts and substance, I'll give you the fiver back....?

(surely an offer no true Scot could refuse? )

I though I was Alex ? Maybe we are all Alex Salmond.

Not getting your points on the Olympics and Commonwealth games sir. I said before that the UK tax payer helped fund London and Manchester. I also said I had no problem with that as it gets the weans interested in sport and helps with the overall health issues ( sport not the actual olympics ). Are you saying that the UK taxpayer also helped with this years Commonwealth games in Glasgow ? On the same theme, I previously posted a link to the article that showed Scottish taxpayers will be paying towards the gazillion pound development of London transport and sewage system. Were building a couple of big bridges up this way. Do you think the UK tax payer is chipping in ?

Best question from the debate so far imo " If were Better Together, why are we not already " ?

[Comfy Bean]

there's only been this one poll so far after the 2nd debate, so you're reverting to guesses and hope and not facts ... again.

(I'm hugely amused that i'm following things in Scotland better than people like you are )

As i've pointed out, the movement is very minimal (for polls by the same company*), and within the margin of error.

What you actually pointed out was that there had been NO movement. I suppose going from no movement to minimal movement is momentum towards the truth ! Bit ironic that you are accusing me of not dealing in facts in the same post

I am happy to be viewing this as a BIT of a leap of faith. I want us to start on day 1 without the arrogance of Blair or Dave. There is nothing wrong in my opinion with being a bit nervous about our new future. There will be many many problems for us to sort out as I have said before. If we can get anywhere near half of the country wanting Independence then it will happen eventually. I try and take a balanced view on everything I read from both sides. You have posted some excellent stuff on here ( and some not so excellent of course ) but have you seen nothing from BT that concerns you and nothing from King Alex that would give you the " hope " that your slagging me off for if you lived up here. Your certainly following things up here are as you say but are you being even handed in your views ?

[Comfy Bean]

Here`s another video where an expert who has been mentioned before on this thread seems to have changed their mind. How could Sir Ian possibly have got all this so so wrong ?

If anyone says " ah he never actually said any of that it`s been edited " I will cry !

Some staggering numbers he is quoting, repeat, he is quoting.

Edited August 31, 2014 by comfortablynumb1910

[Comfy Bean]

More good news for YES. Standing shoulder to shoulder with Griffin and the Orange Order - Here`s Nigel.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/politics/referendum-news/concern-at-farage-scottish-visit-before-orange-march.25192378

[LJS]

What you actually pointed out was that there had been NO movement. I suppose going from no movement to minimal movement is momentum towards the truth ! Bit ironic that you are accusing me of not dealing in facts in the same post

I am happy to be viewing this as a BIT of a leap of faith. I want us to start on day 1 without the arrogance of Blair or Dave. There is nothing wrong in my opinion with being a bit nervous about our new future. There will be many many problems for us to sort out as I have said before. If we can get anywhere near half of the country wanting Independence then it will happen eventually. I try and take a balanced view on everything I read from both sides. You have posted some excellent stuff on here ( and some not so excellent of course ) but have you seen nothing from BT that concerns you and nothing from King Alex that would give you the " hope " that your slagging me off for if you lived up here. Your certainly following things up here are as you say but are you being even handed in your views ?

Oh, I suspect Neil might well view things a bit differently if he lived in Scotland.

I see the media is still banging about the vile nats egging poor wee Jim Murphy whilst failing to report the apparent arsen attack on a yes shop. Whilst newspapers can do what the he'll they like, the BBC are supposed to at least have a bash at some sort of impartiality.

If there is a yes vote it will be a bloody miracle.

[eFestivals]

I know you have taken a real interest in this debate LJS and have considered the pro`s and con`s on BOTH sides of the argument. You make it clear in your posts that you haven`t taken your decision lightly. I like to think I have done the same but our resident expert seems too entrenched now in NO and just ignores examples like the Ayrshire mining villages destroyed by Westminster who now have affordable energy bills etc.

What?

I'm considering both side of the argument. Are you sure you really are?

After all, I'm considering the stated wants of indy by people like you, and then I'm considering the economics .... and i'm seeing that the two don't match up, cannot match up.

So you can have the economics without indy or you can have indy without the economics (and so also without the extras). Guess which one I think you get more via? I'm an evil bastard wanting you to have more, eh?

Of course, I could do your methodology and guess on the basis of nothing. But that would increase the chances of me being wrong.

Westminster didn't only "destroy" industry in Scotland. In fact, no govt destroyed it; that was the markets.

I'm presuming that in Scotland, haggis farming will be a protected industry, and no one is allowed to leave that industry for any reason whatsoever because that would be the govt "destroying" your premium agricultural crop?

Life and industries move on, no different to how the steam age did. Those who won't move on get left behind. There might be a 40 year lesson there somewhere.

He is even defending Darling and his total contempt for other small countries who he sneers are " Bust " and ignoring all the warnings on the NHS etc.

when the facts are not on your side, make it up.

I'm agreeing with the facts about those small countries, and the fact that changing Scotland from its current fiscal position to a new one like those countries will be hugely expensive for Scotland, and is a spend that Scotland will never get back (at best it puts iScotland back in around the same place).

Meanwhile, the Telegraph has a story this morning about how Alex has privatised a part of the Scottish NHS and sold it to an American company. Isn't life strange?

But even if he wasn't selling it off without "England's" help, trhe Scottish NHS is fully within Scotland's hands - and Scotland's willingness to pay for it (rather than have "England" pay it all for you). Which is identical to how things would be under indy. Oh dear.

It is now ok apparantely that Darling takes the $$$ from private health companies etc.

I once got a bit of money for an interview I did for the BBC. I gusss that means that I've sold my soul to them, and from now on can only put forwards the BBC's view.

Or perhaps I have a mind of my own?

Perhaps get your own mind working? Who do you work for? Have you become irrefutably and permanently corrupted by them, or does that only happen with politicians?

So let's talk Murdoch and the SNP's homophobic Souter, shall we? By the same logic Alex is only Murdoch's puppet, and after indy Alex will be introducing a raft of homophobic laws.

I tell you what, if you stay out of patent bollocks land I won't follow you there.

We know from this thread that he defends the right of the people we elect to tell us lies

Pathetic.

I support the ability of a govt to govern. That does require that govts do some things behind closed doors.

So special lying rules were created to keep McCrone from you. And if the people ofr Scotland are so exceptional, what was to stop them doing their own report? a lack of excepionalism, I guess.

Meanwhile, your hero has kept from you all the economics of indy. Why's he not getting the same scorn? Might it be you using biased method?

No facts and substance from Alex, no facts and substance from LJS, and no facts and substance from you. Go for the man and not what's said; be negative. You might almost be Project Fear, but you can't be, they at least sometimes use facts and substance. Oh dear.

Am I right in thinking that you think that all true Scotsmen will vote yes, and that it's only the quislings who look at the facts and raise questions for Alex that he won't answer?

Or might some people be able to use their own intelligence, consider the facts* and draw their own conclusions, and those conclusions might differ from your own?

* you forgot to do that part tho, didn't you, as you've admitted? I wish I was as intuitive as you, then I could always be right regardless of what the facts might say.

[eFestivals]

What you actually pointed out was that there had been NO movement.

I see your attention to detail is not what it could be. Perhaps that's why you're having difficulties?

Its pretty hard to see any meaningful momentum in all the polls. The differences are methodologies and margin of error.

The bolding is there to help you perhaps grasp the facts this time?

I am happy to be viewing this as a BIT of a leap of faith. I want us to start on day 1 without the arrogance of Blair or Dave. There is nothing wrong in my opinion with being a bit nervous about our new future. There will be many many problems for us to sort out as I have said before. If we can get anywhere near half of the country wanting Independence then it will happen eventually. I try and take a balanced view on everything I read from both sides. You have posted some excellent stuff on here ( and some not so excellent of course ) but have you seen nothing from BT that concerns you and nothing from King Alex that would give you the " hope " that your slagging me off for if you lived up here. Your certainly following things up here are as you say but are you being even handed in your views ?

It's the SNP who have to put forwards the case for change. That's how these things work.

People like you don't seem to be able to get it, but it's perfectly possible to know that Alex is talking a crock of shite without me buying into every word that BT say.

That's a fact you have accessed, but it#s one you don't like. You prefer to believe that anyone who doesn't mindlessly - without facts - go along with Alex must be a tory.

In which case I guess the Scottish Greens are really the SNP.

All I've slagged you off for is for your admitted guessing, when even you know that it would be better if you engaged with facts.

This is too important to be guessed at for those who will have to live with the consequences. Know what you're voting for; don't vote in ignorance.

Edited September 1, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Here`s another video where an expert who has been mentioned before on this thread seems to have changed their mind. How could Sir Ian possibly have got all this so so wrong ?

If anyone says " ah he never actually said any of that it`s been edited " I will cry !

Some staggering numbers he is quoting, repeat, he is quoting.

your ability to discern is utterly dreadful.

In this vid from two year ago, Wood says "there could be 25 billion barrells, if we get it wrong there could be half that".

In Wood's report last November, Wood said "there's definitely 12Bn, and there might be as much as 24Bn. If the tax regime is changed we should be able to get 16Bn".

The other day he said "Salmond is over-stating by saying 24Bn. They'll hopefully be 16Bn".

UK Oil & Gas said after Wood that "there's 15.6Bn".

Has Wood changed his tune, or are you looking for hope where none exists?

[eFestivals]

Oh, I suspect Neil might well view things a bit differently if he lived in Scotland.

I see the media is still banging about the vile nats egging poor wee Jim Murphy whilst failing to report the apparent arsen attack on a yes shop. Whilst newspapers can do what the he'll they like, the BBC are supposed to at least have a bash at some sort of impartiality.

If there is a yes vote it will be a bloody miracle.

Am *I* banging on about Murphy getting egged, and using that to attack the SNP/Yes? Or am I smart enough to realise that there's morons on every side?

If you were back in Scotland right now (rather than you being near to the yes-ers spiritual home of Bath ) I'm guessing you'd now also be posting the conspiracy theories about the egging. Who knows, they might even be right.

I prefer to stick with the actual substance of indy, what indy will actually mean for Joe McBloggs. The things that Alex will not do.

Nor you and comfy. Why's that then?

Edited September 1, 2014 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

Am I right in thinking that you think that all true Scotsmen will vote yes,

No, I think you just made that up. That and this " people like you " stuff that you said ( twice ) earlier seems a bit unnecessary mate

[LJS]

Am *I* banging on about Murphy getting egged, and using that to attack the SNP/Yes? Or am I smart enough to realise that there's morons on every side?

If you were back in Scotland right now (rather than you being near to the yes-ers spiritual home of Bath ) I'm guessing you'd now also be posting the conspiracy theories about the egging. Who knows, they might even be right.

I prefer to stick with the actual substance of indy, what indy will actually mean for Joe McBloggs. The things that Alex will not do.

Nor you and comfy. Why's that then?

No, you are not banging on about "I am the eggman" which is why I said the media is banging on...

I said that because I was making a point about the media not you. I am aware of conspiracy theories about Egg-gate & don't discount them but, as I am sure you have observed. I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories - of course it's possible BT orchestrated the egg fling but it is equally possible they didn't & I don't see that much is gained from going down that road.

Neil, unless you are blind, I have given my view on what Indy means for the man on the Culloden omnibus & I don't really feel there is much point in revisiting these lengthy discussions. I have also made it clear what motivates me in my yes vote & what I hope a Yes win will mean.

You may continue to push your vision of doom based on a mixture of facts, opinions, projections & propaganda if you want - Comfy & I have made it pretty clear we are on a different agenda. Call us crazy if you want. You know from the conversations we have had on here that I have not made my decision without considering the consequences.

As this is a music based site, I am looking forward to attending the following events:

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/08/28/songs-for-scotland-3/

http://www.yesscotland.net/news/night-scotland-stars-take-stage-bumper-voteyes-concert

against that the no campaign are lining up Nigel Farage & the Orange Order

[Comfy Bean]

" You can have the economics without Indy or you can have Indy without the economics ".

I understand your point and finance will for sure play a big part but I disagree. There are plenty countries less " powerful " economically than an iscotland would be in my opinion.

" Westminster didn`t destroy industry in Scotland "

I paused before I originally used the word " destroy " but.....I was there, and the communities in Ayrshire mining villages were destroyed. I didn`t really agree with the street party atmosphere when Thatcher died but I`m comfortable with " destroyed " in the context I used it and last I heard we were still shipping coal in from all over the world. That doesn`t make sense to me on so many levels.

I know you were joking about the haggis but I also know that we can continue marketing and exporting our whisky round the world. I think we could do a bit more with that and hopefully create more jobs.

I agree with you that Darling is right to use other small countriesas examples of what can go wrong. It makes sense for him to do so. My only issue was his sneering and belittling them. Totally unnecessary.

I have no probs that you got some dough out the BBC ? Quite the opposite.

I may be concerned though if you were now the head of a group of MP`s campaigning to double the licence fee.

Oh and Alex Salmond is not my hero I`m not the one who keeps mentioning him all the time

[LJS]

Am I right in thinking that you think that all true Scotsmen will vote yes, and that it's only the quislings who look at the facts and raise questions for Alex that he won't answer?

Just like to back up Comfy & ask where on earth you got this from? Both of us have been clear that we respect the views of our countrymen (whether by birth or residence) .

& now from the No campaign there latest poster which says "We love our kids. We're saying No Thanks" (unlike the yessers kids who are shitting on their kids)

[LJS]

" You can have the economics without Indy or you can have Indy without the economics ".

I understand your point and finance will for sure play a big part but I disagree. There are plenty countries less " powerful " economically than an iscotland would be in my opinion.

" Westminster didn`t destroy industry in Scotland "

I paused before I originally used the word " destroy " but.....I was there, and the communities in Ayrshire mining villages were destroyed. I didn`t really agree with the street party atmosphere when Thatcher died but I`m comfortable with " destroyed " in the context I used it and last I heard we were still shipping coal in from all over the world. That doesn`t make sense to me on so many levels.

I know you were joking about the haggis but I also know that we can continue marketing and exporting our whisky round the world. I think we could do a bit more with that and hopefully create more jobs.

I agree with you that Darling is right to use other small countriesas examples of what can go wrong. It makes sense for him to do so. My only issue was his sneering and belittling them. Totally unnecessary.

I have no probs that you got some dough out the BBC ? Quite the opposite.

I may be concerned though if you were now the head of a group of MP`s campaigning to double the licence fee.

Oh and Alex Salmond is not my hero I`m not the one who keeps mentioning him all the time

I think the point about the destruction of industry under Thatcher is: Neil is probably right - it was inevitable - the world was changing - first world countries could no longer compete with the rising economies in steel & shipbuilding to name a couple. In these circumstances, the job of a responsible government is to manage that decline & work to minimise its effect on communities, not to revel in it & dance on the grave of the communities who paid the price. Nor is it their job to deliberately mastermind the destruction of an entire industry & the communities who depended on it for purely ideological reasons. I'm sure I don't need to tell you what industry that is.

Neil, which side were you on?

[Comfy Bean]

your ability to discern is utterly dreadful.

In this vid from two year ago, Wood says "there could be 25 billion barrells, if we get it wrong there could be half that".

In Wood's report last November, Wood said "there's definitely 12Bn, and there might be as much as 24Bn. If the tax regime is changed we should be able to get 16Bn".

The other day he said "Salmond is over-stating by saying 24Bn. They'll hopefully be 16Bn".

UK Oil & Gas said after Wood that "there's 15.6Bn".

Has Wood changed his tune, or are you looking for hope where none exists?

When you read that back it`s not far away from what I`m saying here ie there " could " still be 24/25bn but as you say my ability is maybe the problem.

The point I was trying to make with Sir Ian and also Sir Alistair is that they clearly did have a view on currency union and the billions of barrels.

There view on these important areas are now being presented with a very different slant.

I believe that in both cases they originally ( years back ) gave their HONEST opinion on currency and oil as they were no doubt experts in their particular fields at that time - these interviews have now surfaced. To be fair some would say they both still are ( experts )

I feel that there original opinions have now been slanted to take into account their views on Scottish Independence. I have no problem with their views on Independence but am struggling to believe that both men did not originally mean what they said when they were first asked if there could be a CU and was there still a shit load of oil left. Some people will vote based on concern that we cant keep the £ and that the oil is fast running out.

I realise I am not backing this up with facts but there you go it`s my opinion. You`ll be telling me the world isn`t flat next !

[Comfy Bean]

I see your attention to detail is not what it could be. Perhaps that's why you're having difficulties?

The bolding is there to help you perhaps grasp the facts this time?

I realise that this has probably just been a misunderstanding and I cannot work multi-quote but please check back to the 29th August as your being unfair here.....

You said on the 29th " Latest poll shows no movement. Alex is wrong ( just for a change ) about momentum ".

To which I replied - still on the 29th "There was in fact alot of coverage that did show poll movement today.

By the 31st you were going with " very minimal " movement which prompted me to say ( still on the 31st ) " What you actually pointed out was that there had been no movement " I was referring to our exchange on the 29th.

By missing out both our quotes from the 29th ( accidentally ) you have been able to make me look like an idiot. I would be most grateful if you would allow me to make myself look like an idiot without changing the time line of our conversation to suit your end. These are the facts if you care to flick back a page or two ( 29th ) Cheers

Edited September 1, 2014 by comfortablynumb1910

[LJS]

your ability to discern is utterly dreadful.

In this vid from two year ago, Wood says "there could be 25 billion barrells, if we get it wrong there could be half that".

In Wood's report last November, Wood said "there's definitely 12Bn, and there might be as much as 24Bn. If the tax regime is changed we should be able to get 16Bn".

The other day he said "Salmond is over-stating by saying 24Bn. They'll hopefully be 16Bn".

UK Oil & Gas said after Wood that "there's 15.6Bn".

Has Wood changed his tune, or are you looking for hope where none exists?

You will be astonished to learn that I have read most of this stuff & if you are saying Sir Ian has not changed his position then "your ability to discern is utterly dreadful." ( to quote a reliable source!)

Edited September 1, 2014 by LJS

[Comfy Bean]

Thought this was an interesting and fair read on the difficulty with polling this. They conclude that NO will get there.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/08/31/uk-scotland-independence-polls-idUKKBN0GV08B20140831

Latest polling news due from YouGov at 10pm. Word on the street is it`s good news for YES. Fingers crossed

[LJS]

Meanwhile, the Telegraph has a story this morning about how Alex has privatised a part of the Scottish NHS and sold it to an American company. Isn't life strange?

really? - here's the link to the article I take it you are referring to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11066699/Alex-Salmond-accused-of-hypocrisy-over-warnings-about-privatisation-of-NHS.html

I guess the reason you didn't share the link is that a: it is clearly not a core NHS service & b: they do not even appear to have attempted to get a response from the Scottish Government. We have quotes from Scottish Labour, the Scottish Conservatives, Better Together & Gordon Brown.

What this article is, is a perfect example of the depths to which supposedly serious journalism has sunk in this country.It looks suspiciously like a Better Together/Scottish Labour press release uncritically recycled. I am no fan of the Telegraph ( & I guess you aren't either) but this is just rubbish.

[LJS]

YouGov? good news for yes? really?

Interviewing @AlexSalmond in the morning at a distillery. He'll be smiling & may even raise a glass when he sees latest YouGov poll

https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson

Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 10m

YouGov IndyRef poll for the Times finds NO leads down to just 6%. It was 18% in July. %age of LAB voters supporting YES up from 13% to 30

Who mentioned momentum?

Edited September 1, 2014 by LJS

[LJS]

BREAKING: Landmark Sun/YouGov poll puts Yes campaign within just 6 points of victory: http:///1rJvECC #IndyRef pic.twitter.com/u04rpQeNtK

https://twitter.com/thesunnewspaper/status/506539447673188352

[eFestivals]

You may continue to push your vision of doom based on a mixture of facts, opinions, projections & propaganda if you want - Comfy & I have made it pretty clear we are on a different agenda.

I get that you're on a different agenda. What you don't seem to get is that agenda only comes to fruition if everything about the 'vision of doom' is utterly wrong.

Your vision costs.

If everything is iScotland remains as good as it is now in Scotland (with no 'vision of doom')....

Scotland has a deficit of greater than £12Bn.

Scotland has the 3rd biggest deficit in the EU.

iScotland plans to increase that deficit if every pledge of Salmond is true.

iScotland plans to increase that deficit if your vision is true.

How?

The question that you will not consider and will not answer.

iScotland will suffer tory-type austerity and not a public spending spree. There's simply no other option for iScotland. Vote yes, get worse than tory.

Given the yes campaign, the irony is wonderful.

Edited September 2, 2014 by eFestivals