The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

there's no alternative to balancing the books.

Outside of that different policies are possible, but balancing the books is the part where 'austerity' comes in.

Abandoning austerity means spending money you don't have.

So, under austerity we've not been spending money we don't have?

[eFestivals]

So, under austerity we've not been spending money we don't have?

I'll ignore your pointless question.

How is it left wing to need to borrow more, that the rich don't contribute more towards? - which is Nicola's plan.

And how is the fairer society that she says wants a fairer society a society where your kids and grandkids will be paying a greater amount of your bills than is the plans of the tories and Labour?

All she's asking is to kick the can down the road a little, to give money to people in Scotland - people like you who might vote for her - right now at their kids extra expense.

All she's asking is to the right of Labour, while Labour are wanting to take from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

[kaosmark2]

The question of how far too make austerity cuts is a big one, that goes beyond party politics or left-wing/right-wing. Ultimately, you want to do it in a way that is the least harmful on both people living now and younger/future generations.

About the only thing you shouldn't do, is filter it all to the wealthy, particularly wealthy pensioners, in a chase for votes.

[eFestivals]

The question of how far too make austerity cuts is a big one, that goes beyond party politics or left-wing/right-wing. Ultimately, you want to do it in a way that is the least harmful on both people living now and younger/future generations.

About the only thing you shouldn't do, is filter it all to the wealthy, particularly wealthy pensioners, in a chase for votes.

I'd say it's definitely a left/right issue.

The better off can afford to pay towards those in need. If we as society aren't prepared to make them pay then we're kidding ourselves about our real wants and motivations with getting future generations to pay for it via the national debt.

Nothing about that is altruistic, it's the ultimate in "me me me" thinking, by giving "me" everything "I" want, while pretending to be doing something for others - when that 'something for others' will actually be paid for by future generations.

[MichaelsBeard]

Unbelievable new claim from Sturgeon. No 2nd place party has formed a government in UK history!

/MgLBynFCKJ

[kaosmark2]

I'd say it's definitely a left/right issue.

The better off can afford to pay towards those in need. If we as society aren't prepared to make them pay then we're kidding ourselves about our real wants and motivations with getting future generations to pay for it via the national debt.

Nothing about that is altruistic, it's the ultimate in "me me me" thinking, by giving "me" everything "I" want, while pretending to be doing something for others - when that 'something for others' will actually be paid for by future generations.

Taxation vs austerity is definitely a left/right issue. My point was that austerity now vs borrowing and paying it back later isn't.

[kaosmark2]

Unbelievable new claim from Sturgeon. No 2nd place party has formed a government in UK history!

/MgLBynFCKJ

Nah, that's not an unbelievable claim.

The reason it wouldn't happen is because both parties would be poisoned by going into coalition. Nowt to 2 with 2nd place party. Sturgeon's just laying groundwork so that if the election produces that result she can accuse Labour of being uncooperative and saying she'd have been prepared to form coalition. It's nowt to do with what will happen.

[MichaelsBeard]

Nah, that's not an unbelievable claim.

The reason it wouldn't happen is because both parties would be poisoned by going into coalition. Nowt to 2 with 2nd place party. Sturgeon's just laying groundwork so that if the election produces that result she can accuse Labour of being uncooperative and saying she'd have been prepared to form coalition. It's nowt to do with what will happen.

That's what I meant. There's zero chance of it happening and she knows that full well.

It's obviously her response to the 'vote SNP, get Tory' line. Deceiving SNP voters as she knows realistically it's got no legs at all.

Edited February 11, 2015 by MichaelsBeard

[kaosmark2]

That's what I meant. There's zero chance of it happening and she knows that full well.

Ah yeah.

I still think a Clegg-less Lib Dem could form a decent government with Labour. Decent rather than good, but tolerable instead of a constant series of kicks to the crotch.

[LJS]

Unbelievable new claim from Sturgeon. No 2nd place party has formed a government in UK history!

/MgLBynFCKJ

You are incorrect. Ramsay MacDonald, 1924. Labour came second by a distance but formed a government with support from the liberals.

[MichaelsBeard]

You are incorrect. Ramsay MacDonald, 1924. Labour came second by a distance but formed a government with support from the liberals.

Apologies. That was before all adults had the right to vote though. Certainly in our modern democracy it hasn't happened.

[LJS]

That's what I meant. There's zero chance of it happening and she knows that full well.

It's obviously her response to the 'vote SNP, get Tory' line. Deceiving SNP voters as she knows realistically it's got no legs at all.

I agree wholeheartedly with you that the "vote SNP, get Tory" line is deceiving SNP voters & has no legs at all.

Well said that man

More accurate of course would be "vote Labour get Tory" which is what happens about half the time.

Or "Vote Labour, get New Labour (now with added Toryness!)

Edited February 11, 2015 by LJS

[LJS]

That 'fairer and more just society argument', I've heard that before and obviously understand the appeal. But can you tell me how exactly independence brings that about?

More power centralised in one layer of government closer to home doesn't equal fairer and better. Particularly when it's the current Scottish Government, which hasn't exactly demonstrated it's commitment to a fairer and better society using the powers it currently has. It's a just a variation on the same policies that apply elsewhere - concessions to businesses at the expense of their customers, widening educational inequality, tax breaks that erode public services, courting pensioner votes at everyone else's expense.

Independence isn't a means to an end, it's a reactionary solution looking for a problem. The SNP position is 'we're in favour of independence, now lets find some reasons to convince everyone else'. And those reasons are constantly changing.

The previous model for glorious independence (be more like Ireland & Iceland/join the Euro/extreme banking deregulation) would have been an absolute disaster for Scotland. But that doesn't seem to be a hindrance to people accepting SNP arguments this time.

Toly, I have written at length in the past of my hopes for a post Indy Scotland, I have neither the time nor the energy to go over it again.

Nah, you've got it wrong.

Indy is all about causing the ruination of the UK including bringing horrors onto Scotland - because only after some SNP-caused extra Westminster horror for Scotland will a majority of people in Scotland actually find an Indy Scotland a more attractive proposition.

You could always listen to Nicola today if you have the time

I was very impressed & as you (should) know (but regularly choose to forget), I am not a slavish follower of the SNP

there's no alternative to balancing the books.

Outside of that different policies are possible, but balancing the books is the part where 'austerity' comes in.

Abandoning austerity means spending money you don't have.

No one is arguing that we should continue with a deliberate policy of deliberately continuing to run a deficit (unlike the current government's policy, broadly supported by Labour, of accidentally continuing to run a deficit.)

Given you encyclopaedic knowledge of just about everything, I am sure you are aware that there are other views on how best to deal with the deficit than those of the two main parties.

http://falseeconomy.org.uk/cure/whats-the-best-way-to-reduce-the-deficit

[eFestivals]

Nah, that's not an unbelievable claim.

The reason it wouldn't happen is because both parties would be poisoned by going into coalition. Nowt to 2 with 2nd place party. Sturgeon's just laying groundwork so that if the election produces that result she can accuse Labour of being uncooperative and saying she'd have been prepared to form coalition. It's nowt to do with what will happen.

What I'm so SO amazed about is how so few SNP voters realise that the SNP are playing games for indy, and not games for good policies for the UK. The SNP cannot ever say that Westminster has done something well, as that destroys the reason for their own existence.

It takes a special kind of dimness to fail to recognise that. so perhaps Scotland does have something exceptional after all.

Edited February 12, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

More accurate of course would be "vote Labour get Tory" which is what happens about half the time.

and, actually accurately - rather than self-serving SNP bollocks - "vote any party get something different" happens to over half the voters every time, but let's just ignore the whole truth, eh?

After all, that doesn't suit the SNP propaganda.

Even in Scotland's wonderful utopian democracy that happens, and those SNP voters think they're introducing a new rule that works like this: "vote tory get nothing ever" - as tho that's something better than their own moronic "vote Labour get tory".

[eFestivals]

You could always listen to Nicola today if you have the time

I watched it live thanks, where I don't have to rely on any SNP editring the video to make Nicola look betrter.

She said "give Scotland England's money, and Scotland will give you nothing back, and we certainly won't help to pay the debts we demand you create for us".

Very impressive it was too. I actually managed to stop laughing at one point.

No one is arguing that we should continue with a deliberate policy of deliberately continuing to run a deficit

True. The differences are about who pays off the deficit, and when it gets paid off.

The tories say the poor should pay it off, and right now.

The SNP say that England should pay it off, after Scotland has left the UK.

And Labour say that it should be paid off by all of society including the rich.

Which one do you think people in England dislike the most?

(unlike the current government's policy, broadly supported by Labour, of accidentally continuing to run a deficit.)

and because Nicola is perfect, her economic plans won't have any accidents?

Which is funny, cos the oil price seems to have crashed.

Given you encyclopaedic knowledge of just about everything

all it takes is paying attention. Perhaps try it sometime? Perhaps even pay attention to the party you plan to support in making a tory govt?

I am sure you are aware that there are other views on how best to deal with the deficit than those of the two main parties.

I am, cos I pay attention.

The best ones - the left leaning ones - involve the rich paying their fair share.

And not getting a free pass which is Nicola Sturgeon's plan. Nicola Sturgeon's plan has the poor pay off the debts, while the rich get a 3% cut in taxes.

In Nicola Sturgeon's world, the rich deserve a 3% cut in taxes, and the poor pay them to have that.

How do I know? Cos I listen to Nicola and Alex, and don't believe the gospel of WoS.

Perhaps try it yourself? You'll be smarter for it.

Edited February 12, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

What I'm so SO amazed about is how so few SNP voters realise that the SNP are playing games for indy, and not games for good policies for the UK. The SNP cannot ever say that Westminster has done something well, as that destroys the reason for their own existence.

It takes a special kind of dimness to fail to recognise that. so perhaps Scotland does have something exceptional after all.

The Snp may find itself in uncharted territory after May. I, for one, will be disappointed if they use that position in the way you assume they will. Listening to Nicola, that is clearly not what she is proposing, although you will no doubt interpret that as game playing.

I find it amusing when you talk about the Snp being unable to give credit to Westminster for anything. I think exactly the same could be said of you & the SNP.

[eFestivals]

PS: no nat can ever again point at the UK's debt and say it's nothing to do with Scotland.

At least one good thing has come from Nicola's speech, and admission of Scotland's debt to the UK.

[LJS]

I watched it live thanks, where I don't have to rely on any SNP editring the video to make Nicola look betrter.

She said "give Scotland England's money, and Scotland will give you nothing back, and we certainly won't help to pay the debts we demand you create for us".

Very impressive it was too. I actually managed to stop laughing at one point.

True. The differences are about who pays off the deficit, and when it gets paid off.

The tories say the poor should pay it off, and right now.

The SNP say that England should pay it off, after Scotland has left the UK.

And Labour say that it should be paid off by all of society including the rich.

Which one do you think people in England dislike the most?

and because Nicola is perfect, her economic plans won't have any accidents?

Which is funny, cos the oil price seems to have crashed.

all it takes is paying attention. Perhaps try it sometime? Perhaps even pay attention to the party you plan to support in making a tory govt?

I am, cos I pay attention.

The best ones - the left leaning ones - involve the rich paying their fair share.

And not getting a free pass which is Nicola Sturgeon's plan. Nicola Sturgeon's plan has the poor pay off the debts, while the rich get a 3% cut in taxes.

In Nicola Sturgeon's world, the rich deserve a 3% cut in taxes, and the poor pay them to have that.

How do I know? Cos I listen to Nicola and Alex, and don't believe the gospel of WoS.

Perhaps try it yourself? You'll be smarter for it.

You must have watched a different speech from me & just for the record I watched it on the ucl you tube account, not any edited by anyone.

I agree with you, I would like to hear more from NS about taxing the wealthy. But then the SNP have not published their manifesto yet & I'll wager you a bottle of good malt whisky there is no 3% cut in corporation tax in it when they do!

[eFestivals]

The Snp may find itself in uncharted territory after May. I, for one, will be disappointed if they use that position in the way you assume they will.

PMSL. :lol:

The clue is in the party's name.

FFS. :lol: :lol:

If you're too stupid to know what you're voting for, should you be voting at all?

Listening to Nicola, that is clearly not what she is proposing, although you will no doubt interpret that as game playing.]

I listened. She said "Scotland offers nothing but Scotland demands England's money".

I say we should give her what she was demanding last week: full fiscal autonomy, and then we can sit back and watch Scotland drown.

(do i really want to wish bad things onto Scotland? Nope, not me. It's the SNP who do, with their demand for full fiscal autonomy and 10% extra cuts beyond the tories.)

I find it amusing when you talk about the Snp being unable to give credit to Westminster for anything. I think exactly the same could be said of you & the SNP.

I simply say what they are, back against the ridiculous view you have where they're benign.

And it is ridiculous. It doesn't get more ridiculous. The SNP's existence is all about destroying the UK, and not making it work well.

[eFestivals]

I agree with you, I would like to hear more from NS about taxing the wealthy.

"more"? "MORE"?

You are Harry Secombe and I claim my five pounds.

Care to tell me when she's EVER said anything about taxing the wealthy?

She's said "give them a tax cut". She's never said "tax them more".

FFS.

But then the SNP have not published their manifesto yet & I'll wager you a bottle of good malt whisky there is no 3% cut in corporation tax in it when they do!

So is that you finally admitting is that the SNP indy plans were a gift to the rich, and nothing left leaning at all?

[LJS]

"more"? "MORE"?

You are Harry Secombe and I claim my five pounds.

Care to tell me when she's EVER said anything about taxing the wealthy?

She's said "give them a tax cut". She's never said "tax them more".

FFS.

So is that you finally admitting is that the SNP indy plans were a gift to the rich, and nothing left leaning at all?

No. I kind of assume that you are smart enough not to take cheap shots like that. I should have known better.

[eFestivals]

No. I kind of assume that you are smart enough not to take cheap shots like that. I should have known better.

Is it a cheap shot?

She's never said anything about more-taxing the rich, either to do with the forthcoming election or around the indy campaign.

So how can you hear "more" of it from her?

This is the problem with trying to debate with SNP-ers (or kippers, come to that), their version of things will always be true when they're making it up out of nothing.

She's not going to start talking about higher taxes for the better off, unless she wants to scare away some of those many newbies. She has to try to be everything to everyone, but always in disagreement with Westminster. That's how nationalism on-the-up works, no different to how Farage does it.

[LJS]

Neil has clearly made his mind up about Nicola. I, on the other hand am keeping an open mind. As I previously said, I liked what i heard form her yesterday & although, I have some reservations yet around her attitude to persuading the well off to contribute more to society, I don't get the sense that SNP mp's in Westminster would be likely to oppose tax increases on the wealthy in principal. We will learn more in the coming weeks, no doubt.

Although, I am no less in favour of independence than I was during the indy campaign, I do not believe it would be right (or sensible) for the SNP to go Gung-Ho for massive concessions for Scotland as part of the deal Neil says cannot happen. if I feel they are doing so they certainly won't get my vote. Neil shouldn't need reminded (but sadly he does, regularly) that there is absolutely no certainty that I will vote SNP in May, although after yesterday's speech it is certainly.

If the SNP's position in May resembles what NS said last night, it beggars belief that a Labour party with the opportunity to form a government with the support of the SNP, would not even consider it. This could not possibly be on ideological grounds, as the policies set out by Sturgeon yesterday would attract considerable support among Labour supporters. It could only be out of spite & hatred (the motivations I am incorrectly accused of having for not voting Labour) If Labour effectively handed the power to the Tories by so doing, they would further damage any credibility they have no matter how much they will try & blame the SNP & the Scottish voters.

[LJS]

Ha Ha

Loving this

http://www.politicalcompass.org/yourukchart?name=You&ec=-7.0&soc=-6.15

Edited February 12, 2015 by LJS