The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

no, THIS is a lie

 

"the creation of a sovereign wealth fund – a Scottish Energy Fund – to enhance both the Scottish Government’s ability to manage short-term fluctuations in oil revenues and to promote long-term fiscal sustainability"

 

Have you seen the Scottish Govt's own report on the viability of an oil fund?

 

(I tried googling for it earlier, but it was lost behind too many "vote indie to be fabulously rich" articles).

 

That SG report points out that if Salmond's claims were followed, there would be no oil fund because of the massive deficit Scotland runs.

[russycarps]

Have you seen the Scottish Govt's own report on the viability of an oil fund?

 

(I tried googling for it earlier, but it was lost behind too many "vote indie to be fabulously rich" articles).

 

That SG report points out that if Salmond's claims were followed, there would be no oil fund because of the massive deficit Scotland runs.

 

 

Just googled, like you all I can see is articles stating how fantastically wealthy scotland will be, and nonsensical comparisons with Norway. Things like this: 

 

 

"SNP ministers are due to publish figures which they say will show that "under any scenario" an independent Scotland will start life with strong public finances and that an independent Scottish government will have the option of starting to invest in an oil fund from 2016."

 

"The Norwegian Oil Fund began in the mid-1990s with only modest payments and is now the world's largest sovereign wealth fund, worth more than £500bn - while Scotland's oil fund stands at zero, as a result of Westminster mismanagement of our resources.

 

 

It's outrageous really. How many people voted for independence on the back of stuff like this? Even the claim that norway's fund is the largest in the world is an outrageous lie - it's 3rd behind china and UAE. There are lies absolutely everywhere.

[eFestivals]

Just googled, like you all I can see is articles stating how fantastically wealthy scotland will be, and nonsensical comparisons with Norway. Things like this: 

 

 

"SNP ministers are due to publish figures which they say will show that "under any scenario" an independent Scotland will start life with strong public finances and that an independent Scottish government will have the option of starting to invest in an oil fund from 2016."

 

"The Norwegian Oil Fund began in the mid-1990s with only modest payments and is now the world's largest sovereign wealth fund, worth more than £500bn - while Scotland's oil fund stands at zero, as a result of Westminster mismanagement of our resources.

 

 

It's outrageous really. How many people voted for independence on the back of stuff like this? Even the claim that norway's fund is the largest in the world is an outrageous lie - it's 3rd behind china and UAE. There are lies absolutely everywhere.

 

It also ignores the fact that the money was spent by Westminster on things such as supporting people all around the UK - who would have otherwise had those nasty welfare cuts (or greater cuts) that people like LJS find so objectionable - yet another example of a belief that one pile of oil money can be spent multiple times.

 

It also pretends that everything about Norway and the UK is equal, when it's not. Noway had around the same amount of oil as the UK, but with just 1/10th of the population to spend it on.

 

And it ignores all of the very bad effects that the existence of the oil had on what became an oil-dependent economy, because in SNP-fantasyland there's only good things that happen.

 

And finally .... just as the SNP comments about "the arc of prosperity" suddenly stopped when it turned out that the prosperity was faked with fantasy money, the comments about the wonders of Norway will have to soon cease too. Snippers will know this if they've been paying attention to the facts, but I suspect they've only been paying attention to and mindlessly repeating the mindlessly divisive propaganda of the SNP.

Edited July 31, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

I asked you countless times what you were selling to those you were trying to convince, and while you chose to answer other posts you never answered that one - so it doesn't take a genius to know which you were doing.

But if it is a lie, that means you were trying to convince those others by saying "vote yourself poorer" - which means you accept it was that and now you're talking crap about how the oil price wasn't important.

So pick whichever 'lie' you want LJS, and neither makes you look credible. Still, that's what you were selling , nothing credible.

I have answered this many times. I never used the promise of wealth in my argument. Indeed I made it clear that I did not expect such wealth. I made it clear that, in my view, Scotland would be better off in many ways. Unlike you. I always make it clear that I am giving an opinion & other views are available.

I am not arrogant enough to believe that my opinions are uncontested facts.

[eFestivals]

Indeed I made it clear that I did not expect such wealth.

I know you did, in your posts here.

But I don't believe you put it that way - essentially "vote yourself financially poorer" - to those people you were trying to convince to vote yes in the last week or two before last Sept's vote.

Did you?

 

 

 

I made it clear that, in my view, Scotland would be better off in many ways.

Again, i know that's what you've said constantly.

What you've not really been able to indentify tho is the things which it would be better off with. So very many of them are fully dependent on the money available to do things with, when you cannot say where the money might come from.

After all, you cannot (say) pay higher welfare with less money, and so much of the 'berter' you hope for disappears in a blink of an eye in the real world.

All you're really left with is a belief that decisions made in Scotland will be better, but with the decision to vote indy being the first decision made in Scotland and that one turning out for the worst.

 

Unlike you. I always make it clear that I am giving an opinion & other views are available.

Yep, I know that snipper opinions trump all facts. Like the opinion that there's a secret oil field off Shetland that Westminster has had made secret, that would be made public after the indyref. It's funny how that opinion can't bring that oil field into existence.

 

I am not arrogant enough to believe that my opinions are uncontested facts.

That's a good thing, because often they're proven-wrong facts.

You're a man who believes an economy can be inflated at any time and with a surplus to that inflation (so it more than pays for itself). Just click your fingers and everything of Scotland's deficit is cured, so we don't have to worry about how much is spent.

tell you what, forget all of that.

Why not just list the "many ways" that you think "Scotland would be better off in many ways" - and then we can see if they stand-up &/or what effects you don't want to think about that opinion and choice of yours would have.

iScotland would be better off in these ways:-

[ LJS to fill in the details ]

Edited July 31, 2015 by eFestivals

[kaosmark2]

iScotland would be better off in these ways:-

[ LJS to fill in the details ]

Free of Westminster evil, which is the most corrupt and unbearable government in the world, which we must rise up against and overthrow, but only free Scotland from their oppressors, because those nasty English deserve such abhorrent rulers.

[eFestivals]

Free of Westminster evil, which is the most corrupt and unbearable government in the world, which we must rise up against and overthrow, but only free Scotland from their oppressors, because those nasty English deserve such abhorrent rulers.

 

an idea I have some sympathy towards, but there's no guarantee of anything better from a sovereign Scottish govt.

 

Firstly, all sovereign govts are pretty poorly regarded by their citizens nowadays, and it would soon be the same in Scotland.

 

Secondly, how much does any corruption at Westminster really matter if a sovereign Scottish govt performs worse for real people in Scotland? If people in Scotland end up with a worse deal from a non-corrupt Scottish govt than they do a corrupt Westminster one, where's the 'better'?

 

And thirdly, the sovereign Scottish govt would have to be the world's only non-corrupt govt to not end up with the same corrupt label ... and given that there's a few obvious (and even proven) instances of corruption around the Scottish govt already, that battle is already lost.

[kaosmark2]

an idea I have some sympathy towards, but there's no guarantee of anything better from a sovereign Scottish govt.

 

Firstly, all sovereign govts are pretty poorly regarded by their citizens nowadays, and it would soon be the same in Scotland.

 

Secondly, how much does any corruption at Westminster really matter if a sovereign Scottish govt performs worse for real people in Scotland? If people in Scotland end up with a worse deal from a non-corrupt Scottish govt than they do a corrupt Westminster one, where's the 'better'?

 

And thirdly, the sovereign Scottish govt would have to be the world's only non-corrupt govt to not end up with the same corrupt label ... and given that there's a few obvious (and even proven) instances of corruption around the Scottish govt already, that battle is already lost.

 

A while ago I asked LJS whether he'd prefer serious Westminster reform or Scottish Independence and he answered with the latter. I lost a lot of sympathy then as it felt like Westminster problems had just become an excuse.

[eFestivals]

A while ago I asked LJS whether he'd prefer serious Westminster reform or Scottish Independence and he answered with the latter. I lost a lot of sympathy then as it felt like Westminster problems had just become an excuse.

that's what happens with nationalism - facts, sense and what is best is lost to identity and the blaming of others.

I'm just about convinced that the SNP will turn anti-EU if the UK votes to stay in, because it's important for driving the wedge to always take a different position to Westminster, plus a lot of the white paper was anti-EU despite the 'we love the EU' claims. Once the scope of Chicken Dave's asked-for EU-reforms - not a lot - becomes clear it'll be hard for the SNP to maintain the myth that they only have to ask for the EU to change the rules to anything Scotland says.

 

So if that SNP U-turn happens, it'll be fun watching the snippers each do their own personal about-turns and claim principles and consistency.

Edited July 31, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

 

tell you what, forget all of that.

Why not just list the "many ways" that you think "Scotland would be better off in many ways" - and then we can see if they stand-up &/or what effects you don't want to think about that opinion and choice of yours would have.

iScotland would be better off in these ways:-

[ LJS to fill in the details ]

 

Right, first off what I am about to write is based on the assumption that Scotland is a Nation (which of course we would be if we were independent, ok? In other words any claim that we aren't now is entirely irrelevant to my point aka a squirrel)

 

Ok I'll give you four for starters . 

 

1: the UK government (quite rightly) has to balance the needs of different parts of the UK. This is its job but in doing so there will be inevitable compromises. Policies that benefit The vast rural wildernesses of the Scottish Highlands are highly unlikely to benefit the City of London. This can be mitigated to some extent by devolution. However as long as we remain one country, there will be conflict here. the Scottish economy is different in many ways from that of the UK as a whole and it is common sense that a government whose first priority was to maximise the efficiency of the Scottish economy should be able to make it perform better than a government whose policies would inevitably be massively influenced by the very different needs & priorities of the South East of England

 

2: There is significant evidence that small countries are "nimbler" in reacting to changes in the World economy giving them a competitive advantage in comparison with larger countries.

 

3:The rise of the SNP, coupled with the campaigning leftward movement from them, is starting to reflect itself in a significant schism in political priorities north & south of the border. This coincides with a situation where there is much less chance of these views being reflected by a Westminster government. In other words voters have a greater chance of having a government that reflects their views in an Independent Scotland than they have within the UK.

 

4: in the medium term Scotland is very strongly placed, due to its abundance of accessible renewable energy. Whilst this is not money spinner right now (indeed quite the reverse) there can be little doubt that in the not too distant future this will be a significant strength for Scotland & if its not, it's not just Scotland that's doomed... it's all of us.

 

no doubt you will reply with your usual greed based argument...

 

 

 

 

Don't bother.... I'm not interested

 

p.s. please stop lying & saying that I accepted that Scotland would be poorer after Indy. 

 

[LJS]

that's what happens with nationalism - facts, sense and what is best is lost to identity and the blaming of others.

 

 oh Aye, says the man who passes off his opinions as proven facts & has never blamed anyone

 

get reil neal

Edited July 31, 2015 by LJS

[LJS]

just found a photo of ljs, comfy and viberunner

 

 

 

 

& here's Neil & Russy

 

Edited July 31, 2015 by LJS

[LJS]

no, THIS is a lie

 

"the creation of a sovereign wealth fund – a Scottish Energy Fund – to enhance both the Scottish Government’s ability to manage short-term fluctuations in oil revenues and to promote long-term fiscal sustainability"

 

Maybe it is... but I didn't say it.

 

Neil has lied about what I said to people in private conversations. He cannot possibly know what was said but brazenly states that I promised them a Scotland awash with money.You clearly agree with him, Quite what your quote has to do with this I have no idea. You guys stoop pretty low sometimes. 

[LJS]

A while ago I asked LJS whether he'd prefer serious Westminster reform or Scottish Independence and he answered with the latter. I lost a lot of sympathy then as it felt like Westminster problems had just become an excuse.

 

I don't remember this, although I don't dispute your recollection ( you are much less guilty than Neil & Russy at wildly misrepresenting what i say) 

 

I'd merely make the following observations:

 

If you'd asked me 5 years ago if i'd ever vote for Scottish independence, I'd have answered "no". I changed my mind.

The prospect of "serious Westminster reform" seems fairly remote to me, so I may have answered the question based on that. 

 

I have never committed my vote further ahead than the next election/referendum & I will make my decision based on the situation at that time. Much as I hanker after a change in the electoral system, abolition of the house of lords & a legislature that is not in thrall to the establishment & the city of London, that by itself would not be enough, if the majority in the rest of the UK continue to inflict increasingly right wing governments on my country particularly if Scotland continues to vote left.

 

If I really try, I can envisage a situation where a revitalised Labour party rediscovers its roots & its passion & sweeps to power on a truly reformist package. That would certainly make me consider changing my vote.

 

I'm not holding my breath though. 

[eFestivals]

Neil has lied about what I said to people in private conversations. He cannot possibly know what was said but brazenly states that I promised them a Scotland awash with money.You clearly agree with him, Quite what your quote has to do with this I have no idea. You guys stoop pretty low sometimes.

1. I never said that.

2. I've asked you many times what you did tell them

3. You've always avoided giving an answer just as you've done again here.

4. I wonder why.

Edited August 1, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

1: the UK government (quite rightly) has to balance the needs of different parts of the UK. This is its job but in doing so there will be inevitable compromises. Policies that benefit The vast rural wildernesses of the Scottish Highlands are highly unlikely to benefit the City of London. This can be mitigated to some extent by devolution. However as long as we remain one country, there will be conflict here. the Scottish economy is different in many ways from that of the UK as a whole and it is common sense that a government whose first priority was to maximise the efficiency of the Scottish economy should be able to make it perform better than a government whose policies would inevitably be massively influenced by the very different needs & priorities of the South East of England

It's certainly true that Scotland has different economic needs. The greatest one it has is the need of the rUK as its export market. There's no developed country in the world so dependent on one other state for its export market.

(there's some wonderful EU stats that show this very clearly, that I posted i this thread around September last year)

 

Now, how do you think that market might bear up if they were different countries?

 

Scotland has for a long time had a culture of buying from within Scotland (unlike England), and all countries look internally first for their needs - so it's very likely Scotland will lose demand from its most important market, costing jobs and income for scotland.

 

To which the answer inevitably comes "we'll find new markets".

 

To which the only sensible reply is: is Scotland currently choosing to be less successful than it could be?

 

Cos that's what that idea means in the real world. New markets are not there to be collected like used stamps, they have to be won and Scotland isn't able to win those markets at the moment so it's unlikely they would if indie - unless the prices fell, and incomes and wealth in Scotland did too.

 

Meanwhile, Scotland's economy currently performs at around the UK average level - showing that the UK govt does not ignore Scotland, has not abandoned Scotland to the life of shite claimed by the SNP, and that expanding Scotland's economy is very likely to be extremely difficult.

 

No developed country has sustainably expanded its economy by the amounts that the SNP claim they'll manage ... and the SNP haven't even presented a plan of how this miraculous expansion might happen.

 

(tho they have said they'll let the rich run away with even more money than currently, in the hope of robbing tax income from other nation states [as opposed to any entrepreneurial activities] elsewhere by operating as a tax haven - very left wing )

 

 

2: There is significant evidence that small countries are "nimbler" in reacting to changes in the World economy giving them a competitive advantage in comparison with larger countries.

There is significant hyperbole from one particular small country, can you guess which one?

 

Because of small countries having less diverse economies as a natural consequence of their size, the advantage of that 'nimbler' for the things a country already does is equally offset by the many greater times that nothing-happening-at-all comes around for all the things that country doesn't do.

 

Scotland is not going to fade away on account of being a small nation but neither is it going to surge ahead just because it's a small nation either. Greater success will come from harder work, not magic.

 

 

3:The rise of the SNP, coupled with the campaigning leftward movement from them, is starting to reflect itself in a significant schism in political priorities north & south of the border. This coincides with a situation where there is much less chance of these views being reflected by a Westminster government. In other words voters have a greater chance of having a government that reflects their views in an Independent Scotland than they have within the UK.

There's a govt that reflects views and there's the ability of that govt to implement those views. The two things can be miles apart.

 

For example, the modicum of social justice that the tories deliver can very easily end up being a greater amount of social justice than can be delivered by a much more financially-strapped nation that's keen on social justice.

 

Feel free to note how the SNP and snippers everywhere tried to dodge that bullet, by telling Scotland's pensioners that their pensions at current levels were guaranteed because the UK had said so - when that the UK actually said is that the continuation of pensions would be guaranteed .... but guaranteed to be paid by the new sovereign Scottish Govt and not rUK as a part of the independence agreement, and where nothing of the levels of those pensions was guaranteed into the future, or even pensions at all (if the SG decided to abolish them [not that I'm really suggesting it might]).

 

The ability for any govt to pay welfare is not defined by a theoretical willingness to have a welfare system, but by having the money available to pay for that desired welfare system.

 

I've seen claims (I don't know if they're correct) that income taxes in Scotland would have to rise by 20% to cover just the current "unsatisfactory" (for Scotland) levels of UK welfare payments.

 

It's certainly true that Scotland has a massive and unsustainable deficit at its current spending levels, so taxes would need to rise significantly or welfare payments would have to be cut significantly.

 

 

4: in the medium term Scotland is very strongly placed, due to its abundance of accessible renewable energy. Whilst this is not money spinner right now (indeed quite the reverse) there can be little doubt that in the not too distant future this will be a significant strength for Scotland & if its not, it's not just Scotland that's doomed... it's all of us.

Everywhere has land and sea for windfarms and solar generation. Many places are better placed for solar generation.

 

Scotland's renewable sector has been funded by the UK, at levels iScotland could never have afforded.

 

iScotland would cease to have a guaranteed market for any renewable energy as it does currently, because rUK will buy from the cheapest source and not Scotland as it does currently.

 

----

 

See that flying pie over there in the sky? That's you, that is.

 

Perhaps try mixing a bit of reality into your biggest hopes?

[LJS]

1. I never said that.

Really?

"But I also know that you refused to sell indie on the basis of what you believed might happen, instead promising those you were trying to convince to vote yes that only a bountiful future awaited them."

[eFestivals]

Really?

"But I also know that you refused to sell indie on the basis of what you believed might happen, instead promising those you were trying to convince to vote yes that only a bountiful future awaited them."

 

I have to make a presumption because you refuse to answer a simple question ... you much prefer the diversion of an argument than actually addressing what you've been asked - as you've just done again.

 

You very clearly didn't tell those people that you were trying to convince to vote yes your fears that iScotland might be significantly economically poorer.

 

Why sell bullshit, LJS? Isn't that one of the horrible things that tories do?

[LJS]

I have to make a presumption because you refuse to answer a simple question ... you much prefer the diversion of an argument than actually addressing what you've been asked - as you've just done again.

 

I'm calling out your lies about me which you continue to peddle unrepentantly.

 

You very clearly didn't tell those people that you were trying to convince to vote yes your fears that iScotland might be significantly economically poorer.

 

That is absolutely correct because I did not & do not believe that Scotland would be "significantly economically poorer" in the long run. I certainly did make it clear that in my opinion things cold be tough for the first few years - I also made it clear that there were other opinions available because we were dealing with projections for the future. I also consistently made it clear that I did not believe dome of the more optimistic financial projections. I really don't give a flying fuck if you believe me or not, just kindly refrain from claiming to know what went on in these conversation better than I do. Thank you. The post above where I gave four arguments for Indy would be a fair reflection of much of what I did say.

 

Why sell bullshit, LJS? Isn't that one of the horrible things that tories do?

 

Interestingly one of the things I always said to people was that I would respect their decision if they decided to vote No. You kow? respecting the opinions of others. I did not tell them they would be falling for bullshit if they voted no.

[eFestivals]

I'm calling out your lies about me which you continue to peddle unrepentantly.

And i'm calling out your claim of me lying.

You won't even prove me a liar by making the statement that would prove me that liar.

Squirrels. Anything to avoid the facts.

Edited August 1, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

That is absolutely correct because I did not & do not believe that Scotland would be "significantly economically poorer" in the long run.

Then you'll need to explain how come, because as things stand it is 100% certain that it would be significantly economically poorer.

Crossing your fingers and hoping does not change that current certainty.

Would it be changed via a mythical plan of the SNPs which they've never explained the details of, apart from by promising huge economic growth never before seen in a developed economy?

 

(Salmond has pointed at other newly independent states and said "look, big growth". What he's failed to also point at is the massive crisis that crashed their economies just beforehand to create the space for making up some of [*just* 'some of'] that pre-indie loss.)

 

Hopes on the basis of what you or Salmond have invented in your head is proper vacuous bollocks, the stuff of idiots. Give us plans, solid ideas, proven ideas - of which you and Salmond and Sturgeon have none.

 

Currently, the ideas for iScotland are missing:-

 

1. a currency

2. a workable budget

3. EU entry criteria

 

Before you can even start to get your hopes to fly, these things need addressing with solid (and in the case of the EU, compatible) plans.

 

 

Interestingly one of the things I always said to people was that I would respect their decision if they decided to vote No. You kow? respecting the opinions of others. I did not tell them they would be falling for bullshit if they voted no.

 

Yep, you respect their opinion so much you're desperate to have their opinions binned in favour or a re-vote that you hope will have them change their opinions to match yours.

 

It's proven that you voted 'yes' on the basis of bullshit, by the oil price crashing to a price that Salmond stated was impossible.

 

(and it's worth pointing out, 'no' pointed out this could happen, and 'yes' dismissed that as 'a lie', and 'project fear' - when it's now proven truth)

Edited August 1, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Then you'll need to explain how come, because as things stand it is 100% certain that it would be significantly economically poorer.

Crossing your fingers and hoping does not change that current certainty.

Would it be changed via a mythical plan of the SNPs which they've never explained the details of, apart from by promising huge economic growth never before seen in a developed economy?

 

(Salmond has pointed at other newly independent states and said "look, big growth". What he's failed to also point at is the massive crisis that crashed their economies just beforehand to create the space for making up some of [*just* 'some of'] that pre-indie loss.)

 

Hopes on the basis of what you or Salmond have invented in your head is proper vacuous bollocks, the stuff of idiots. Give us plans, solid ideas, proven ideas - of which you and Salmond and Sturgeon have none.

 

Currently, the ideas for iScotland are missing:-

 

1. a currency

2. a workable budget

3. EU entry criteria

 

Before you can even start to get your hopes to fly, these things need addressing with solid (and in the case of the EU, compatible) plans.

 

Of course they do, before any future referendum. It may have escaped your attention, Neil but there isn't a proposed referendum at the moment. If the SNP propose a referendum without clear policies on the above areas, they need their heads examined & I shall say so!

 

 

 

Yep, you respect their opinion so much you're desperate to have their opinions binned in favour or a re-vote that you hope will have them change their opinions to match yours.

 

Lie no. 1: Am I currently campaigning for a new referendum? No, Neil I'm not. so yet again you are talking utter bollocks.

 

It's proven that you voted 'yes' on the basis of bullshit, by the oil price crashing to a price that Salmond stated was impossible.

 

Lie no. 2: I think you have memory issues. I'll repeat it again. My yes vote was not based on oil, it was based on a desire for better & fairer government.

 

(and it's worth pointing out, 'no' pointed out this could happen, and 'yes' dismissed that as 'a lie', and 'project fear' - when it's now proven truth)

 

Your point is? I was not the SNP or the YES campaign. However as usual when your arguments against me turn out to be baseless you bring up Salmond, the SNP, Murdoch etc etc - what is the collective noun for squirrels?

[eFestivals]

I see someone has finally managed to catch up with Sturgeon on her world tour...

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon/11775621/Nicola-Sturgeon-warns-David-Cameron-not-to-block-referendum.html

 

I just love how she says "there will only be another referendum if a majority of people in Scotland want it" - which would require a referendum on whether to have a referendum - but also that "she said earlier this week that she would ultimately decide if another vote would be staged".

 

Ultimately tho it's all just bullshit. The people of Scotland don't get to decide unless the SNP stand on just the one policy of a referendum or there's a referendum on whether to have a referendum, and the decision is hers alone ....

 

But whatever might be in the SNP's manifesto, it just ain't going to happen; she'll find ways to dodge it happening because she knows there absolutely fuck all chance of her winning right now, and nothing that might happen (such as the UK voting out of the EU, perhaps) is going to significantly change a majority 'no' to a majority 'yes' in the short-term.

 

Because the people of Scotland won't accept the uncertainty of a new currency, and they certainly won't accept the economic hardship and the failure in delivery of their dreams that Scotland's economic position would cause.

 

Those things can perhaps be overcome in the longer term, but there's no quick fix.

[eFestivals]

Of course they do, before any future referendum. It may have escaped your attention, Neil but there isn't a proposed referendum at the moment. If the SNP propose a referendum without clear policies on the above areas, they need their heads examined & I shall say so!

whoa!!! You got confused by my long reply.

The SNP promised massive economic growth in the last referendum campaign (cos Scotland would be fucked without it, remember?), but they gave no plan at all of how it would be done.

 

So by your own words, both the SNP and yourself need your heads examined.

 

Lie no. 1: Am I currently campaigning for a new referendum? No, Neil I'm not. so yet again you are talking utter bollocks.

 

OK, try it the other way around.

If the SNP announced today a new vote for 6 months time on the basis that polls suggested they'd win, would you reject it as disrespectful to the last vote and condemn the SNP for having it, and boycott the vote?

C'mon, don't spout bull. We both know you'd welcome the opportunity with both hands.

 

Lie no. 2: I think you have memory issues. I'll repeat it again. My yes vote was not based on oil, it was based on a desire for better & fairer government.

But you also just said you didn't believe you'd be worse off if indy, and the crashed oil price proves the white paper economic assumptions to be a worthless crock of shite. You very definitely would be worse off under indie.

So you are not being consistent. Either the crashed oil price has Scottish people paying a price or it doesn't... and if the crashed oil price is to have no effect on Scotland, what will make up the short-fall that crashed-price causes to govt revenues? Even more of that plan-less fantasy never-achieved growth that you hope for?

 

Your point is? I was not the SNP or the YES campaign. However as usual when your arguments against me turn out to be baseless you bring up Salmond, the SNP, Murdoch etc etc - what is the collective noun for squirrels?

What?

Are you really trying to claim that the SNP and Yes campaigns didn't both brush of what is now proven truth as "bluster and lies" and all the other stock rhetoric?

FFS, LJS, you're really losing it.

Edited August 1, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

 

 

 

OK, try it the other way around.

If the SNP announced today a new vote for 6 months time on the basis that polls suggested they'd win, would you reject it as disrespectful to the last vote and condemn the SNP for having it, and boycott the vote?

C'mon, don't spout bull. We both know you'd welcome the opportunity with both hands.

 

 

The SNP has no mandate (by their own standards) to announce such a vote &  the polls are not currently saying they would win, so this question is about as hypothetical as it gets. One thing the SNP have demonstrated in abundance is that they are not daft. Trying to force through another Indyref now would be daft. Whether I would vote yes or not is pretty much irrelevant as it would almost certainly fail. I certainly wouldn't boycott it. I always vote. I also don't make my mind up how I vote until I see the proposition before me.