The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Your point is a good one and I fully agree with it but we've been dancing around it for about a week now and Neil has circled his wagon. I predict more " robbing the rich banter in the morning ".

An income tax increase on folk with a household earned income of 15 grand was the example he gave in his table thingy and the same 1% increase on the high earners. I think NS has a different plan.....Fortunately! 

Did you see the latest polls?  On phone so can't link.

Massive support continues across the country with the younger folks in particular really solid. Especially when you consider 8 years now in govt. 

And the same problem still exists - that if you go indy you'll make those poorest far FAR poorer than a 1% income tax rise would put on them.

Do you want to save them from poverty via tax and redistribution, or do you want to push them more into poverty?

Go indy, and your prove your caring for the poor claims a lie.

Where's the £10Bn? Oh, I forgot, making those poor MUCH MUCH poorer is an "irrelevance", but helping via tax and redistribution is unacceptable, mean and nasty,.

You do know that the *average* tax-burden rise under independence necessary to continue at the current spend would be 16%-20%, don't you?

Might a 16% rise in taxes be a little more detrimental to the poorest than just a 1% rise? Not in the world of snippers, where Westminster is evil and gross stupidity is smart.

 

Edited December 22, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

Yes, saw the polls  - & I'm not on the phone so i can link. 

 

http://www.tns-bmrb.co.uk/press-release/snp-shrugs-opposition-attacks-increase-holyrood-poll-lead

The seemingly untouchable SNP continue to survive every slur & allegation thrown at them.

the independence party are scared of independence. Vote marginalisation, vote poverty.

They've been much more than 'touched' by them having no financial plans to sustain Scotland as it is now.

Snippers buying into lies and stupidity ("irrelevant" PMSL ) doesn't make the party smart, it makes their supporters the opposite of that - as you proved the other day when you called wings "largely correct" with the most laughable thing they've published since the wee blue book of bullshit.

 

[LJS]

15 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

the independence party are scared of independence. Vote marginalisation, vote poverty.

They've been much more than 'touched' by them having no financial plans to sustain Scotland as it is now.

Snippers buying into lies and stupidity ("irrelevant" PMSL ) doesn't make the party smart, it makes their supporters the opposite of that - as you proved the other day when you called wings "largely correct" with the most laughable thing they've published since the wee blue book of bullshit.

 

Still desperately clinging to that slur are we? You have not seriously challenged the points I made , instead using one point that I agree is tosh in a wos piece that otherwise is pretty accurate.

 

You are the master of squirrels.

 

[eFestivals]

15 minutes ago, LJS said:

Still desperately clinging to that slur are we? You have not seriously challenged the points I made , instead using one point that I agree is tosh in a wos piece that otherwise is pretty accurate.

 

You are the master of squirrels.

 

Slur? What slur? :lol:

The SNP have issued statements saying they're not working on another indy plan. And they're not working on one because they know there isn't one, not one that'll work.

Do you say that the missing £10Bn at indy was "irrelevant"? Yes you did (tho the poor won't think so, that's for sure).

Meanwhile, you've skipped over Swinney's big lie. Any reason why? :lol:

Is it a lie to claim the poorest would pay more or even the same? Yes it is.

Using SRIT would be 'progressive' by all definitions. But Scotland isn't progressive which we all knew anyway. It's as tory in its thinking as England is, as demonstrated by the SNP copying tory financial policies and being supported for it.

You say I've not challoanged the points you've made, but I felt I had. So care to make the points again more clearly, and I'll be happy to address them?

I don't run scared as I've nothing to be scared of ... unlike you running scared from Swinney's big lie and the massive unaddressable deficit.

 

Edited December 22, 2015 by eFestivals

[russycarps]

In other news, brent crude prices have plunged to an 11 year low. A devastating-for-an-indy-scotland-economy price of just $36.05 a barrel. 

I know comfy thinks that none of this matters now, because scotland wouldnt be independent yet and that come march 24 2016 oil prices will have recovered, but his prediction is looking rather shaky considering more US and Russian oil than ever is reaching the markets, Saudi is still pumping at record levels and Iranian oil will be re-entering the market in 2016. I am just wondering what he based his famous prediction on? 

I have also just been reading in more detail about the first loss in 40 years the north sea oil and gas industry made in the first half of the year. Quite remarkable really. £248m corporation tax and PRT collected, and £287m in rebates to producers paid out.

But I'm sure this is all just a blip, and the second oil boom that scotland is on the verge of is just around the corner, as promised by st nicola to the raving nationalists last year. 

 

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, russycarps said:

In other news, brent crude prices have plunged to an 11 year low. A devastating-for-an-indy-scotland-economy price of just $36.05 a barrel. 

I know comfy thinks that none of this matters now, because scotland wouldnt be independent yet and that come march 24 2016 oil prices will have recovered, but his prediction is looking rather shaky considering more US and Russian oil than ever is reaching the markets, Saudi is still pumping at record levels and Iranian oil will be re-entering the market in 2016. I am just wondering what he based his famous prediction on? 

I have also just been reading in more detail about the first loss in 40 years the north sea oil and gas industry made in the first half of the year. Quite remarkable really. £248m corporation tax and PRT collected, and £287m in rebates to producers paid out.

But I'm sure this is all just a blip, and the second oil boom that scotland is on the verge of is just around the corner, as promised by st nicola to the raving nationalists last year. 

A price rise is very probably around the (long) corner ... tho sadly it won't do much for Scotland.

Given that around 5% of the world's currently-active wells go out of production each year because the oil is exhausted and the current low price is causing no new wells to be commissioned, sooner or later the availability/supply will start to drop and the prices start to rise again - which will cause new wells to then be commissioned to take advantage of the higher prices.

Unfortunately for Scotland, new wells around Scotland are the ones that will have the highest commissioning costs in the world plus the highest operating costs and therefore will be the very last to get commissioned, and the profits from them will be low because of the much higher extraction costs ... and "the oil money" is based on extraction profits not the oil price, meaning the tax revenues will never again hit the heights of a few years ago.

In the meantime Scotland's economy is going to be badly hit as its oil industry lays off huge numbers of people, who are unlikely to find similar employment within Scotland either in the short term or long term.

And so comfy is right when he says "in 10 or 15 years time things will be different" because they will be - tho unfortunately for Scotland, not different-better but instead different-worse as it loses one of its major economic sectors.

(this low-price strategy isn't6 going to work out well for Saudi tho, because both Russia and Iran are able to produce and supply at a cost that can match Saudi, so unless Saudi is able to push Iran back into sanctions Saudi is fucked).

[russycarps]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

A price rise is very probably around the (long) corner ... tho sadly it won't do much for Scotland.

Given that around 5% of the world's currently-active wells go out of production each year because the oil is exhausted and the current low price is causing no new wells to be commissioned, sooner or later the availability/supply will start to drop and the prices start to rise again - which will cause new wells to then be commissioned to take advantage of the higher prices.

Unfortunately for Scotland, new wells around Scotland are the ones that will have the highest commissioning costs in the world plus the highest operating costs and therefore will be the very last to get commissioned, and the profits from them will be low because of the much higher extraction costs ... and "the oil money" is based on extraction profits not the oil price, meaning the tax revenues will never again hit the heights of a few years ago.

In the meantime Scotland's economy is going to be badly hit as its oil industry lays off huge numbers of people, who are unlikely to find similar employment within Scotland either in the short term or long term.

And so comfy is right when he says "in 10 or 15 years time things will be different" because they will be - tho unfortunately for Scotland, not different-better but instead different-worse as it loses one of its major economic sectors.

(this low-price strategy isn't6 going to work out well for Saudi tho, because both Russia and Iran are able to produce and supply at a cost that can match Saudi, so unless Saudi is able to push Iran back into sanctions Saudi is fucked).

I'm pretty sure comfy's first milestone was March 24th next year "let's wait and see how things are then" I recall him saying.

I presume on that date, assuming the position is largely unchanged from now, all of the raving nationalists will offer a full and frank statement admitting that if scotland had become independent on that date it would have been an utter catastrophe. 

You're right to mention jobs. I think the total of jobs in the oil and gas sector has fallen well below 400,000 now, and continues to fall. It's absolutely devastating for scotland, and for the poor sods who have been laid off.

 

 

 

 

 

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, russycarps said:

I'm pretty sure comfy's first milestone was March 24th next year "let's wait and see how things are then" I recall him saying.

I presume on that date, assuming the position is largely unchanged from now, all of the raving nationalists will offer a full and frank statement admitting that if scotland had become independent on that date it would have been an utter catastrophe. 

You're right to mention jobs. I think the total of jobs in the oil and gas sector has fallen well below 400,000 now, and continues to fall. It's absolutely devastating for scotland, and for the poor sods who have been laid off.

 

;

You're presuming far too much.

"The oil was just a bonus" and "Scotland contributes the same per head as the UK average", plus none of that's relevant anyway because "Scotland pays more in than it gets back".

These are the three basic mantras, where one or more has to be repeated endlessly. As LJS got to show the other day, the most ridiculous myth is considered largely correct.

Edited December 22, 2015 by eFestivals

[russycarps]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

;

You're presuming far too much.

"The oil was just a bonus" and "Scotland contributes the same per head as the UK average", plus none of that's relevant anyway because "Scotland pays more to in than it gets back".

These are the three basic mantras, where one or more has to be repeated endlessly. As LJS got to show the other day, the most ridiculous myth is considered largely correct.

It's soon time for the annual summary of this thread, and the votes for "most bonkers snipper statement" will need to be cast.

Those three basic mantras you list are certainly in the running, but at the moment it's looking like a two horse race between the astonishing claim that Scotland had none of the UK national debt, and the utterly terrifying, infamous "the finances of independent scotland are irrelevant" declaration.

Exciting times!

[LJS]

We can now add "largely" to the list of words Neil doesn't understand.

[LJS]

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

You vote for a govt's programme. You don't get to specific the exact place your own tax payments go to.

Oh is that how it works? Thanks I never knew that. 

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

And funnily enough, you voted for a party who said they were anti-austerity, which means increasing the taxes of everyone to benefit the poorest via tax redistribution ... but suddenly Scotland doesn't want anti-austerity, they instead want to match tory austerity.

NO party offered me the option of an increase in Scottish income tax  - at least not one which had the faintest chance of any significant representation.

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

And further, the now-not-wanting-anti-austerity party has used a blatant lie by Swinney to make it stand up.

Politician spins the truth shock! Again you are using Swinney who only entered the discussion when you new best pal Chokky launched his attack on him. We were discussing the desirability of an across the board tax increase & its relative impact on the poor. I don't want to increase tax at all on the bottom 10% of tax payers. You seem to think that is fine.

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Those are the facts as they've happened.

NO they are not - they are you & your mate's spin on the facts. We long long ago established that you struggle to differentiate between facts and (your) opinions.

 

& that is a fact.

 

In my opinion.

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

They're a bit inconvenient for the narrative tho, aren't they?

Which is why another narrative is now being invented, as snippers everywhere swivel on their own fingers.

Tosh!!!

[LJS]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

;

You're presuming far too much.

"The oil was just a bonus" and "Scotland contributes the same per head as the UK average", plus none of that's relevant anyway because "Scotland pays more in than it gets back".

These are the three basic mantras, where one or more has to be repeated endlessly. As LJS got to show the other day, the most ridiculous myth is considered largely correct.

Not quite sure who you are "quoting" there. Although you do appear again to be channelling Chokka. Has he taken control of you?

4 hours ago, russycarps said:

It's soon time for the annual summary of this thread, and the votes for "most bonkers snipper statement" will need to be cast.

Those three basic mantras you list are certainly in the running, but at the moment it's looking like a two horse race between the astonishing claim that Scotland had none of the UK national debt, and the utterly terrifying, infamous "the finances of independent scotland are irrelevant" declaration.

Exciting times!

The first of your mantras is technically correct but if you want to find someone who supported Scotland paying nothing towards UK debt you'll need to head over to WoS because no one here was arguing it. And as you well know, no one said the second thing  - it was just to good a quote for you to let it go.

 

So, as no one on here said the things you say above, I take it you are widening the awards to the entirety of yes supporters because if we are, I can certainly chip in with a few suggestions for barking statements from the No side.

 

 

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

We can now add "largely" to the list of words Neil doesn't understand.

which was the biggest lie in that piece, LJS? Bigger than any lie it might have been tackling?

FFS.

:

 

Edited December 22, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

54 minutes ago, LJS said:

NO party offered me the option of an increase in Scottish income tax  - at least not one which had the faintest chance of any significant representation.

In that case anti-austerity is about magic money.

And you're a bigger fool than I thought.

 

54 minutes ago, LJS said:

Politician spins the truth shock! Again you are using Swinney who only entered the discussion when you new best pal Chokky launched his attack on him.

Shoot the messenger, again.

Because you can't shoot the message.

You wanna wave WoS and falsely say it's largely correct, i'll wave chokka at you and accurately say he's ALWAYS correct.

 

54 minutes ago, LJS said:

NO they are not - they are you & your mate's spin on the facts. We long long ago established that you struggle to differentiate between facts and (your) opinions.

Are the SNP enacting anti-austerity? Nope. Fact!!!

Did Swinney lie about SRIT? Yep. Fact!

Tell me how I've made them up, again.

 

54 minutes ago, LJS said:

Tosh!!!

because you've never said a £10Bn shortfall is irrelevant....?

 

[LJS]

20 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

In that case anti-austerity is about magic money.

And you're a bigger fool than I thought.

The SNP did not stand for Holyrood in 2011 on an anti austerity ticket  - their manifesto does not mention austerity once & it only mentions income tax twice  - with absolutely no commitment  to do anything about it. I think you may be confusing Holyrood 2011 with Westminster 2015. In other words you are wrong.

20 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

Shoot the messenger, again.

Because you can't shoot the message.

You wanna wave WoS and falsely say it's largely correct, i'll wave chokka at you and accurately say he's ALWAYS correct.

The message you (&he) appear to be peddling is that flat rate taxes rises are progressive - they simply aren't as you yourself knew until Chokka took control of your brain.

20 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

Are the SNP enacting anti-austerity? Nope. Fact!!!

They don't have the power to seriously alter austerity. They have tinkered, like with the bedroom tax but as referenced above they did not fight the 2011 Holyrood election on an anti Austerity programme.

20 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Did Swinney lie about SRIT? Yep. Fact!

He's a politician. He made a misleading statgement that is no more misleading than Chokka's graphs that give the impression that flat rate tax rises are progressive. 

20 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Tell me how I've made them up, again.

I just have.

20 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

because you've never said a £10Bn shortfall is irrelevant....?

 

At last you have got something correct... well done.

[LJS]

36 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

which was the biggest lie in that piece, LJS? Bigger than any lie it might have been tackling?

FFS.

:

 

There aren't any "lies" in the piece which I will repeat I did not link to or quote from. There are wildly irrelevant conclusions drawn from an invalid comparison between UK debt & Scottish debt which I immediately agreed with you about. These comparisons formed precisely 0% ( i could put that in a graph if it helps) of my criticism of the article which you did gleefully link to which is riddled with lies and inaccuracies. you coudl barely contain your glee in that post. only subsequently did you admit it was "dreadful!"

 

So if I am to be called out for making passing reference to a Stupot article which contained some pretty dodgy conclusions, What about you & your "dreadful" article riddled with lies?

 

Could the whole Wings thing be a smokescreen to try & divert attention away from your fuck up?

 

 

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

The SNP did not stand for Holyrood in 2011 on an anti austerity ticket  - their manifesto does not mention austerity once & it only mentions income tax twice  - with absolutely no commitment  to do anything about it. I think you may be confusing Holyrood 2011 with Westminster 2015. In other words you are wrong.

So what you're saying is that they're anti-austerity for Westminster laws, but pro-austerity within Scotland?

You've eaten more Dundee cake than I was thinking yesterday.

 

11 hours ago, LJS said:

The message you (&he) appear to be peddling is that flat rate taxes rises are progressive - they simply aren't as you yourself knew until Chokka took control of your brain.

But in it's effect it's not a flat tax rate.

Further, the left-ish idea about taxation is that flat rate or not it doesn't5 matter. All are taxed to put the money to those who need it. None are exempt from such tax, not even because of low income - because low income alone does not mean 'poverty'.

The idea is that the state knows better how to use than the individual. Instead, you're spouting the tory idea that the earner of money is best placed to decide how to spend it.

And all the while you're doing that you're using the excuse of the poorest to avoid *YOU* having to pay more tax., You're penalising the poor for your own advantage, which is precisely what you accuse the tories of doing.

Want to tell me I'm no Marxist again, LJS? Shall I point out what you are?

 

11 hours ago, LJS said:

They don't have the power to seriously alter austerity.

Yes they do.

For govts to spend more - your version of anti-austerity, remember? - requires govts to tax more. The SG have the power to seriously tax, therefore they have the power to seriously alter austerity.

The more they tax the more serious they are about anti-austerity. No tax equals no anti-austerity.

FFS.

It can only be different to that is there's free money, and while i know you believe that there is free money you can never find it. How odd.

 

11 hours ago, LJS said:

He's a politician. He made a misleading statgement

If a hated-by-you politician, another politician, had said what swinney has you'd call them a liar.

The SNP get a free pass from you.

No one gets a free pass from me, which is why I laugh at Corbyn. We all know he's a joke, but some people are happy to eat up their own shit, just as you're doing over Swinney.

 

11 hours ago, LJS said:

that is no more misleading than Chokka's graphs that give the impression that flat rate tax rises are progressive. 

Chokka's graphs are not misleading because he gives 100% of the context..

He states exactly what he's doing, rather than hides anything about it by making grand statements that the stupid might suck up and call 'largely correct'.

And he proves that what you call a 'flat rate' is not a flat rate but in fact taxes progressively, while you claim falsehoods as accurate.

 

11 hours ago, LJS said:

At last you have got something correct... well done.

It's one thing to be stupid and later realise you have been, it's something else to be stupid, later realise you have been but remain proud and supportive of your stupidity.

FFS.

 

[eFestivals]

content removed, with hindsight.

 

Edited December 23, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I apologise if you saw that post LJS. It was waaay over the top and unnecessary.

I get frrutrated because no matter what the fact you'll find a 'for Scotland" (snigger) angle that treats the facts as a throwaway. And while you reach ever-lower for hope-beyond-reason you don't see just how ridiculous you're being.

It's fair enough having hopes, but when even your hopes for indy are based in hopes there's no reason to think will happen, you know yourself the case for indy is extremely weak.

On next voting day, if there even is one, the choice will not be between the status quo and your hopes, it will be between the status quo and reality. And even you know the reality.

Edited December 23, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

I apologise if you saw that post LJS. It was waaay over the top and unnecessary.

I get frrutrated because no matter what the fact you'll find a 'for Scotland" (snigger) angle that treats the facts as a throwaway. And while you reach ever-lower for hope-beyond-reason you don't see just how ridiculous you're being.

It's fair enough having hopes, but when even your hopes for indy are based in hopes there's no reason to think will happen, you know yourself the case for indy is extremely weak.

On next voting day, if there even is one, the choice will not be between the status quo and your hopes, it will be between the status quo and reality. And even you know the reality.

You will be glad to know I never saw it.

Too busy working.

[eFestivals]

15 minutes ago, LJS said:

You will be glad to know I never saw it.

Too busy working.

Cool.

 

Back to Scotland...

I'm repeating the same things with the same facts still in place and true as I was saying before the indyref.

That the oil revenues were too volatile to base Scotland's economy on, and that the revenues were shrinking anyway; that the finances are poor just because of Scotland's geographic circumstances, and iScotland couldn't afford to maintain current levels of social spending, and that the shortfall was massive - too big to cover or make-up by other means.

 

You've had to abandon all of the indy finances claims of that time, because all that was said by the 'no's' proved to be true.

You've grasped at other hopes, such as the claimed better growth, but have had to give those up when the facts were pointed out to you.

Which is the case that's standing up, and which is the case that's collapsed?

You're left holding a dream without the means to fulfil the detail of that dream - meaning you can't have that dream fulfilled.

Eventually you'll have to find an altered dream if you wish to hold onto the indie part - a dog-eat-dog Scotland where the poor are left in the shit by the clear choice of the people of Scotland, without a single tory or westminster politician responsible for it.

Which will you give up first? Social welfare, or indy?

Which will Scotland's other snippers give up first? Social welfare, or indy?

I never did get an answer to the question I asked about at what point does indy become just-not-worth it. It looks like the choice has been made.

 

[Comfy Bean]

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Cool.

 

Back to Scotland...

I'm repeating the same things with the same facts still in place and true as I was saying before the indyref.

That the oil revenues were too volatile to base Scotland's economy on, and that the revenues were shrinking anyway; that the finances are poor just because of Scotland's geographic circumstances, and iScotland couldn't afford to maintain current levels of social spending, and that the shortfall was massive - too big to cover or make-up by other means.

 

You've had to abandon all of the indy finances claims of that time, because all that was said by the 'no's' proved to be true.

You've grasped at other hopes, such as the claimed better growth, but have had to give those up when the facts were pointed out to you.

Which is the case that's standing up, and which is the case that's collapsed?

You're left holding a dream without the means to fulfil the detail of that dream - meaning you can't have that dream fulfilled.

Eventually you'll have to find an altered dream if you wish to hold onto the indie part - a dog-eat-dog Scotland where the poor are left in the shit by the clear choice of the people of Scotland, without a single tory or westminster politician responsible for it.

Which will you give up first? Social welfare, or indy?

Which will Scotland's other snippers give up first? Social welfare, or indy?

I never did get an answer to the question I asked about at what point does indy become just-not-worth it. It looks like the choice has been made.

 

What a load of drivel 

Although at least no-one died in this version of your post.

Can you define " collapsed " in the context of " the case that`s collapsed " that you use above.

 

 

[Stash]

18 hours ago, LJS said:

The SNP did not stand for Holyrood in 2011 on an anti austerity ticket  - their manifesto does not mention austerity once & it only mentions income tax twice  - with absolutely no commitment  to do anything about it. I think you may be confusing Holyrood 2011 with Westminster 2015. In other words you are wrong.

An election manifesto is a stationary point in time document. A lot has happened since the 2011 manifestos were produced by all parties. The word austerity might not be in the document in 2011, but the words unfair & fair were in there plenty. Unfair was usually attached to UK taxes, and fair usually appeared in a paragraph detailing what the SNP would do differently. 

However, that was beside the point when weeks after winning that election, Salmond started talking about the independence campaign, where comparisons to Tory austerity were plentiful. 

[Stash]

17 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

What a load of drivel 

I don't know, I thought it was largely correct 

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

What a load of drivel 

Although at least no-one died in this version of your post.

Can you define " collapsed " in the context of " the case that`s collapsed " that you use above.

without finding the missing £10Bn, an independent Scotland would be a vastly different place - it would not be the dream you voted for last year of everything staying the same except sovereignty.

An iScotland would have to implement massive cuts.

You know this. Why do you need it said, yet again?