The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

They're from the article that russy pasted a link to. I worked on the basis that you'd have read it, and with my posts following within  a page of it I didn't need to reference.

As for who the source is, that means nothing towards the truth that may or may not have been written. He's pointing out all the bullshit that left Salmond's mouth, and he's accurate with that.

You meanwhile attack the messenger. They're not the words of someone indy, so they can be dismissed.

That's how moronic your intellectual take of the debate now is.

Would Scotland now be in the very deepest shit if it had voted indy? Without any doubts at all. HUGE cuts onto Scotland at the behest of Scotland, making the tories look like cash cows.

But let's just forget about that, and mindlessly play the man because you can't deal with the message.

I didn't read it - I know what Fraser Nelson thinks. If the bits you "quoted" are anything to go by, he is adding nothing new to the debate... a bit like yourself.

[eFestivals]

19 hours ago, LJS said:

I didn't read it - I know what Fraser Nelson thinks. If the bits you "quoted" are anything to go by, he is adding nothing new to the debate... a bit like yourself.

 Is that you accepting that part of the debate, then?

Because that remains THE debate until you do.

There is no moving forwards to a credible version of an independent/self-funding Scotland until the incredible version of an independent/self-funding Scotland has been rejected.

Currently snippers like you are still finding all sorts of idiocy (such as comfy's recent irrelevant "we pay as much tax as anyone else") with which to try and defend the indefensible.

Do you now reject it, and admit that the best Scotland could come up with was laughable, couldn't-happen bollocks?

I know it might be hard for you to admit that.

But there can be no need for what you've said the next indy campaign needs until you have rejected it. Scotland can never be indy until Salmond's version of indy is rejected.

[eFestivals]

Interesting times.

I'd been wondering how come there's not been any "more and more people support indy" posts lately. Now I know why.

And that's because all of the last 4 polls have seen support for indy dropping.

http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/how-would-you-vote-in-the-in-the-scottish-independence-referendum-if-held-now-a#table
(don't forget to scroll to the right, to get to the latest polls)

I'm quite happy to accept that might be a temporary blip - we only get to find out via future polls - but before this recent run of consistently downwards, there'd not previously been a similar run of consistently downwards.

Remember how the oil price fell, and every snipper said "it'll be back up by March 2016, don't worry"?

I guess people are now worried. And rightly so, too.

And do noticed how despite all of the noise claiming that the indie side is now the majority, indy has never been in the lead aside from the occasional 'rouge poll' ('rouge' because other polls at a similar time don't show the same thing).

[LJS]

8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 Is that you accepting that part of the debate, then?

 

No.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

No.

then the debate goes on, till you have brain enough to accept the indisputable facts.

Just out of interest LJS, do you slag off climate change deniers as deniers of the facts, as deniers of the truth?

Cos alongside those types, you're far dumber. They at least have a basis in fact for their denials, even tho the facts they reach for are very tenuous. You have no supporting facts, not a single one.

[LJS]

25 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

then the debate goes on, till you have brain enough to accept the indisputable facts.

Just out of interest LJS, do you slag off climate change deniers as deniers of the facts, as deniers of the truth?

Cos alongside those types, you're far dumber. They at least have a basis in fact for their denials, even tho the facts they reach for are very tenuous. You have no supporting facts, not a single one.

You're mixing up pretty much universally accepted science with economic estimates.

 

I have made my views Crystal clear. You can debate all you want.  I see no value in constantly covering the same ground. 

I will happily talk numbers when indyref2 comes along.

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, LJS said:

You're mixing up pretty much universally accepted science with economic estimates.

They're "estimates" only as far as any shortcomings within GERS.

(I accept there's plenty of shortcomings within GERS, but there's all that there is, there are no better estimates.)

As such, they are the indisputable starting position of an indy Scotland.

FFS.

If you want to reject that estimate as 'no good', then you need a basis on which to do so - an alternative estimate. Which you don't have.

As you have nothing with which to reject that estimate, you can't reject it unless you're rejecting all sense.

 

Quote

I will happily talk numbers when indyref2 comes along.

Just out of interest, do you think that's coming as Sturgeon has threatened, as being 'triggered' by a 'leave' vote in the EUref?

Or is Sturgeon taking out of her arse, making empty threats?

Edited February 8, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, LJS said:

I will happily talk numbers when indyref2 comes along.

but you weren't happy to talk numbers in indyref1 - you took the Salmond line of calling them lies, bullying and bluster, which have since been proven as Salmond's lies.

Are you happy to accept any of the numbers from indyref1 today? You've just made clear you don't accept GERS, the only basis for any numbers for Scotland - for indyref1, and they'll be central to indyref2 too.

If you don't accept GERS, how will you be able to talk numbers at any point, unless you'll be talking fantasy numbers you'll have self-invented (or taken as rote from w*nkers over sense, as you so laughably did recently).

Do you accept GERS as broadly accurate today?

Edited February 8, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Isn't it funny that the questions above keep getting ducked by the people who reckon they're facing up to the facts?

------

Another fact to face up to is that the deal being offered by Westminster to the SNP for the altered Barnet formula would have given Scotland a greater income since devolution than Scotland has had ... but apparently, according to the SNP, giving Scotland a better deal is detrimental.

Instead, the SNP are insisting that the Scotland they think should self-fund gets to benefit if rUK productivity increases but Scottish productivity doesn't, and wants to penalise Scotland if Scottish productivity is better than rUK ... it's almost as if they know something about Scotland that they're keeping quiet about.

Oh, and Sturgeon has admitted that the deal Scotland has been trying to get up to now is a deal that's detrimental to rUK and beneficial to Scotland .... but it's Westminster who are the devious lairs, so the myth goes.

 

 

Edited February 10, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

49 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Isn't it funny that the questions above keep getting ducked by the people who reckon they're facing up to the facts?

------

Another fact to face up to is that the deal being offered by Westminster to the SNP for the altered Barnet formula would have given Scotland a greater income since devolution than Scotland has had ... but apparently, according to the SNP, giving Scotland a better deal is detrimental.

Instead, the SNP are insisting that the Scotland they think should self-fund gets to benefit if rUK productivity increases but Scottish productivity doesn't, and wants to penalise Scotland if Scottish productivity is better than rUK ... it's almost as if they know something about Scotland that they're keeping quiet about.

Oh, and Sturgeon has admitted that the deal Scotland has been trying to get up to now is a deal that's detrimental to rUK and beneficial to Scotland .... but it's Westminster who are the devious lairs, so the myth goes.

 

 

No she hasn't.

& funnily enough there are a range of views on whether the fiscal framework on offer is beneficial to Scotland or just the opposite.

 

https://www.holyrood.com/articles/news/scottish-government-would-be-%E2%80%98stupid%E2%80%99-accept-fiscal-framework-offer-says-stuc

 

Of course, unlike you, I am not an economist nor am I privy to the finer details of the negotiations...

 

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, LJS said:

No she hasn't.

Really?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/09/nicola-sturgeon-tells-cameron-to-stop-treasury-sabotaging-scottish-deal

 

Quote

However, Sturgeon tacitly accepted that Scottish ministers could have made earlier moves to satisfy the Treasury’s concerns about Holyrood benefiting unfairly from the formula preferred by her government. She said Swinney would make a fresh concession to the Treasury to guarantee that Scotland would not financially benefit from any tax increases in England designed to benefit England-only services such as the NHS. Sturgeon indicated that Scottish ministers agreed that it was unfair for Holyrood to get an extra share of any extra tax increases for England-only spending.

Edited February 10, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, LJS said:

& funnily enough there are a range of views on whether the fiscal framework on offer is beneficial to Scotland or just the opposite.

https://www.holyrood.com/articles/news/scottish-government-would-be-%E2%80%98stupid%E2%80%99-accept-fiscal-framework-offer-says-stuc

Of course, unlike you, I am not an economist nor am I privy to the finer details of the negotiations...

Well of course Scotland would be stupid to accept less money for public services.

Have you missed me saying that for the last 2 years or something?

It's you that's been wanting huge cuts, not me.

More self-funding equals less money for public services. You're wanting more self-funding, so live with the consequences of what you've asked for.

Edited February 10, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

16 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Really?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/09/nicola-sturgeon-tells-cameron-to-stop-treasury-sabotaging-scottish-deal

 

 

 

"sturgeon tacitly accepted..." Is journalist's interpretation, & no what you said at all.

 

Knowing this is a negotiating process both sides have & will make concessions. The UK gov has alreadly submitted "improved" proposals. I presume that is them "tacitly admitting" they were trying to fuck Scotland over?

[LJS]

17 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Well of course Scotland would be stupid to accept less money for public services.

Have you missed me saying that for the last 2 years or something?

It's you that's been wanting huge cuts, not me.

More self-funding equals less money for public services. You're wanting more self-funding, so live with the consequences of what you've asked for.

We are not talking Indy or FFA ffs. We are talking about an arrangement that is supposed to deliver "no detriment"

 

[eFestivals]

20 minutes ago, LJS said:

Knowing this is a negotiating process both sides have & will make concessions.

Any side would only have to make concessions (rather than 'adjustments') if they've entered the 'negotiations' with a dishonest platform for what the 'negotiations' are about.

Given that Sturgeon looks to be making a concession because she was trying to gain a benefit NOT due to Scotland, guess what that means? The "interpretation" makes it pretty damned clear.

 

Quote

The UK gov has alreadly submitted "improved" proposals. I presume that is them "tacitly admitting" they were trying to fuck Scotland over?

Nope, not necessarily.

There is no fixed-in-stone proportional number for Scottish income tax income against rUK income tax income. There will always be a variance in any year compared to the previous year, because both parts are unlikely to always grow or shrink by exactly the same amount.

This is why the Smith idea of 'not detrimental' is impossible to achieve in practice, because Scotland is now carrying some of the risk of its own future funding (and don't forget, Scotland wanted all of that risk, but seem to be scared of just a little bit of risk ).

So the UK govts 'improved' offer could simply be them accepting a different number of years on which to base the average.

The test for whether the UK govts offer is good or not is to apply the new calculation back across previous years to see whether that increases or reduces the amount the SG would have got in their funding over those past years - and according to the UK govt, Scotland would have got more money via the new funding formula than they have with the old one.

Now, I accept I'm taking the UK govts word for things - tho I doubt they'd be making that statement if they couldn't back it up with the facts - but would you like to tell me how a system that would have delivered more money in the past is a worse deal that that past deal?

 

Edited February 10, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

49 minutes ago, LJS said:

funnily enough there are a range of views on whether the fiscal framework on offer is beneficial to Scotland or just the opposite.

These words, they interest me.

Is this LJS saying that Scotland cannot have anything which is worse than currently?

If so, he's just become a unionist.

[LJS]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

Now, I accept I'm taking the UK govts word for things - 

 

Says it all, really.

 

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, LJS said:

Says it all, really.

 

as does your avoidance of what the UK govt have actually said and the question I asked you based on it.

As you like interpretations, there's all sorts of different ones you can get from this.

The one you concentrate on tho is the "run away" part.

 

Edited February 10, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

20 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

as does your avoidance of what the UK govt have actually said and the question I asked you based on it.

As you like interpretations, there's all sorts of different ones you can get from this.

The one you concentrate on tho is the "run away" part.

 

 

[eFestivals]

yep, all sorts of squirrels.

Anything but face up to the facts.

---

If the UK votes out in the EUref, and that 'triggers' indyref2 for Scotland, when will that vote be?

It took the SNP 3 years to have the last vote they were planning for.

I wonder how many decades it'll take them to have a vote they're not planning for and that they don't want? Because they'll have to admit to the huge cuts that iScotland would face.

[LJS]

Latest Scottish opinion polling

 

 http://www.slideshare.net/IpsosMORI/ipsos-mori-scotland-public-opinion-monitor-february-2016

 

Slide 18 is a beautiful demonstration of how you can change the answer by asking a slightly different question

 

& prof Curtis's take on it http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2016/02/three-key-pointers-from-ipsos-mori/

Edited February 10, 2016 by LJS

[LJS]

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Any side would only have to make concessions (rather than 'adjustments') if they've entered the 'negotiations' with a dishonest platform for what the 'negotiations' are about.

Could you please explain the difference between a concession &  an adjustment? 

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Given that Sturgeon looks to be making a concession because she was trying to gain a benefit NOT due to Scotland, guess what that means? The "interpretation" makes it pretty damned clear.

Correct, it's pretty damn clear she is making an adjustment as part of the negotiating process.

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

Nope, not necessarily.

There is no fixed-in-stone proportional number for Scottish income tax income against rUK income tax income.

 

 

I agree, whcih is why the negotiations are not very straightforward.

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

There will always be a variance in any year compared to the previous year, because both parts are unlikely to always grow or shrink by exactly the same amount.

You don't say

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

This is why the Smith idea of 'not detrimental' is impossible to achieve in practice, because Scotland is now carrying some of the risk of its own future funding

I agree which is why I have pointed it out several times.

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

(and don't forget, Scotland wanted all of that risk, but seem to be scared of just a little bit of risk ).

If we had got "all the risk" we would also have got all the powers  - as we are not getting "all the powers" your point is totally irrelevant - a squirrel as you would call it.

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

So the UK govts 'improved' offer could simply be them accepting a different number of years on which to base the average.

It could be. Or it could be them accepting that there first offer was shite. In fact it could be any number of things. 

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

The test for whether the UK govts offer is good or not is to apply the new calculation back across previous years to see whether that increases or reduces the amount the SG would have got in their funding over those past years - and according to the UK govt, Scotland would have got more money via the new funding formula than they have with the old one.

I don't think we have the information to do that, do we?

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Now, I accept I'm taking the UK govts word for things - tho I doubt they'd be making that statement if they couldn't back it up with the facts - but would you like to tell me how a system that would have delivered more money in the past is a worse deal that that past deal?

 

This doesn't make sense & even if it did, it is based on wild assumptions.

 

There is only one person taking sides in this & it is you. I accept the negotiations are difficult & inevitably both sides will be trying to get the best deal from an almost impossible starting point.

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

Latest Scottish opinion polling

 

 http://www.slideshare.net/IpsosMORI/ipsos-mori-scotland-public-opinion-monitor-february-2016

 

Slide 18 is a beautiful demonstration of how you can change the answer by asking a slightly different question

Wow, people like a party who give them money for nothing. Who'd have thought it?

(which of course is a different and opposite thing to indy, where the people would give the govt money for nothing)

No comment about how slide 15 is at odds with all other polling? And it's just by chance that you've ignored all those other polls that show support for indy falling, to concentrate on a rouge poll?

And yep, slide 18 is very revealing. It says that Scotland supports Scotland keeping the nukes sited there.

Quote

& prof Curtis's take on it http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2016/02/three-key-pointers-from-ipsos-mori/

Does he mention Salmond's piece in Sunday's Herald, where he's already trying to kick "the decision of the Scottish people" (snigger) for indyref2 down the road to 2020, and not "triggered" by an EUref 'leave' vote after all?

And where the suggestion made is indyref2 in Sept 2020 with a tory victory in May 2020 having triggered that vote .... and where the SNP will suddenly come up with a new indy plan in those 4 months and campaign and win with it ... when it took them years last time to do all of the necessaries?

And then if indyref2 is for indy, will we then see Sturgeon refusing to make Scotland indy unless rUK is paying for it?

Perhaps these things are why you ran scared from me asking if a EUref 'leave' vote would 'trigger' indyref2?

I do like how Curtis notices how Scotland is becoming more tory, in the land where - apparently - there's no tories.

 

Edited February 11, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Wow, people like a party who give them money for nothing. Who'd have thought it?

(which of course is a different and opposite thing to indy, where the people would give the govt money for nothing)

No comment about how slide 15 is at odds with all other polling? And it's just by chance that you've ignored all those other polls that show support for indy falling, to concentrate on a rouge poll?

And yep, slide 18 is very revealing. It says that Scotland supports Scotland keeping the nukes sited there.

Does he mention Salmond's piece in Sunday's Herald, where he's already trying to kick "the decision of the Scottish people" (snigger) for indyref2 down the road to 2020, and not "triggered" by an EUref 'leave' vote after all?

And where the suggestion made is indyref2 in Sept 2020 with a tory victory in May 2020 having triggered that vote .... and where the SNP will suddenly come up with a new indy plan in those 4 months and campaign and win with it ... when it took them years last time to do all of the necessaries?

And then if indyref2 is for indy, will we then see Sturgeon refusing to make Scotland indy unless rUK is paying for it?

Perhaps these things are why you ran scared from me asking if a EUref 'leave' vote would 'trigger' indyref2?

I do like how Curtis notices how Scotland is becoming more tory, in the land where - apparently - there's no tories.

 

I didn't draw any conclusions from any slides.

I didn't read Alex Salmond. I have cancelled my subscription to the Herald.

I would dispute your interpretation of slide 18.

I have no idea what you are on about 're slide 15.

I have no idea if a brexit would lead to a 2nd Indy ref although it would surely shorten the odds.

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, LJS said:

Could you please explain the difference between a concession &  an adjustment? 

In the way I just used it - and referencing Sturgeon's back-down - one is conceding that you've misconstrued the whole basis of the 'negotiations', and the other is an adjustment of the formula having rightly gone along with the purpose of the 'negotiations'.

 

10 hours ago, LJS said:

Correct, it's pretty damn clear she is making an adjustment as part of the negotiating process.

Nope. She's conceding she'd been trying to take the piss.

 

10 hours ago, LJS said:

I agree, whcih is why the negotiations are not very straightforward.

So it's not straightforwards that if the new formula as suggested by the UK had been in place since devolution that Scotland would have had a greater income?

If that classes as the UK govt being nasty to Scotland, you have a warped sense of realism and a false sense of grievance.

 

10 hours ago, LJS said:

If we had got "all the risk" we would also have got all the powers  - as we are not getting "all the powers" your point is totally irrelevant - a squirrel as you would call it.

You're getting compatible risks to the new powers.

Not all the risk and limited new powers.

That would be the self-funding that Scotland doesn't want, and that terrifies the SNP.

And YOU!

 

10 hours ago, LJS said:

I don't think we have the information to do that, do we?

We have a statement from the UK govt that that's the case.

As I said, as this can be easily checked by someone who wants to check, why would they lie?

If you want to dispute it, find something to dispute it with. Even Sturgeon is not disputing it.

 

10 hours ago, LJS said:

This doesn't make sense & even if it did, it is based on wild assumptions.

 

There is only one person taking sides in this & it is you. I accept the negotiations are difficult & inevitably both sides will be trying to get the best deal from an almost impossible starting point.

We both have 'sides'.

I'm referencing clear statements. You're disputing them with nothing at all.

Not even Sturgeon has disputed what the UK govt has said.