The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

Just now, LJS said:

That would only work if the deadline mattered to UK gov. It didn't.

That's the bleedin' point.

Because it doesn't matter to the UK when agreement is reached (as long as in good enough time before April 2017), the SNP needed a way to try put pressure on on the UK govt, as a show of how much they were controlling things rather than looking subordinate (to the UK govt, or just the devolution process) - the one thing it's so very important to them to not look.

So they invented a deadline, and invented a false reason why the UK govt had to jump to their tune by that.

The UK govt wasn't playing ball, so they've used the deadline (THEIR deadline) for brinksmanship with 'a final offer' on deadline day.  And the UK govt still didn't play ball.

And now there appears to be an even newer offer on the table, a 'final final' offer from the SNP.

And as the UK govt obviously find that 'final final' offer close enough to make further discussions worthwhile, there's further discussions going to happen tomorrow .... where (dependant on what that 'final final' offer is) they probably hope the UK govt will agree, and then the SNP can claim how they went the extra mile when the UK govt wouldn't, but also how they've bent the UK govt to their will, by their 'hard stance' ... with an offer they could have made at any point but didn't.

So not a hard stance at all.

If the UK govt accept this 'final final' offer, that'll only prove the bad faith by the SNP in all of their previous offers.

[Stash]

2 minutes ago, LJS said:

Christ you are as bad as Neil. The reason for the deadline as I understand it is to ensure there is ample time for the proposals to be discussed at Holyrood before the Scottish election.

You're the one who said you understood negotiations

[LJS]

4 hours ago, Stash said:

Point of order: I snipped nothing - I quoted an entire post with two peoples quotes. 

Although looking at your original post, the second line contracdicts the first and makes Neil's point for him quite nicely. He was trying to show you that they did not come out in favour of PCID. 

What they actually have suggested that both governments look at a modified version of PCID. 

Apologies, Stash. My truncated quote did appear on your post but only as part of a quote from Neil. I humbly withdraw my allegation of reckless snipping.

So, away from the point scoring, do we think the modified PCID thing should be considered by UKgov?

[LJS]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

That's the bleedin' point.

Because it doesn't matter to the UK when agreement is reached (as long as in good enough time before April 2017), the SNP needed a way to try put pressure on on the UK govt, as a show of how much they were controlling things rather than looking subordinate (to the UK govt, or just the devolution process) - the one thing it's so very important to them to not look.

So they invented a deadline, and invented a false reason why the UK govt had to jump to their tune by that.

The UK govt wasn't playing ball, so they've used the deadline (THEIR deadline) for brinksmanship with 'a final offer' on deadline day.  And the UK govt still didn't play ball.

And now there appears to be an even newer offer on the table, a 'final final' offer from the SNP.

And as the UK govt obviously find that 'final final' offer close enough to make further discussions worthwhile, there's further discussions going to happen tomorrow .... where (dependant on what that 'final final' offer is) they probably hope the UK govt will agree, and then the SNP can claim how they went the extra mile when the UK govt wouldn't, but also how they've bent the UK govt to their will, by their 'hard stance' ... with an offer they could have made at any point but didn't.

So not a hard stance at all.

If the UK govt accept this 'final final' offer, that'll only prove the bad faith by the SNP in all of their previous offers.

I think it is safe to say that, assuming a deal is reached, both "sides" will claim a glorious victory & attempt to capture the moral high ground. 

Most of us will see through both sides. A few nutters (which would appear sadly to include yourself & Neil) will swallow their side's version hook line & sinker.

 

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, LJS said:

So, away from the point scoring, do we think the modified PCID thing should be considered by UKgov?

it depends what the 'modified' is. For all we know, it could be modified to be the same as LA.

I don't have an issue with what it's called, I do have an issue with it being fair to both sides.

And we do know that the SNP haven't been working on that basis so far. We can only guess at whether the UKgovt has or hasn't.

 

[LJS]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

it depends what the 'modified' is. For all we know, it could be modified to be the same as LA.

I don't have an issue with what it's called, I do have an issue with it being fair to both sides.

And we do know that the SNP haven't been working on that basis so far. 

 

No we don't

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, LJS said:

I think it is safe to say that, assuming a deal is reached, both "sides" will claim a glorious victory & attempt to capture the moral high ground. 

except of course only one side gets any benefit from playing silly games.

There's no gain to be had by the UKgovt in playing politics over this, unless anyone is thinking that Scotland will suddenly become tory-lovers because of the terms of any agreed deal....?

 

4 minutes ago, LJS said:

Most of us will see through both sides. A few nutters (which would appear sadly to include yourself & Neil) will swallow their side's version hook line & sinker.

You've never yet seen thru anything about the SNP.

Unless you're about to tell me that you always knew the SNPs oil revenue claims were lies....?

Or even if you can say you've just woken up to it today?

No? So you can't see thru both sides.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, LJS said:

No we don't

yes we do.

They've been going for PCID - which isn't fair to both sides.

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

yes we do.

They've been going for PCID - which isn't fair to both sides.

Same could be claimed for UK gov. Their offer was so fair they upped it by £4.5bn

[eFestivals]

46 minutes ago, LJS said:

Same could be claimed for UK gov. Their offer was so fair they upped it by £4.5bn

Yep, it possibly could - tho it should be noted that was transitional money, rather than written in to the formula, so needs to be considered differently.

BTW, you know the arguments at the moment are around a piddling £300m a year, rather than the big numbers that get thrown around to make it all seem really nasty, don't you?

The SNP spend more than than that each year to protect the better-off from paying a higher proportion than they do currently, in the anti-austerity state.

Edited February 18, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Yep, it possibly could - tho it should be noted that was transitional money, rather than written in to the formula, so needs to be considered differently.

BTW, you know the arguments at the moment are around a piddling £300m a year, rather than the big numbers that get thrown around to make it all seem really nasty, don't you?

The SNP spend more than than that each year to protect the better-off from paying a higher proportion than they do currently, in the anti-austerity state.

I wonder why they would need transition money? Is it perhaps a bit like the parachute payments relegated premier league teams get to compensate them for the lower income in the championship?

 

[LJS]

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

except of course only one side gets any benefit from playing silly games.

There's no gain to be had by the UKgovt in playing politics over this, unless anyone is thinking that Scotland will suddenly become tory-lovers because of the terms of any agreed deal....?

 

You've never yet seen thru anything about the SNP.

Unless you're about to tell me that you always knew the SNPs oil revenue claims were lies....?

Or even if you can say you've just woken up to it today?

No? So you can't see thru both sides.

You are well aware that I did not believe the claims that we would all be financially better off after Indy - you misquote me on it often enough. But you think I slavishly swallow everything the snp says & you know best.

 

[Comfy Bean]

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Do I need to quote you to prove you're on the side of those who banged on about "oor oil" and how Scotland would be gloriously rich if indy? You didn't claim the oil for Scotland, and didn't reject criticisms of the white paper?

Are you now denying you're an indy supporter?

 

So....you can`t quote me as it was never something I said 

You had claimed I said it but have now retreated to I`m on the side of those who said it 

We are all on the side of people who talk nonsense. Some of us add to it more than others.

 

[LJS]

50 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

So....you can`t quote me as it was never something I said 

You had claimed I said it but have now retreated to I`m on the side of those who said it 

We are all on the side of people who talk nonsense. Some of us add to it more than others.

 

Hi comfy -- hope you are well. 

 

I can't wait for the EU referendum because by Neil's logic, by voting to stay ( which I assume he will do) he will, by his own logic, be supporting every single word that Dave Cameroon says.

 

Bring it on

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

I wonder why they would need transition money? Is it perhaps a bit like the parachute payments relegated premier league teams get to compensate them for the lower income in the championship?

Just because the SNP have found the biggest number doesn'ty mean they have any right to it.

The UK govt have stated they'll compromise to get a deal, but the SNP have to compromise too. ... and latest UKgovt word is that the SNP haven't moved at all.

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

You are well aware that I did not believe the claims that we would all be financially better off after Indy - you misquote me on it often enough. But you think I slavishly swallow everything the snp says & you know best.

But you also refuse to face up to the facts of GERS (you know, that evil unionist-supporting plot by the SNP ) and won't say you'd have been worse off.

You won't say that the white paper contained deliberate lies to try and mug Scotland into voting yes.  You won't accept the truth.

Why not go and ask Alex where he got the numbers for the oil revenues from?

[LJS]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Just because the SNP have found the biggest number doesn'ty mean they have any right to it.

The UK govt have stated they'll compromise to get a deal, but the SNP have to compromise too. ... and latest UKgovt word is that the SNP haven't moved at all.

& the latest sgov word is the uk's prooposal leaves Scotland worse off & they have made new proposals.

I do not know who is right. You with your super powers apparently do. 

As they are all politicians, the chances of any of them telling the whole truth are pretty slim.

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

So....you can`t quote me as it was never something I said 

You had claimed I said it but have now retreated to I`m on the side of those who said it 

We are all on the side of people who talk nonsense. Some of us add to it more than others.

You rejected all criticisms of the white paper.

 

8 hours ago, LJS said:

I can't wait for the EU referendum because by Neil's logic, by voting to stay ( which I assume he will do) he will, by his own logic, be supporting every single word that Dave Cameroon says.

You'll notice me calling him a lying c**t.

Something yet to be seen from you and comfy about the lying c**t that is Salmond with his oil revenue claims.

Spot the difference?

FSS.

[LJS]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

You rejected all criticisms of the white paper.

 

You'll notice me calling him a lying c**t.

Something yet to be seen from you and comfy about the lying c**t that is Salmond with his oil revenue claims.

Spot the difference?

FSS.

Is he a lying count when he talks about the fiscal framework negotiations?

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

Is he a lying count when he talks about the fiscal framework negotiations?

Yep, very probably.

Again, I can face it and say it about Fat Dave, but you can never face it or say it about your heroes.

So again, spot the difference?

FFS.

[LJS]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Yep, very probably.

Again, I can face it and say it about Fat Dave, but you can never face it or say it about your heroes.

So again, spot the difference?

FFS.

I just have. Put your brain in.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

I just have. Put your brain in.

nope, you've posted some wishy-washy words that you can later claim to mean whatever you want them to.

Tell you what, let's keep it something which is clearly a lie by the SNP - the claimed oil revenues. Given that Alex invented the numbers in his head from nothing at all, they were a lie.

Can you say they were a lie?

If not, you'll have to say why they weren't.

Should be interesting.

[LJS]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

nope, you've posted some wishy-washy words that you can later claim to mean whatever you want them to.

Tell you what, let's keep it something which is clearly a lie by the SNP - the claimed oil revenues. Given that Alex invented the numbers in his head from nothing at all, they were a lie.

Can you say they were a lie?

If not, you'll have to say why they weren't.

Should be interesting.

This is 2016. The oil figures were incorrect 4 years ago. As you know I did not base my vote on money, hence I am not as excited by these things as you are. 

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, LJS said:

This is 2016. The oil figures were incorrect 4 years ago. As you know I did not base my vote on money, hence I am not as excited by these things as you are. 

Nicely swerved.

The oil revenues were a lie, invented by Alex.

Unless you can tell me what Alex can't, which is where the numbers came from....?

Go on, you can state the truth. "Alex lied about the oil revenues".

After all, if you didn't base your vote on claims about money, you've no need to pretend a lie is truth.

Edited February 19, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

The fiscal framework explained by Lego...really?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-35611940

 

Ah, it's all clear now.