The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

"Fiscal framework: Scottish and UK governments agree deal"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35641714

 

Suspect the media spotlight being elsewhere may have done no harm.

[eFestivals]

No details yet tho. It'll be interesting to see those details when they're released in about a week.

There's a distinct change of tone in Sturgeon's words from before the deal yesterday to what she said afterwards. Whether there's reason for that change of tone I don't know.

What we do know is that whatever has been agreed has an in-built review to it - which, I presume, is going to attempt to match up the reality of what Scotland gets under the newly agreed (6 years only) deal with what would have happened if funding had continued under the old system ... so presumably it's not actually the cave-in by Westminster that plenty of Nats are claiming, and Scotland could still 'lose' (based on an SNP version of 'lose'*) some of its funding.

(* that SNP version of 'lose' is not necessarily a real 'lose', as its based around a best-case scenario)

It is very very funny tho to see all of the mad independantalists celebrating their continuing dependency. I wonder if they'll cheer GERS with as much vigour in a few weeks?

 

[Comfy Bean]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

No details yet tho. It'll be interesting to see those details when they're released in about a week.

There's a distinct change of tone in Sturgeon's words from before the deal yesterday to what she said afterwards. Whether there's reason for that change of tone I don't know.

What we do know is that whatever has been agreed has an in-built review to it - which, I presume, is going to attempt to match up the reality of what Scotland gets under the newly agreed (6 years only) deal with what would have happened if funding had continued under the old system ... so presumably it's not actually the cave-in by Westminster that plenty of Nats are claiming, and Scotland could still 'lose' (based on an SNP version of 'lose'*) some of its funding.

(* that SNP version of 'lose' is not necessarily a real 'lose', as its based around a best-case scenario)

It is very very funny tho to see all of the mad independantalists celebrating their continuing dependency. I wonder if they'll cheer GERS with as much vigour in a few weeks?

 

 No need to sound so bitter. " independantalists celebrating " ??

You really don`t get it. People who voted for Indy didn`t want these negotiations to happen. You are believing your own made up hype. Cheer...Vigour....dear o dear.

What we have seen was the Scottish Govt backed by all parties ( minus the Tories ) standing up for the people of Scotland while Dave ( cheered on by some who want our Parliament shut down ) tried to pick our pocket to the tune of billions. I`m deliberately just leaving it at billions to save you launching into post after post over an exact figure which seems impossible to be exact about. Billions is bad enough !

I have just had an entertaining meander through the last couple of pages and after your laughable contributions on these negotiations, I certainly don`t blame you for trying to sweep this away and move us on swiftly to GERS.

Part of the chat today is how this all cements the need for our Parliament forever. No wonder you are annoyed 

Next step Independence from Westminster although I will miss all the banter about who`s Mum said what 

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

 No need to sound so bitter. " independantalists celebrating " ??

What have I got to bitter about? None of it really effects me. Even if Sturgeon got the deal she was demanding the personal cost to me is too tiny to notice.

But yes, there's been a lot of celebrating done online by indy supporting Scots, like it's some great victory, when as far as anything towards indy goes, it locks in Scotland's deficit and ensures the financial gap for indy remains as big as it is now.

It's almost like this is Sturgeon accepting that the economic case can't be made to stand up any time soon, because if she thought it could be she'd be trying to close that gap and not lock it in.

 

8 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

You really don`t get it. People who voted for Indy didn`t want these negotiations to happen. You are believing your own made up hype. Cheer...Vigour....dear o dear.

Just go and look at all the places that Nats mouth off online and get back to me. I'll accept your apology.

 

8 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

What we have seen was the Scottish Govt backed by all parties ( minus the Tories ) standing up for the people of Scotland while Dave ( cheered on by some who want our Parliament shut down ) tried to pick our pocket to the tune of billions.

Ahh, the new myth?

None of us really know yet. We might, perhaps, find out next week.

And there's that all-important review down the line, where it might be proven that the one trying to pick pockets was Sturgeon and not Fat Dave.

There is, however, another big porkie by Sturgeon and Salmond that's come to light during the negotiations. Apparently, the whole of iScotland's infrastructure could be set-up for just £250M (© S&S, 2014), and yet just a small Scottish Welfare office will now cost £450M to £600M to set-up.

I guess that's because inflation is like everything in Scotland - exceptional.

 

8 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I`m deliberately just leaving it at billions to save you launching into post after post over an exact figure which seems impossible to be exact about. Billions is bad enough !

the difference between the two opening stances was something like £300M a year. not billions.

You know, much less than you think worthwhile raising with new taxes, which could be used to help the poor that you claim you're desperate to help.

If £500M isn't worth bothering with, why should you care about £300m?

 

8 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I have just had an entertaining meander through the last couple of pages and after your laughable contributions on these negotiations, I certainly don`t blame you for trying to sweep this away and move us on swiftly to GERS.

I'm quite happy to keep talking about the fiscal framework, thanks. You know, another thing which proved you bought a lie.

But I'm also eagerly looking forwards to GERS too, because it'll make every snipper's head explode (and it'll be over-stating the case too, because all oil revenues get booked as oil revenues, but tax rebates against the revenues are not deducted from them). So while it'll say about £100M in oil revenues the reality is actually negative revenues.

 

8 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Part of the chat today is how this all cements the need for our Parliament forever. No wonder you are annoyed 

Eh? How do you work that one out?

I'm not thinking it's going to be disappearing anytime soon, but there's no reason why it couldn't if there was the will to see it gone.

 

8 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Next step Independence from Westminster although I will miss all the banter about who`s Mum said what 

once you've found the missing £10Bn, of course.

Tho unfortunately, it looks like Sturgeon has just committed to there forever being that missing £10Bn. Oh dear.

 

[Comfy Bean]

I`m giving up on the reason why we are actually having these negotiations. It`s clear for all to see but you it seems 

I think you mean the new welfare system and from what I understand the Scottish Govt have agreed on £200mill set up costs ( as in upfront ) and £66mill for annual running costs. 

Labour and the Libs and the SNP stood together against the Tories.

Remember you used to be against money being lost to the Scottish " poor ". That used to be what you claimed anyway before you revealed you wanted all power returned to London. If Dave had got his way, Mundell and co would have taken money away from those who need it most. Read back over what you have said around these negotiations. You backed the Tories, everyone in Scotland accept the Tories stood up for the folk in Scotland.

Now Labour or the SNP down the road have the ability to raise the tax band on the high earners without having to raise it on the folk who fall into the lower bands. Do you think the Tories will do that down your way lol.

Hopefully we can prove that this will actually work and eventually reduce the gap between rich and poor. Some may say a fairer system could be in place.

Have you worked out why " Indepenmentalists " are unlikely to be " celebrating " yet ?

[Comfy Bean]

On 01/02/2016 at 8:06 AM, eFestivals said:

Unfortunately for Swinney it's going to be a no-deal. There's not a hope in hell that rUK will accept giving Scotland even more of rUK's money so that Scotland can have services that the rest of us can't afford because of the money being sent to Scotland.

Scotland`s services are being cut from Westminster too. If the Tories had got their way with the negotiations then these cuts would have run even deeper.

On 01/02/2016 at 0:50 PM, Stash said:

I think "Caveman Swinney" knows it too; 

- Demanding an increase in Barnett allows him to say he is looking after Scotland's interest.

- Being denied a Barnett increase lets him say that EVEL Westmonster is mistreating Scotland again. 

- Refusing to sign off the Scotland Bill and with it further devolution lets him say that those nasty Tories (both red & blue) broke their "vow", just like he said they would

 

 

I have no problem with you Unionists being against Indy but perhaps this recent episode where Labour, the SNP and the Libs stood against the Tories at Westminster ( and their 1 up here ) to fight off yet more Tory cuts gives you an insight worthy of reflection.

[Comfy Bean]

On 02/02/2016 at 8:58 PM, comfortablynumb1910 said:

 

SCOTLAND stands to lose £3.5billion from its budget within a decade if the Treasury blocks Finance Secretary John Swinney's plan for bringing new powers to Holyrood, according to one of the country's leading economists.

Endorsing Mr Swinney's position, he said it was the only system that satisfied the principles laid down by the Smith Commission, whose recommendations formed the basis of the Scotland Bill.

Using official population projections, and assuming Scottish tax revenues kept pace with the rest of the UK, he Scotland would not lose out as a result of slower population growth under the 'per capita' adjustment.

However, he calculated that an alternative system known as "indexed deduction," which had been put forward as a possible compromise, would leave Scotland £3.5billion worse off after 10 years, with the loss increasing into the future

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14243646.Leading_economist__wrong_deal_to_secure_Scotland_Bill_powers_would_cost___3_5billion/

On the off chance you didn`t know what billions I was referring to earlier Neil when you posted the words below, Here`s my post ( above ) from around the time you were saying that the SNP would avoid signing a deal.....something about grievance and westmonster you reckoned.

 

the difference between the two opening stances was something like £300M a year. not billions. 

You know, much less than you think worthwhile raising with new taxes, which could be used to help the poor that you claim you're desperate to help.

 

Some are saying now that we won`t lose a penny but as you say, more details to follow. Deep down you know the Tories tried to stitch us up.

Edited February 24, 2016 by comfortablynumb1910

[eFestivals]

59 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I think you mean the new welfare system and from what I understand the Scottish Govt have agreed on £200mill set up costs ( as in upfront ) and £66mill for annual running costs. 

So that would be them admitting that they tried fleecing Westminster then.

59 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Labour and the Libs and the SNP stood together against the Tories. all of Scotland wanted the most money it could squeeze

corrected that for you.

And look, while I don't like that, I'm not so daft as to really expect anything different. To you, it's all about Scotland and only Scotland, whilst others of us recognise that if the 'help the poorest' claims stood up, Scotland would not be after the most it could get.

59 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Remember you used to be against money being lost to the Scottish " poor ". That used to be what you claimed anyway before you revealed you wanted all power returned to London. If Dave had got his way, Mundell and co would have taken money away from those who need it most. Read back over what you have said around these negotiations. You backed the Tories, everyone in Scotland accept the Tories stood up for the folk in Scotland.

I'm against money being taken away from the poor, but that doesn't stop me from realising that's what Dave is doing and it doesn't stop me realising that's what indy would do too - tho far far far worse. What haven't you understood?

I didn't back the tories, I backed a fair settlement for all of the UK.

59 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Now Labour or the SNP down the road have the ability to raise the tax band on the high earners without having to raise it on the folk who fall into the lower bands. Do you think the Tories will do that down your way lol.

Hopefully we can prove that this will actually work and eventually reduce the gap between rich and poor. Some may say a fairer system could be in place

yep, the plan is to raise an extra £200m a year.

That's it. Nothing else. It's absolutely fuck all.

The SNP plan to give away more to the middle classes thru APD than they plan to take off the rich. Guess who's paying the difference?

Don't go away thinking I'm ridiculing taxing the rich to a greater extent because I'm not, I'm pointing out that the actual plan will make as good as no difference.

The reality is that extra taxes will have to come onto the middle classes to make a difference, and Scotland's middle classes have already shown they're definitely not up for paying more in taxes (and of course the same is true in England too).

So all in all it'll be a bit of a road to nowhere.

Edited February 24, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

On the off chance you didn`t know what billions I was referring to earlier Neil when you posted the words below, Here`s my post ( above ) from around the time you were saying that the SNP would avoid signing a deal.....something about grievance and westmonster you reckoned.

The "billions" is about £300M a year. Peanuts.

I think you'll find I made reference to a body of opinion I'd seen elsewhere that was suggesting the SNP would go for no deal.

You'll definitely see me referencing that the SNP might have a requirement of the new powers for something they're eager to put in their manifesto.

 

8 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Some are saying now that we won`t lose a penny but as you say, more details to follow. Deep down you know the Tories tried to stitch us up.

Says the supporter of a party who've just called themselves liars about the costs of establishing new govt departments, and who tried to stitch up the UK govt while doing so.

[eFestivals]

20 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Scotland`s services are being cut from Westminster too. If the Tories had got their way with the negotiations then these cuts would have run even deeper.

and if you'd got your way with independence.....?

It's laughable to call the tories evil for cutting while wishing to self-inflict much worse.

 

20 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I have no problem with you Unionists being against Indy but perhaps this recent episode where Labour, the SNP and the Libs stood against the Tories at Westminster ( and their 1 up here ) to fight off yet more Tory cuts gives you an insight worthy of reflection.

"politician tries to get local patch more money" is not breaking news in any year, decade, century or millennium.

[LJS]

So it panned out pretty much as it was always going to pan out - after a lot of posturing & hot air both sides compromised & we got a deal on a plan that let's face it neither were desperately keen on. It grew out of the vow which was certainly not the SNP's brainchild & the Tories only came up with it in a moment of blind panic. Nevertheless we have it; thus leaving Holyrood with a bit more power & roughly the same amount of cash. Of course the deal is a bit of a fudge and to some extent kicks the real decisions further down the road but its a deal & it appears to be fair to both "sides."

 

We could welcome that & hope, as I do, that the Scottish Government will be bold & imaginative in the use of its new powers... or (Neil) you could carry on repeating the same tired arguments you have been relentlessly hammering away at for what seems like an eternity. 

 

For myself, I am generally interested in people's own opinions not Neil's repackaging of views from a rabidly anti-snp blog which I have usually read anyway before he trots them out.  Neither do I care what a few hundred sad nutters in their bedsits are posting on the internet - despite Neil's constant attempts to present these sad people as representative of pro Indy thought.

I read some BTL comments in the Scotsman the other day (I don't often go BTL as there is generally much unpleasantness on both sides) & was amused to find one chap posting under the pseudonym of Natzarlice... loverly. Perhaps it was you Neil?

More representative of the real world was my very pleasant chat with a colleague at work today. He was very much on the opposite side from me in the Indy ref (although, of course, being civilised people we didn't fall out about it) about how nice it would be to have a referendum in June where we would both be on the same side.

 

 

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

We could welcome that & hope, as I do, that the Scottish Government will be bold & imaginative in the use of its new powers... or (Neil) you could carry on repeating the same tired arguments you have been relentlessly hammering away at for what seems like an eternity. 

All that's been suggested for use of the powers before yesterday was an almost-meaningless "tax the rich" (5% extra on income taxes for the 'super-rich' earning over £150k a year) - meaningless because it'll do almost nothing of the expectations from it (as I pointed out yesterday).

I also pointed yesterday - and previously too - that the SNP might have 'need' of the new powers for something they're desperate to put in their manifesto, and it appears that it's been revealed. And actually, afterwards, it's all a bit obvious.

After all, it would un-(in?)-credible for the SNP to go into this election without having a stated plan for how to reform local govt funding, given that it's an unfulfilled election commitment that goes back a decade, and is causing the SNP to impose austerity onto councils via their own policy (that's fuck all to do with Westminster, as it's the SNP consciously choosing to replicate things from there).

So anyway, word appears to be that there'll be some element of income tax that'll go towards local funding - which is presumably why the SNP were desperate to get a deal done.

As for the policy itself, it's all a bit tory from one side of things, of locals paying for what they get locally - which isn't great for improving the more-destitute areas ... but the devil is in the detail, and there's elements around 'local income taxes' that might improve things.

(Personally I'm 100% in favour of the old rating system, where people paid based on their use of local land resources, because one person's occupation of land is a denial of the use of that land to another, yet the land is ours - all of ours. A rating system works as a compensation scheme).

 

12 hours ago, LJS said:

Neither do I care what a few hundred sad nutters in their bedsits are posting on the internet - despite Neil's constant attempts to present these sad people as representative of pro Indy thought.

If they weren't representative of pro indy thought, the representatives of that thought would be slagging them off - but never do. The most you ever get to is denying they exist.

There's something for you to dwell on there.

 

12 hours ago, LJS said:

More representative of the real world was my very pleasant chat with a colleague at work today. He was very much on the opposite side from me in the Indy ref (although, of course, being civilised people we didn't fall out about it) about how nice it would be to have a referendum in June where we would both be on the same side.

Oooooh ... which reminds me, have you see Prof Curtis's latest musings from his research, which has discovered that Scottish opinion about the EU is far FAR closer to the UK average than Sturgeon likes to suggest?

 

[kipper64]

I saw the Guardian article on the EU polling but thought it was a tad misleading - it stated that polling considered around 60% of Scots to be 'Eurosceptic' if i recall, which was only a few points down on England and shows a clear majority.

However Euroscepticism =! wanting to leave the EU.

 

I suppose it depends on how the questions were framed because the only other stat published was 19% were happy with the EU exactly the way it is, which suggests to me they have lumped anyone with any sort of criticism of the EU in the Eurosceptics pile which tells us nothing really because most people aren't always 100% happy with anything they will endorse, but may still see it as beneficial or the best choice.

 

It could be though that it's maybe not quite as big an issue for some as the SNP make out - I know some previous polling analysis from Curtice lead him to the conclusion it'll likely have some effect but doesnt currently give the SNP the numbers to state a vote leave would 100% lead to a successful indy ref in Scotland.

 

Edited February 25, 2016 by kipper64

[eFestivals]

25 minutes ago, kipper64 said:

I saw the Guardian article on the EU polling but thought it was a tad misleading - it stated that polling considered around 60% of Scots to be 'Eurosceptic' if i recall, which was only a few points down on England and shows a clear majority.

However Euroscepticism =! wanting to leave the EU.

I suppose it depends on how the questions were framed because the only other stat published was 19% were happy with the EU exactly the way it is, which suggests to me they have lumped anyone with any sort of criticism of the EU in the Eurosceptics pile which tells us nothing really because most people aren't always 100% happy with anything they will endorse, but may still see it as beneficial or the best choice.

Like you I've only seen the Guardian's report, and like you I spotted the potential issues with how it worded what it said, but it was also including some comment from Curtis which implied a fair and even basis to his conclusions.

The most interesting part, I thought, was that exactly the same percentage in rUK (or was it whole-UK?) and Scotland felt the EU needed changing (I think it was 43%). It takes some pretty similar thinking to come in at exactly the same.

There was a difference in the "I want out" number of 5% (with Scotland the lower), tho both were far lower than some (Sturgeon) likes to suggest for England. I forget what they were exactly, tho it might have 22% and 17%.

And, I think, it's reasonable to assume there's a Sturgeon-effect happening to some extent on the Scotland number, where just as it became socially unacceptable for Scots to vote tory (while not stopping them thinking it), and has now become socially unacceptable to vote Labour, it's similarly socially unacceptable to 'think like the English' by disliking the EU. How big that effect might be can only be argued over tho.

 

Quote

It could be though that it's maybe not quite as big an issue for some as the SNP make out - I know some previous polling analysis from Curtice lead him to the conclusion it'll likely have some effect but doesnt currently give the SNP the numbers to state a vote leave would 100% lead to a successful indy ref in Scotland.

I think you're a bit off target with that first line. I'd say the difference in attitudes in Scotland is far lesser than some in Scotland like to pretend - and social attitudes polling seems to bear that out very strongly.

If the UK did vote out, there may or may not be a big-enough demand for a 2nd indyref - tho other recent polling tends to suggest there wouldn't be. There seems to only be around 30% who are desperate for a repeat asap.

But if there was that 2nd indyref, all of the same issues exist, and all of the same no-way to address them remain - so I very much doubt it would be anything that the indy side could win - because the dire state of Scotland';s finances is clearer than ever, and the effect that would come from that onto Scotland isn't anything Scotland would accept.

Indy is a road to nowhere for all of the while that £8-£10Bn funding gap exists. No one gets a better Scotland by making tory cuts look like a spending spree in comparison.

Edited February 25, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

 I think plenty of people will vote to remain whilst being "sceptical" about aspects of the EU. Indeed , I don't think anyone advocating a remain vote on here is claiming the eu is perfect. So it's perhaps no surprise that someone has been able to detect a level of Euro scepticism in Scotland. What the opinion polls consistently is a far higher majority for remain in Scotland than in England. Whether that then leads to second Indy ref + a yes vote is of course another question.

[eFestivals]

44 minutes ago, LJS said:

 I think plenty of people will vote to remain whilst being "sceptical" about aspects of the EU. Indeed , I don't think anyone advocating a remain vote on here is claiming the eu is perfect. So it's perhaps no surprise that someone has been able to detect a level of Euro scepticism in Scotland. What the opinion polls consistently is a far higher majority for remain in Scotland than in England.

It'll be interesting to see how that plays out in the reality of a real vote. I suspect it won't be hugely different in the end, tho there are a couple of factors in Scotland that could impact - perhaps quite a lot - into how they compare.

Firstly is a politician - and a nationalist politician - who is solidly for remain.

Without - I hope - a response claiming I'm trying to smear the SNP &/or their supporters, that 'nationalist' bit has strong relevance here, as it will have captured a number of those who might be following UKIP within England (the "put MY country first" types), and instead of them having a leader who is telling them to leave they have a leader saying the opposite. I reckon this aspect alone could be worth something like 5% (based on the difference between the UKIP votes in England and Scotland).

The other thing is around turnout. I suspect that because of recent political life in Scotland turnout will be higher, and those more likely to turnout will be yes-ers from the indyref (the ones most politically enthused), who in the EUref are (if you like) likely to follow the same leader.

Whereas in England, it's clearly going to be the case that those who want to leave will be the most motivated to go and vote (and is the thing that might cause 'remain' to lose).

The result is likely to be that any greater turnout in Scotland than England is likely to be hugely in favour of staying in - and this could, perhaps, account for a huge difference in how Scotland and England.

If turnout is around the same in both countries I reckon the difference will be 5% at most. For every 1% difference in turnout in Scotland you can probably add 0.9% to the Scottish support for remain compared to England.

Quote

Whether that then leads to second Indy ref + a yes vote is of course another question.

Nicola has cranked up the rhetoric again lately, but I'd love to know what's really going on in her head.

I don't think she's so dumb as to believe that she could win a 2nd indyref if the UK voted out any more than she thinks Scotland can self-fund. All of the same issues remain for why it wasn't won last time, but where the same whitewash can't be used to pretend the problems aren't there. Everything is starkly exposed now.

And of course they'd be no chance of sustaining the idea of a currency union "because the UK wouldn't hurt itself" when the UK (or more correctly, rUK) had just happily punched itself in the face by leaving the EU - so the problems to be over-come would have got worse.

So I reckon she has her fingers firmly crossed that the UK votes in, because she'd rather that than another indyref anytime soon.

Edited February 25, 2016 by eFestivals
edited to use better wording.

[Comfy Bean]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

So I reckon she has her fingers firmly crossed that the UK votes in, because she'd rather that than another indyref anytime soon.

You " reckon " ?

NS will campaign for us to stay in. Full stop. As I understand it, you are on the same side as her. You don`t have to start inventing conspiracies. She wouldn`t " rather that " she wants that and will campaign for it.

Have you noticed you are the only guy on here banging on about Indy ref 2. It ain`t happening for a while.

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Have you noticed you are the only guy on here banging on about Indy ref 2. It ain`t happening for a while.

Did you not hear Nicola in the last week bang on again about how it might trigger a 2nd indyref?

It's her who has put its relevance right in the middle of the EUref, not me.

 

15 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

NS will campaign for us to stay in. Full stop. As I understand it, you are on the same side as her. You don`t have to start inventing conspiracies. She wouldn`t " rather that " she wants that and will campaign for it.

Yes, I grasp she wants Scotland to be in the EU, but there's also all sorts of conditions and contradictions around that.

For example, you might have noticed about 18 months ago she was quite happy to risk Scotland being outside of the EU, for a greater prize. Now she's less keen.

(and do note I only said 'risk', rather than go with the certainty stated in 2 letters from the EU to the Scottish Govt).

 

[Comfy Bean]

Neil, I`m not after an argument. NS wants an IN vote. You agree with her on this issue. You say she`s banging on about Indy ref 2, I say she`s campaigning for us to stay in Europe.

Let`s wait and see what her manifesto says about a date for Indy Ref 2 

[LJS]

10 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Neil, I`m not after an argument. NS wants an IN vote. You agree with her on this issue. You say she`s banging on about Indy ref 2, I say she`s campaigning for us to stay in Europe.

Let`s wait and see what her manifesto says about a date for Indy Ref 2 

We'll maybe need to wait for the telegraph to tell us what she has told the French ambassador...then we'll know what she really thinks.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

We'll maybe need to wait for the telegraph to tell us what she has told the French ambassador...then we'll know what she really thinks.

more Ferrero Rocher, because she's not proud she'll put her hand out to anyone...?

[LJS]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

It'll be interesting to see how that plays out in the reality of a real vote. I suspect it won't be hugely different in the end, tho there are a couple of factors in Scotland that could impact - perhaps quite a lot - into how they compare.

Firstly is a politician - and a nationalist politician - who is solidly for remain.

Without - I hope - a response claiming I'm trying to smear the SNP &/or their supporters, that 'nationalist' bit has strong relevance here, as it will have captured a number of those who might be following UKIP within England (the "put MY country first" types), and instead of them having a leader who is telling them to leave they have a leader saying the opposite. I reckon this aspect alone could be worth something like 5% (based on the difference between the UKIP votes in England and Scotland).

The other thing is around turnout. I suspect that because of recent political life in Scotland turnout will be higher, and those more likely to turnout will be yes-ers from the indyref (the ones most politically enthused), who in the EUref are (if you like) likely to follow the same leader.

Whereas in England, it's clearly going to be the case that those who want to leave will be the most motivated to go and vote (and is the thing that might cause 'remain' to lose).

The result is likely to be that any greater turnout in Scotland than England is likely to be hugely in favour of staying in - and this could, perhaps, account for a huge difference in how Scotland and England.

If turnout is around the same in both countries I reckon the difference will be 5% at most. For every 1% difference in turnout in Scotland you can probably add 0.9% to the Scottish support for remain compared to England.

 

WARNING!!! This post contains a link to pro Indy blog....

Please do not click on the link if you are easily offended.

http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/for-attention-of-boris-johnson-your-cut.html?m=1

 

This gives some comparisons between Scottish & UK polls on the eu.

 

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, LJS said:

WARNING!!! This post contains a link to pro Indy blog....

Please do not click on the link if you are easily offended.

http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/for-attention-of-boris-johnson-your-cut.html?m=1

 

This gives some comparisons between Scottish & UK polls on the eu.

 

yep, but I think that's a consequence of more in Scotland having firmly made their mind, and when that moment comes for many in England they'll stick with the status quo instead.

Win or lose is going to be settled by turnout rather than where opinion really lies I reckon, but in the meantime the polls will be over-representing the numbers that will vote for out because of that status quo effect.

(the status quo effect: more 'rockin' all over the world' than 'living on an island' )

Edited February 25, 2016 by eFestivals

[Stash]

This makes for interesting reading:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/503481/fiscal_framework_agreement_25_feb_16_2.pdf

 

[eFestivals]

57 minutes ago, Stash said:

This makes for interesting reading:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/503481/fiscal_framework_agreement_25_feb_16_2.pdf

 

yep - Scotland didn't get PCID, apart from for a "transitional period" (the term of the next SG) and even then not in all parts of the new devolved finances.

Nor did they get the set-up costs they wanted. They got less than half of it (and it's worth pointing out, this equals about year's worth of the amount being argued over for the main financial transfer, which has allowed the SG to save some face over the main part while the Uk govt only cares about the total amounts).

And there's also a lot of "costs will be met by the SG" within it, too.

The SG picks up more risk than Sturgeon said she'd accept in one of her recent letters.

There's also an awful lot of 'support'  clauses. It's almost like the SNP know how much Scotland might need supporting.

It looks like there's to be greater scrutiny of SG spending than the SNP wanted to allow (tho it's hard to be entirely sure).

----

Overall - from the limited reporting prior to agreement - it looks like both sides have conceded a fair amount of ground (tho that's perhaps more to do with bravdo in public pronouncements), but without seeing the previous proposals from each side it's impossible to know where exactly each has moved from, apart from the SG having moved from "PCID and nothing else" and the UK-govt having moved from a revised version of LA.

One thing that did jump out me tho is the use of (just) last-year numbers in a few cases - where a longer average would have been more beneficial to Scotland. I suspect that this part is where there's been the most movement from the SG, as nothing of what they might have given away during the negotiation process is revealed by that as there'd been no previous statements about it.

And finally, the review down the line gets to hide a multitude of sins, where Scotland might take a 'cut' (tho a cut against a hypothetical number, so not really a cut) and ultimately be taking the UK-govts initial offer that they said wasn't good enough, but be able to point to stuff around the review and claim there's not been a cut. ... and while all the same in reverse might be true for the UK govt instead, the political angles suggest its less likely to be that way round.

 

 

Edited February 26, 2016 by eFestivals