The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Any neutral observer could be led to believe Scotland is on the verge of societal disintegration yet nothing could be further from the truth .......

Not sure I would regard you as a neutral observer Neil but looks to me like you should reflect on the words like baseless and speculation.

Is England on the verge of societal disintegration due to brexit?

Why are you posting stuff to refute things I've never said or hinted at?

Is that because you're too stupid to understand what I've expressed very clearly, or simply because being a liar is your default?

 

Edited September 15, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

 

Katie Ghose, chief executive of the society, said: “This report shows without a shadow of a doubt just how dire the EU referendum debate really was.

“There were glaring democratic deficiencies in the run-up to the vote, with the public feeling totally ill-informed.

“Both sides were viewed as highly negative by voters, while the top-down, personality-based nature of the debate failed to address major policies and issues, leaving the public in the dark.

“It offered a stark contrast to the vibrant, well-informed, grass roots conversation of the Scottish independence vote - a referendum that left a lasting legacy of ongoing public participation in politics and public life.”

I'm wondering if you've seen the little fish's latest musings, about the lack of information about brexit negotiations?

Cos I'm also wondering what would have been Scotland's currency if you'd won in 2014....?

[eFestivals]

An interesting perspective on the next few years from an indy supporter who does facts, referencing analysis made by a geezer who until recently worked for the Scottish Govt

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/14/independent-scotland-financial-future-westminster-holyrood-government

(and if you wish to see some of the Nat racism I've referenced, just follow thru into the posted comments).

 

[Comfy Bean]

On 27/01/2016 at 7:17 AM, eFestivals said:

 

What if ask you - as I have twice, which you keep on avoiding answering (I wonder why? What scares you? ) - what level of personal and societal losses you'd be prepared to suffer for independence?

 

 

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Is England on the verge of societal disintegration due to brexit?

Why are you posting stuff to refute things I've never said or hinted at?

 

Perhaps I misinterpreted your previous ( regular ) musings on societal losses / disintegration.

Maybe you should reflect on your many posts around the living in a cave stuff you ran with a while back before asking me why I`m posting stuff to " refute things you`ve never said or hinted at ".

I can quote plenty more of you like but probably easier if we just move swiftly to you moving the goalposts or resorting to personal insults 

Oh and no, I do not think England is on the verge of societal disintegration due to brexit nor do I think any other Country in the UK is.

[Comfy Bean]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

He goes on to admit Scotland having "a minority of mindless idiots". If Scotland is different to England, presumably you're saying that England has a majority of mindless idiots, and that's why England has had nationalist violence and nothing similar could happen in nationalist Scotland post-indy?

 

 

" Presumably " I`m saying no such thing.

In fact, I have said lots and lots of times- most recently the other day- that there is a minority of mindless idiots on both sides.

Why don`t we condemn the eejits on both sides instead of presuming I`m saying something that is the exact opposite of what I actually have said many, many times ?

 

[eFestivals]

43 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Oh and no, I do not think England is on the verge of societal disintegration due to brexit nor do I think any other Country in the UK is.

and I don;t think Scotland is on the verge of societal disintegration either, so you need a different argument back against what I've said about the likelihood of an amount of violence following an indy victory.

Note that I said "an amount", and not anything different. The amount I'm thinking is something along similar lines to what has happened post-brexit.

 

[eFestivals]

18 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

" Presumably " I`m saying no such thing.

In fact, I have said lots and lots of times- most recently the other day- that there is a minority of mindless idiots on both sides.

Why don`t we condemn the eejits on both sides instead of presuming I`m saying something that is the exact opposite of what I actually have said many, many times ?

 

which is exactly my point, and why it's nuts to dismiss what I said if that's what you're thinking.

I'm condemning them. What i'm not doing is dismissing them as non-existent as you and LJS both decided to do.

[Comfy Bean]

On 9/13/2016 at 1:56 PM, LJS said:

I see you dodged the bit about the falling deficit. 

 

On 9/13/2016 at 2:38 PM, eFestivals said:

 

'm very happy to talk about it, nothing of it scares me.

 

Mmmmmmm. Our " falling deficit "  doesn`t  " scare " you ?

Why would anyone on either side who had the welfare of the people of Scotland at heart be " scared "  by this type of news ?

Is this the sign of a mask slipping 

This isn`t just a daft argument for the folk up here -  continuing to live under the Tories for the forseeable future. We have had this discussion before about how you think you can " win " an argument on here about indy.

Beyond your smokescreen of greed, racism, hatred of the English ( delete as appropriate ) we know that less that 1 in 4 people up here vote for the Tories or ukip in a ge when more than 1 in 2 down your way votes for the tories and ukip.

We also know about all 32 counts in Scotland voting to remain in the eu. Every single one of them but out we will go. Does none of this " scare " you ?

It kinda feels like we are standing in another man`s rain. The thought of standing behind our own decisions certainly doesn`t scare me.

 

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Mmmmmmm. Our " falling deficit "  doesn`t  " scare " you ?

Why should it? It's naff all to do with anything going on in Scotland.

The UK economy is growing, and Scotland isn't growing at above the average. Meanwhile, UK govt expenditure is falling, causing the Scottish deficit to shrink. When UK deficit reduction comes to an end, the deficit-gap that Scotland has will still be the same 6(ish)% it's always been, caused by the extra money that flows to Scotland via Barnett.

If you want to have a falling deficit after the UK stops reducing spending you'll have to make about 12% of cuts. There goes all of Scottish education.

 

9 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Why would anyone on either side who had the welfare of the people of Scotland at heart be " scared "  by this type of news ?

Well, I'd have thought that those who demand more money from Westminster just-because-we're-Scottish would be quite scared by the reduction in Scottish spending that Westminster is casuing, but if you're now welcoming tory cuts it might be easier if you just come out and say it.

9 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Beyond your smokescreen of greed, racism, hatred of the English ( delete as appropriate ) we know that less that 1 in 4 people up here vote for the Tories or ukip in a ge when more than 1 in 2 down your way votes for the tories and ukip.

and we also know by social attitudes that despite how people vote the thinking is the same.

You and yours are the Corbynistas of Scotland, who believe they have a right to everything "just because I'm me", and where reality cannot reach.

9 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

We also know about all 32 counts in Scotland voting to remain in the eu. Every single one of them but out we will go. Does none of this " scare " you ?

and in the glorious future indy Scotland, how many of those 32 countries do you think might have voted for indy?

Surely, if Sturgeon is a woman of honour and her word, it wouldn't be right or proper for one part of the country to force another part to do something it's not voted for...?

No? Oh, back to the duplicitousness  then.

9 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

The thought of standing behind our own decisions certainly doesn`t scare me.

That's fine. You want to be poorer.

Others stand behind their decisions too, like their decision to not be poorer. It's why they'll be no 2nd indyref anytime soon.

It's a shame that Sturgeon doesn't stand behind her own decisions tho, because she said she'd accept the indyref result but demands a Scottish veto over UK decisions, and she said the indyref was once in a generation but wants a rerun after 2 years.

Edited September 18, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Interesting words from Sturgeon.

Quote

But, two years on from the historic independence vote of 2014, the fundamental case for Scotland’s independence remains as it was. That case for full self-government ultimately transcends the issues of Brexit, of oil, of national wealth and balance sheets and of passing political fads and trends.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14749820.Nicola_Sturgeon__Decisions_about_Scotland_should_be_taken_by_those_who_live_and_work_here/

Is that Sturgeon now signed-up to independence at any price, because she's recognised that a decent economic case can't be made?

Or is that her saying that indy "transcends" the economics but only to a particular point? That once the economic consequences are too great indy is a bad idea?

That's a serious question, btw.

And if it's the 2nd, would someone like to tell me what the threshold is, of what Scotland's limit is of the self-inflicted economic pain it might bring on itself?

(note I said 'might' there. We don't need to go over the arguments of whether it will or not, I'm asking about what economic price you'd be prepared to pay for the [supposed] benefits of indy, which is not an unreasonable question in light of Sturgeon having raised it).

Edited September 18, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

7 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Interesting words from Sturgeon.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14749820.Nicola_Sturgeon__Decisions_about_Scotland_should_be_taken_by_those_who_live_and_work_here/

Is that Sturgeon now signed-up to independence at any price, because she's recognised that a decent economic case can't be made?

No. It's Sturgeon who believes Independence is the best option for Scotland. The case for Scottish Independence was never about "vote yes, get rich." There is a myth, which you appear to have bought, that the Indy campaign was based on untold wealth for all. I remember you endlessly banging on about "jam" 

Funnily enough, the SNP believe in Independence for all sorts of reasons. The notion that they believe in it just because it woudl make everyone up here rich is vacuous nonsense. 

I went back and had a look at your favourite historical document ... "Ye Olde White Paper" and before there is any mention of money at all we get these quotes...

Quote

If we vote Yes, we take the next step on Scotland’s journey. We will move forward with confidence, ready to make the most of the many opportunities that lie ahead. The most important decisions about our economy and society will be taken by the people who care most about Scotland, that is by the people of Scotland. The door will open to a new era for our nation. Scotland’s future will be in Scotland’s hands

Quote

We, the people who live here, have the greatest stake in making Scotland a success. With independence we can make Scotland the fairer and more successful country we all know it should be. We can make Scotland’s vast wealth and resources work much better for everyone in our country, creating a society that reflects our hopes and ambition. Being independent means we will have a government that we choose – a government that always puts the people of Scotland first.

Quote

‘Should Scotland be an independent country?’ The answer we give to that question will determine how we can shape our nation for the future. The year ahead should be a national celebration of who we are and what we could be. The debate we are engaged in as a nation is about the future of all of us lucky enough to live in this diverse and vibrant country. It is a rare and precious moment in the history of Scotland – a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way. At its heart independence is not about this Government or any political party. It is about a fundamental democratic choice for the people of Scotland. It is about the power to choose who we should be governed by and the power to build a country that reflects our priorities as a society and our values as a people.

There's pages & pages more of this before any suggestion that anyone might be better off through independence  The obsession with money is almost entirely in the heads of folk like yourself & your mate Chokka.

7 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Or is that her saying that indy "transcends" the economics but only to a particular point? That once the economic consequences are too great indy is a bad idea?

No. I know this is a really difficult concept for you but it seems to me that she is saying that Independence is not about saying Scotland would (or wouldn't) be financially better off as an independent country.

7 hours ago, eFestivals said:

That's a serious question, btw.

And if it's the 2nd, would someone like to tell me what the threshold is, of what Scotland's limit is of the self-inflicted economic pain it might bring on itself?

 

I know this is a concept you really, really struggle with but no one knows for certain what the economic impact of Scottish independence will be. No one sensible is suggesting that, in the long term, Scotland is any less viable than the many independent Northern European countries, so there is no "threshold" in the way you suggest. In other words we will not be living in caves.

7 hours ago, eFestivals said:

(note I said 'might' there. We don't need to go over the arguments of whether it will or not, I'm asking about what economic price you'd be prepared to pay for the [supposed] benefits of indy, which is not an unreasonable question in light of Sturgeon having raised it).

 

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

No. It's Sturgeon who believes Independence is the best option for Scotland.

She used to say something different, that she wasn't a live-in-a-cave nationalist.

So you're agreeing that she now is...?

 

11 hours ago, LJS said:

The case for Scottish Independence was never about "vote yes, get rich." There is a myth, which you appear to have bought, that the Indy campaign was based on untold wealth for all. I remember you endlessly banging on about "jam" 

The case for Scottish indy was never about "vote yes, get poor" either, tho that's the reality from all of the available evidence.

The myth is the one you give, that it's not about money. If it wasn't about money you and the indy campaign wouldn't need to invent myths about the money and you'd instead accept the best available evidence.

Some indy-supporting people can. A well-known Scottish Nationalist called George said it would be "economic suicide" for Scotland to self-fund, if you remember.

 

11 hours ago, LJS said:

Funnily enough, the SNP believe in Independence for all sorts of reasons. The notion that they believe in it just because it woudl make everyone up here rich is vacuous nonsense. 

I went back and had a look at your favourite historical document ... "Ye Olde White Paper" and before there is any mention of money at all we get these quotes...

There's pages & pages more of this before any suggestion that anyone might be better off through independence  The obsession with money is almost entirely in the heads of folk like yourself & your mate Chokka.

Pages and pages of guff until the SNP get to make the big lie...?

Well, they're clearly not liars then, cos a liar would make their lie right at the start. yeah...?

 

11 hours ago, LJS said:

No. I know this is a really difficult concept for you but it seems to me that she is saying that Independence is not about saying Scotland would (or wouldn't) be financially better off as an independent country.

If indy is better, it must be better than having your current wealth levels, yeah...?

Yep, that's what I've interpreted Sturgeon's words as meaning. Their meaning seems pretty clear.

I was asking - which you've avoided - if that's an absolute, or if it's an idea with a limit. Is indy still better if (hypothetically) you're (say) 50% poorer? Or does it stop being better if (hypothetically) it made you (say) 10% poorer?

Is there a limit to the bad consequences you'd take for indy? Or not?

 

11 hours ago, LJS said:

I know this is a concept you really, really struggle with but no one knows for certain what the economic impact of Scottish independence will be.

It's not true.

It's beyond doubt that the SG would be £15Bn short of the money you'd want to spend if Scotland were indy. Indy doesn't magic up that missing money, only lower spending or higher taxing does.

 

11 hours ago, LJS said:

No one sensible is suggesting that, in the long term, Scotland is any less viable than the many independent Northern European countries, so there is no "threshold" in the way you suggest. In other words we will not be living in caves.

No one is saying iScotland can't be viable. .... but .....

Ireland is viable, but Ireland is viable because (amongst other things) it can't afford free healthcare and charges people to visit the doctors or hospital.

Maybe iScotland would only be viable on the same basis. What you have you only get to keep if it can be paid for.

------

So anyway, would you like to have a go at answering my question? Which of the two options is Sturgeon saying, and if the second what is the limit to the bad consequences you'd (hypothetically) accept for indy?

[LJS]

40 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

She used to say something different, that she wasn't a live-in-a-cave nationalist.

So you're agreeing that she now is...?

 

The case for Scottish indy was never about "vote yes, get poor" either, tho that's the reality from all of the available evidence.

The myth is the one you give, that it's not about money. If it wasn't about money you and the indy campaign wouldn't need to invent myths about the money and you'd instead accept the best available evidence.

Some indy-supporting people can. A well-known Scottish Nationalist called George said it would be "economic suicide" for Scotland to self-fund, if you remember.

 

Pages and pages of guff until the SNP get to make the big lie...?

Well, they're clearly not liars then, cos a liar would make their lie right at the start. yeah...?

 

If indy is better, it must be better than having your current wealth levels, yeah...?

Yep, that's what I've interpreted Sturgeon's words as meaning. Their meaning seems pretty clear.

I was asking - which you've avoided - if that's an absolute, or if it's an idea with a limit. Is indy still better if (hypothetically) you're (say) 50% poorer? Or does it stop being better if (hypothetically) it made you (say) 10% poorer?

Is there a limit to the bad consequences you'd take for indy? Or not?

 

It's not true.

It's beyond doubt that the SG would be £15Bn short of the money you'd want to spend if Scotland were indy. Indy doesn't magic up that missing money, only lower spending or higher taxing does.

 

No one is saying iScotland can't be viable. .... but .....

Ireland is viable, but Ireland is viable because (amongst other things) it can't afford free healthcare and charges people to visit the doctors or hospital.

Maybe iScotland would only be viable on the same basis. What you have you only get to keep if it can be paid for.

------

So anyway, would you like to have a go at answering my question? Which of the two options is Sturgeon saying, and if the second what is the limit to the bad consequences you'd (hypothetically) accept for indy?

It's a stupid question . 

[eFestivals]

16 minutes ago, LJS said:

It's a stupid question . 

It's not a stupid question at all. Asking you how much you value indy is a very long way from being a stupid question, unless it's simply stupid to support indy at any level.

Sturgeon said that indy transcends the economics, that national wealth is not important compared to indy.

I fully accept the basis of the idea she's putting forwards, because not every idea should be subsumed to the economics of that idea.

But i'm asking how far that idea stretches, I'm asking by how much it might transcend the economics. Totally - so (if that's how it went) you'd live in a cave for indy - or limited, so that there becomes a tipping point when indy is the worse option because of the economic hit people might take.

What is it about the question that scared you? It's not a trick question of anyone who says they support indy.

If indy is what you want, what scares you of standing behind your idea and vocalising what it means?

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

It's not a stupid question at all. Asking you how much you value indy is a very long way from being a stupid question, unless it's simply stupid to support indy at any level.

Sturgeon said that indy transcends the economics, that national wealth is not important compared to indy.

I fully accept the basis of the idea she's putting forwards, because not every idea should be subsumed to the economics of that idea.

But i'm asking how far that idea stretches, I'm asking by how much it might transcend the economics. Totally - so (if that's how it went) you'd live in a cave for indy - or limited, so that there becomes a tipping point when indy is the worse option because of the economic hit people might take.

What is it about the question that scared you? It's not a trick question of anyone who says they support indy.

If indy is what you want, what scares you of standing behind your idea and vocalising what it means?

£22,146,378,149

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, LJS said:

£22,146,378,149

OK, thanks. It's good for you to explain that there's only insanity as the basis of your indy want, and everyone is able to see that, and will make their decision on your insanity as much as they will anything else.

For all the while that indy supporters don't take indy seriously, those who they need to convince won't go with the insane who try to convince them.

It'#s no wonder Sturgeon is now basing everything on irrational hopes, she knows the rational are beyond her influence.

I was going to follow up my original question with what better society you believe indy can delivery you, but it's clear you know it can deliver you nothing apart from expelling English influence - and English money - from Scottish budgets.

Edited September 19, 2016 by eFestivals

[LJS]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

OK, thanks. It's good for you to explain that there's only insanity as the basis of your indy want, and everyone is able to see that, and will make their decision on your insanity as much as they will anything else.

For all the while that indy supporters don't take indy seriously, those who they need to convince won't go with the insane who try to convince them.

It'#s no wonder Sturgeon is now basing everything on irrational hopes, she knows the rational are beyond her influence.

I was going to follow up my original question with what better society you believe indy can delivery you, but it's clear you know it can deliver you nothing apart from expelling English influence - and English money - from Scottish budgets.

Stunning Neil. Truly stunning.

[eFestivals]

24 minutes ago, LJS said:

Stunning Neil. Truly stunning.

It's got more relevance to your reply than yours did to mine.

What scares you about the question? It's clearly not irrelevant to ask when Sturgeon is saying the pr8inciple is in play.

And yes, she's definitely saying the principle is in play. If there was an economic case that stood up she wouldn't undermine it with words like these.

Which means that any forthcoming economic plan for indyref2 is going to be "vote indy, be poorer", and she's preparing the ground for it. There's of course no alternative to (if independent) being poorer anyway, as I've constantly pointed out.

And when it comes, you'll go with it - and will have openly abandoned all of the "better society", "look after the poor better" and all the other guff you gave 2 years ago. Just like with Sturgeon, indy transcends everything

Welcome to the same thinking as the kippers and the brexiters.

[Comfy Bean]

On 17/09/2016 at 10:21 PM, comfortablynumb1910 said:

 

Mmmmmmm. Our " falling deficit "  doesn`t  " scare " you ?

Why would anyone on either side who had the welfare of the people of Scotland at heart be " scared "  by this type of news ?

Is this the sign of a mask slipping 

 

 

Think you missed the point I was making before or I didn`t explain it well enough.

Lets try it another way......

Lets say that unemployment was falling in Scotland at a rate faster than rUK.

Would this news " scare " you. Are you more concerned about your " argument " than you are with the news that 1000`s of folk had found a job.

Same question works for falling deficit etc.

[Comfy Bean]

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

It's not a stupid question at all. Asking you how much you value indy is a very long way from being a stupid question, unless it's simply stupid to support indy at any level.

Sturgeon said that indy transcends the economics, that national wealth is not important compared to indy.

I fully accept the basis of the idea she's putting forwards, because not every idea should be subsumed to the economics of that idea.

But i'm asking how far that idea stretches, I'm asking by how much it might transcend the economics. Totally - so (if that's how it went) you'd live in a cave for indy - or limited, so that there becomes a tipping point when indy is the worse option because of the economic hit people might take.

What is it about the question that scared you? It's not a trick question of anyone who says they support indy.

If indy is what you want, what scares you of standing behind your idea and vocalising what it means?

Can`t believe your going with the cave chat again !

If indy meant society in Scotland as we know it being wiped out with residents of Scotland being forced to return to live in caves then I for one would not vote for it.

Hope this helps.

I am confident that the SNP or Labour Govt that the people who live in Scotland would elect to run our affairs would make a decent enough fist of it that we should manage to avoid the cave scenario.

I am also willing to concede that the Tory Govt that the people who don`t live in Scotland have elected for us will also manage to keep us from cave dwelling so perhaps I should get back in my box etc.

[eFestivals]

52 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Can`t believe your going with the cave chat again !

It was Sturgeon who raised the possibility.. I'm simply asking what exactly was she meaning.

 

54 minutes ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Hope this helps.

I am confident that the SNP or Labour Govt that the people who live in Scotland would elect to run our affairs would make a decent enough fist of it that we should manage to avoid the cave scenario.

It does help, thank you.

So now could you please address the 2nd part of the question: how much of a hit would you be prepared to take?

Cos Sturgeon is very definitely hinting at the need for there to be a hit, that's what her words were about.

 

[LJS]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

It was Sturgeon who raised the possibility.. I'm simply asking what exactly was she meaning.

 

It does help, thank you.

So now could you please address the 2nd part of the question: how much of a hit would you be prepared to take?

Cos Sturgeon is very definitely hinting at the need for there to be a hit, that's what her words were about.

 

Neil, Neil, as so often seems to be the case  you are over-interpretting  nic's words to come up with "meanings" that simply are not there.

 

[sjseabass]

9 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I was going to follow up my original question with what better society you believe indy can delivery you, but it's clear you know it can deliver you nothing apart from expelling English influence - and English money - from Scottish budgets.

 

6 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Which means that any forthcoming economic plan for indyref2 is going to be "vote indy, be poorer", and she's preparing the ground for it. There's of course no alternative to (if independent) being poorer anyway, as I've constantly pointed out.

And when it comes, you'll go with it - and will have openly abandoned all of the "better society", "look after the poor better" and all the other guff you gave 2 years ago. Just like with Sturgeon, indy transcends everything

In light of these comments (and endless others) I felt like doing a bit of digging about whether this is actually the incontrovertible truth, given that it is the crux of your anti-indy argument. I took a look at the list of countries ranked by GDP per capita, and found that the UK is #25 at $41,159. New Zealand, meanwhile, is in 29th at $36,172.

If you rank countries by median income, however, New Zealand is at #16 with $23,422, above the UK at #19 with $21,033. Or in other words, the average person earns more in NZ than the UK, despite GDP per capita being 14% lower.

There's also the Where-to-be-born index (previously known as the quality of life index), which has New Zealand way up in 7th and the UK down in 27th.

Conclusion: it is possible for country to be 'poorer' than another while actually doing better for its citizens.

I have anticipated an avalanche of straw men being put up in reaction to this post, including:

• So you think New Zealand is utopia?
• So you agree iScotland will be poorer?
• So you think iScotland and New Zealand are precisely comparable?
• So you think iScotland is guaranteed to implement policies to achieve a better society?

I am not saying any of these things.

I am simply refuting your assertion that the principal, unavoidable and overriding consequence of Scottish independence is to make the Scottish people as a whole worse off. This is not a fact.

[eFestivals]

13 hours ago, LJS said:

Neil, Neil, as so often seems to be the case  you are over-interpretting  nic's words to come up with "meanings" that simply are not there.

Really?

She said indy transcends everything. That it's more important than brexit, than the economy, than Scotland's wealth.

If you're too unintelligent to recognise her words for what they are, that's your issue.  I know that a huge number of Scots - including plenty of indy supporters - have managed what you clearly can't.

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, theevilfridge said:

 

In light of these comments (and endless others) I felt like doing a bit of digging about whether this is actually the incontrovertible truth, given that it is the crux of your anti-indy argument. I took a look at the list of countries ranked by GDP per capita, and found that the UK is #25 at $41,159. New Zealand, meanwhile, is in 29th at $36,172.

If you rank countries by median income, however, New Zealand is at #16 with $23,422, above the UK at #19 with $21,033. Or in other words, the average person earns more in NZ than the UK, despite GDP per capita being 14% lower.

There's also the Where-to-be-born index (previously known as the quality of life index), which has New Zealand way up in 7th and the UK down in 27th.

Conclusion: it is possible for country to be 'poorer' than another while actually doing better for its citizens.

I have anticipated an avalanche of straw men being put up in reaction to this post, including:

• So you think New Zealand is utopia?
• So you agree iScotland will be poorer?
• So you think iScotland and New Zealand are precisely comparable?
• So you think iScotland is guaranteed to implement policies to achieve a better society?

I am not saying any of these things.

 

There's more to it than the measures you're using.  You could have also pulled out similar for Ireland, where there's far less public provision than there is in the UK.

GDP is not actually a great measure of national accessible, usable wealth. Ireland has a fantastic GDP.

 

Quote

I am simply refuting your assertion that the principal, unavoidable and overriding consequence of Scottish independence is to make the Scottish people as a whole worse off. This is not a fact.

It is a fact.

Unless you can tell me how a country can have 13% less govt resources than currently and still have the same govt resources....?

Because it's an indisputable fact that the Scottish govt would lose the £10(ish)bn it gets from Westminster each year.

Perhaps you can tell me that If 'austerity' is evil and damages an economy - which you've argued to me in the past - why doesn't work like that in just Scotland, because losing that £10bn a year would be like tory austerity on steroids.

 

 

Edited September 20, 2016 by eFestivals