The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, LJS said:

My post wasn't about indy, it was about having an adult debate where we can disagree without calling each other liars and morons. 

if you or comfy post lies about what i've not said, I'll call them out as the lies they are.

Free passes is what you do. I don't. 

[LJS]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

You posted a link to Vonny's article earlier.

Actually I didn't - someone else did & I reacted to it

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I suggest you have a read of the comments underneath,

you know I rarely do that  & for very good reasons... 

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

which show a huge number of Scots leaning away from wanting ref for all sorts of different reasons, much like was found in that pub.

Yup, all sorts of people have all sort of opinions. The BBC usually tries to have folk representing both sides of an argument. I don't beleive it woudl have taken them long to find a couple of Yes supporters in Glasgow.

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

It might not be all opinions, but the opinions Newsnight found seem to be the genuine opinions of an awful lots of Scots.

I never denied that & I have no objection at all to these views being aired. Unlike you, I welcome debate and a diversity of views.

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Never mind, eh?

 

[LJS]

28 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

if you or comfy post lies about what i've not said, I'll call them out as the lies they are.

Free passes is what you do. I don't. 

Cos that makes for sensible adult debate, doesn't it?

16 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Liar liar pants on fire. Lies are all you have.

I pointed out that she was bottling it for all the time she wasn't doing it. It's not like the SNP need a reason to call an indyref anyway, as wanting one is their default position.

And again: Liar liar pants on fire. Lies are all you have.

PS she hasn't actually done anything yet, btw. She said she wants one. An SNP leader wants one. Is it even news, really?

 

[LJS]

someone (I think it may have been Lost) questioned the timing of the proposed referendum.Here is an article explaining why Autumn next year makes sense...

 

https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/10541/myth-buster-why-scottish-voters-will-know-truth-brexit-deal-date-new-referendum

IT’S CLEAR THAT THE REALITIES of Brexit haven’t hit home yet when UK media voices remain confused about its basic timetable. 

The Tories told the BBC that a new independence referendum would leave voters “blind” to the deal done in Brexit talks, leading to widespread speculation that an Autumn 2018 vote would mean Scots not knowing the terms of the UK’s exit from the EU.

While there remains massive uncertainties about the Tory’s Brexit plans - the Tory government lost two court cases and two parliament votes already over the lack of a plan - basic evidence proves that a deal has to be written by late 2018 to meet its deadline.

[eFestivals]

16 minutes ago, LJS said:

Cos that makes for sensible adult debate, doesn't it?

what are you missing about who would have started the non-sense in what I said?

If you can keep it bullshit free, there's no issue.

The problem is, you even bullshit about what you've said, even just a few hours before. You've even done it today (tho I'm sure you'll say that 'gap' makes all the difference to you saying that the missing billions is meaningless, which only exposes the extent you'll go to).

Back to something sensible. 

If the "deficit gap" is meaningless like you said, let's talk about the extremely meaningful and much bigger deficit.

What spending do you think should be cut to make up the shortfall of at least £9Bn?

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, LJS said:

the Tory government lost two court cases and two parliament votes already over the lack of a plan

No it didn't. It lost court cases over a matter of procedure.

And it lost two parliamentary votes around a dispute of what the plan should be, not because of no plan.

Meanwhile, Nicola says it's mad to do big stuff without having a plan, while planning to do big stuff without offering a plan.

Edited March 15, 2017 by eFestivals

[LJS]

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

what are you missing about who would have started the non-sense in what I said?

If you can keep it bullshit free, there's no issue.

The problem is, you even bullshit about what you've said, even just a few hours before. You've even done it today (tho I'm sure you'll say that 'gap' makes all the difference to you saying that the missing billions is meaningless, which only exposes the extent you'll go to).

So your bullshit in saying I have said Scotland's deficit is irrelevant. I say "

Liar liar pants on fire. Lies are all you have."

 

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Back to something sensible. 

If the "deficit gap" is meaningless like you said, let's talk about the extremely meaningful and much bigger deficit.

What spending do you think should be cut to make up the shortfall of at least £9Bn?

I think a new independent Scottish government should review all spending with a view to making savings where possible - but avoid excessive cuts particularly in areas that will detrimentally affect growth and aim to continue the trend of the past 6 years where the deficit decreases quickly and steadily.

[gary1979666]

Caught up again on the evening/morning's posts....phew!  One of Comfy's reply's was that he didn't see the timing as much of an issue, as was the bigger point of getting indy that matters.  Personnally I don't think the next 2-3 years would be the best timing for Scotland to go for indy....too much other uncertainty around to add more in the mix.  What is more important - getting Indy ASAP or getting Indy in better circumstances albeit a few years later.

I get that the better circumstances mean that it'll be a harder fight to win, but if you were to win it then it's a more definitive victory, if that makes sense.

[eFestivals]

18 minutes ago, LJS said:

I think a new independent Scottish government should review all spending with a view to making savings where possible - but avoid excessive cuts particularly in areas that will detrimentally affect growth and aim to continue the trend of the past 6 years where the deficit decreases quickly and steadily.

There's approximately 25% of govt spending missing from the revenues.

If you think massive cuts can be avoided because someone will loan a country that's spending 25% more than its revenues the difference, wanna lend me some money? 

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, gary1979666 said:

What is more important - getting Indy ASAP or getting Indy in better circumstances albeit a few years later.

Too late. Sturgeon has fired the gun, and we're off.

They'll be no "a few years later" after 2 fails in 5 years. It'll be decades, if at all, for a 3rd chance.

[LJS]

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/independence-may-make-scotland-poorer-not-much-brexit/

Quite a balanced view from some economist dude.

[eFestivals]

Just now, LJS said:

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/independence-may-make-scotland-poorer-not-much-brexit/

Quite a balanced view from some economist dude.

balanced because it says something you like....?

It says: "The economic cost to the UK of leaving the EU could be as high as a reduction of 10 per cent in average incomes by 2030."

Perhaps that's right, we can only guess what the impact onto 40% of the UK's exports might be.

Now, what do you think Scotland leaving the UK will have on the 65% of Scottish exports that go to the UK will have?

If there's a 'hard' border between the UK and EU, the same hard border will exist between the rUK and iScotland (if Scotland is in any of EU, EEA, or EFTA - the same customs & people's border rules apply)?

It also assumes better growth for the EU, yet for the last 20+ years that's not been the case. 

It's a crock of shit, that ignores the loss of the £9bn Barnett money - which is 15% of SG spending - as inconsequential.

[LJS]

22 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

balanced because it says something you like....?

It says: "The economic cost to the UK of leaving the EU could be as high as a reduction of 10 per cent in average incomes by 2030."

Perhaps that's right, we can only guess what the impact onto 40% of the UK's exports might be.

Now, what do you think Scotland leaving the UK will have on the 65% of Scottish exports that go to the UK will have?

If there's a 'hard' border between the UK and EU, the same hard border will exist between the rUK and iScotland (if Scotland is in any of EU, EEA, or EFTA - the same customs & people's border rules apply)?

It also assumes better growth for the EU, yet for the last 20+ years that's not been the case. 

It's a crock of shit, that ignores the loss of the £9bn Barnett money - which is 15% of SG spending - as inconsequential.

Rejecting the view of an expert Neil?

You are Donald Trump &  I claim my $10 

[kaosmark2]

Ljs accuses Neil of cherry picking posts to respond to. 

Doesn't respond to the posts by anyone else in the thread. 

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, LJS said:

Rejecting the view of an expert Neil?

You are Donald Trump &  I claim my $10 

Yeah, you really meant the sensible adult discussion thing, didn't you?

A govt that throws away at least 15% of it's revenues needs more than a bit of hopeful (and mostly inaccurate) guff to cover the spending shortfall.

And someone who advocates throwing away at least 15% of govt revenues needs to put forwards a plan for where the cuts will fall, or it's only worthless pretence.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

Ljs accuses Neil of cherry picking posts to respond to. 

Doesn't respond to the posts by anyone else in the thread. 

closely followed by....

LJS accuses Neil of making childish posts that don't discuss the points raised.

And then makes childish posts that don't discuss the points raised.

[gary1979666]

52 minutes ago, LJS said:

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/independence-may-make-scotland-poorer-not-much-brexit/

Quite a balanced view from some economist dude.

It doesn't seem that balanced.

He gets around Barnett by just saying the Westminister will get rid of it anyway, so no net impact.  I'm not sure that's necessarily the case.  And it assumes a very negligible impact to iScotland for this loss of income.

There is a lot of optimism around Scotland's future relationship with the EU and pessimism with the UK's.  I would imagine it's likely to be the other way round, as the EU does a lot more trade with rUK than Scotland, so I doubt they would make trade so difficult that companies find it easier to move to iScotland.

All possible, no doubt, but probable, less so.

 

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, gary1979666 said:

It doesn't seem that balanced.

He gets around Barnett by just saying the Westminister will get rid of it anyway, so no net impact.  I'm not sure that's necessarily the case.  And it assumes a very negligible impact to iScotland for this loss of income.

There is a lot of optimism around Scotland's future relationship with the EU and pessimism with the UK's.  I would imagine it's likely to be the other way round, as the EU does a lot more trade with rUK than Scotland, so I doubt they would make trade so difficult that companies find it easier to move to iScotland.

All possible, no doubt, but probable, less so.

 

it also talks about "easy access" to the EU for Scottish exports.

When Scotland's access to the EU is poor, as poor as it gets. Only Iceland has worse access of countries within the EU customs union.

And it's worth looking at Ireland, where trade with the UK is waaaay more important to Ireland's real economy than any EU links.

Edited March 15, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Interesting piece by Curtis.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/15/nicola-sturgeon-brexit-scottish-independence-snp-second-referendum

He seems to reckon a win for the SNP can only come by having a decent economic plan, or by convincing Scots that there's decades of tory rule to come.

The problem with that 2nd idea is that that tory rule has got to be seen as worse than independence, which brings things back to the economic plan.

But according to some snippers I know, nothing about indy is about the money. Curtis definitely seems to disagree.

[LJS]

1 hour ago, kaosmark2 said:

Ljs accuses Neil of cherry picking posts to respond to. 

Doesn't respond to the posts by anyone else in the thread. 

Apologies Kaos, I am out in Dundee with my 2 youngest kids so I have not replied to much. I know you miss my wisdom so I'll try and address anything I've missed later on. 

You, at least, don't generally insult me for disagreeing with you.

 

[eFestivals]

this is a laugh

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/180642

:lol:

 

[eFestivals]

Here's something I've just seen, that I suspect I'll be seeing it an awful lot as snippers love their myths...

What people need to realize is that if this independence referendum fails then Scotland will face austerity like nowhere else. It will mean an end to Barnett within weeks. It will mean massive cuts to the NHS in Scotland, Police Scotland and every other facet of life in Scotland.

Notice how it's assured - falsely of course - that Barnett will be cut by evil Westminster and it will cause all of those very nasty things to happen.

And then notice now there's no mention that independence will cut the same Barnett so there's no mention that all of those things are guaranteed to still happen.

And there's only one choice of vote that guarantees the loss of Barnett so there's only one choice of vote that guarantees all those horrible things will happen. can you guess which it is?

[mjsell]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

He seems to reckon a win for the SNP can only come by having a decent economic plan, or by convincing Scots that there's decades of tory rule to come.

The problem with that 2nd idea is that that tory rule has got to be seen as worse than independence, which brings things back to the economic plan.

Yeah I don't think many need convincing on likelihood of the decades of tory rule to come.

 

On that topic, and from a purely British perspective would an independent Scotland all but confirm Tory dominance for the long foreseeable future?

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, mjsell said:

Yeah I don't think many need convincing on likelihood of the decades of tory rule to come.

I agree, tho I reckon the real likelihood of that is remote. It wasn't much more than a decade ago that plenty of people were suggesting the tories would never be in power again.

Once Corbyn is out of the way, things could change pretty fast for Labour. What's certain is that things won't change for labour for all the time he's there.

 

Quote

On that topic, and from a purely British perspective would an independent Scotland all but confirm Tory dominance for the long foreseeable future?

Nope, i don't think so

I reckon politics always has a centre and a party in power always sits to one side of that centre, meaning that a party - and then voters - will fill the void about opposite it.

Add in a little of how long-servers go stale &/or corrupt, and you'll always get an opposite of sorts (providing there's a competent one) into power within 2 decades

In the last election, too, I reckon the SNP's dominance in Scotland cost Labour plenty of votes. Take the SNP out of it, and the worries around that cease to matter, and makes them more electable.

In much the same way, I reckon an indy Scotland will quickly find out that Scotland has tories after all - and many more than they're going to want to believe.

Edited March 15, 2017 by eFestivals

[kaosmark2]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

You, at least, don't generally insult me for disagreeing with you.

Clearly you're too stupid to understand my posts then