Even More SNP Nonsense

[frankblack]

1 minute ago, ri Alban said:

Bollocks, why was it bollocks? Oh the oil price world wide crashed. Scotland has a helluva lot more than oil and Norway seem ok to me.

 

Norway has 40 years of oil revenues invested for a rainy day.  We didn't do that.

[ri Alban]

1 hour ago, frankblack said:

 

I have said repeatedly that I have always been a floating voter with no allegiance to any party.

 

My gripe with the Nationalists is that after 2014 it was shown their white paper was nonsense and they have had 5 years to convince us they have learned their lesson.  However in that time we have got no concrete plans to scrutinise and they seem to want to keep quiet and slip Independence in while the Westminster parties fight it out over Brexit.

 

Maybe you are happy for a potentially catastrophic Independence to go through unscrutinised from a party that had no plan before but that really concerns me.

Independence won't be catastrophic. The only reason Brexit will be to Scotland is because we are not independent. Scotland will be just fine in or out of the EU whilst independent, under Wm we've absolutely no protection. See treasury report.

And let's talk about no plan or scrutiny, Boris come on down. Yet you don't have to much concern on that front. 

[ri Alban]

3 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

Norway has 40 years of oil revenues invested for a rainy day.  We didn't do that.

Yet you still think Scotland should stay in the UK. Makes sense.

[ri Alban]

10 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

How did that work out in Spain?

 

If the SNP go to court, the court will simply follow the constitution, which states article 30 has to be approved  by Westminster.  Case closed as the supreme court would refer changes to the constitution back to Westminster.

Spain and The UK are two different animals. Scotland, England, Wales and NI are 4 nations of a sovereign state. Incidentally, only one kept everything, but hey, we're equals. As for Article 30, it's irrelevant under the Scotland act, rubber stamped by Wm. 

Oh, who decides if England gets an independence referendum and which article number is it?

Edited December 8, 2019 by ri Alban

[frankblack]

1 minute ago, ri Alban said:

Independence won't be catastrophic. The only reason Brexit will be to Scotland is because we are not independent. Scotland will be just fine in or out of the EU whilst independent, under Wm we've absolutely no protection. See treasury report.

And let's talk about no plan or scrutiny, Boris come on down. Yet you don't have to much concern on that front. 

 

• So there won't be a sustained period of austerity?
• What will happen with the inherited debt and defict?
• What currency will we have?
• Who will be the lender of last resort to bail out the economy if a 2008 style crash happens?
• What happens to your pensions if they are held in a UK firm?
• What are they going to do about a hard border with England?
• Will the people get a confirmatory vote on any deal if it leaves us worse off?  Nicola wanted one for Brexit, so I'm sure that she won't object here.

 

I think we need to know the picture before jumping off a cliff.

[ri Alban]

1 minute ago, frankblack said:

 

• So there won't be a sustained period of austerity?
• What will happen with the inherited debt and defict?
• What currency will we have?
• Who will be the lender of last resort to bail out the economy if a 2008 style crash happens?
• What happens to your pensions if they are held in a UK firm?
• What are they going to do about a hard border with England?
• Will the people get a confirmatory vote on any deal if it leaves us worse off?  Nicola wanted one for Brexit, so I'm sure that she won't object here.

 

I think we need to know the picture before jumping off a cliff.

Oh dear.

[frankblack]

2 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Spain and The UK are two different animals. Scotland, England, Wales and NI are 4 nations of a sovereign state. Incidentally, only one kept everything, but hey, we're equals. As for Article 30, it's irrelevant under the Scotland act, rubber stamped by Wm. 

Oh, who decides if England gets an independence referendum and which article number is it?

 

You haven't explained how Spain and the UK are "different animals" in terms of independence referendums.

[ri Alban]

1 minute ago, frankblack said:

 

You haven't explained how Spain and the UK are "different animals" in terms of independence referendums.

Well you're just about to find out. I noticed on your post above, there's no mention of the assets that will be freed up on your prophecy of doom. Scotland who invented the world cannae go a bike without its English stabilisers. 

 

[Hasselhoff]

Couple of polls in last few days confirming that even with everything that is going on in the UK right now, a Yes vote for indy wouldn't even get 50%. This confirms that the SNP are not speaking for the people of Scotland while arguing for a second referendum. Whatever happened to there needing to be a sustained majority of people in polls wanting independence for there to be another vote?

[gjcc]

3 minutes ago, Hasselhoff said:

Couple of polls in last few days confirming that even with everything that is going on in the UK right now, a Yes vote for indy wouldn't even get 50%. This confirms that the SNP are not speaking for the people of Scotland while arguing for a second referendum. Whatever happened to there needing to be a sustained majority of people in polls wanting independence for there to be another vote?

Who is voting in these polls? Who is excluded? Various polls don’t count 16/17 year olds because they can’t vote in a General Election. Some don’t count EU nationals.

[ri Alban]

15 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

• So there won't be a sustained period of austerity?Why? I didn't seem to bother you when it was WM austerity.
• What will happen with the inherited debt and defict? £5b a year, but we have the recovery of assets to come, plus all the power of a free Nation.
• What currency will we have? Pound until we set up our own, or we can join the eurozone.
• Who will be the lender of last resort to bail out the economy if a 2008 style crash happens? National Bank of Scotland bolstered by the Scottish oil and gas reserves. But again, Wm policies that help bring about the crash, is just fine.
• What happens to your pensions if they are held in a UK firm? Protection under law.
• What are they going to do about a hard border with England? I'll build it masel!
• Will the people get a confirmatory vote on any deal if it leaves us worse off?  Nicola wanted one for Brexit, so I'm sure that she won't object here. Why? I don't remember a Brexit confirmation referendum, do you. 

 

I think we need to know the picture before jumping off a cliff. Be my guest.

 

[ri Alban]

1 minute ago, gjcc said:

Who is voting in these polls? Who is excluded? Various polls don’t count 16/17 year olds because they can’t vote in a General Election. Some don’t count EU nationals.

Never been asked, Ever!

[coconut doug]

29 minutes ago, Hasselhoff said:

Couple of polls in last few days confirming that even with everything that is going on in the UK right now, a Yes vote for indy wouldn't even get 50%. This confirms that the SNP are not speaking for the people of Scotland while arguing for a second referendum. Whatever happened to there needing to be a sustained majority of people in polls wanting independence for there to be another vote?

 

We have a first past the post system at WM so all we need is a majority of SNP MPs in Scotland provided that is in the manifesto.

 

We didn't have a sustained period of support for bombing Syria or going to war with Iraq. It wasn't even in their manifestos, we just did it even though popular opinion was against it.

 

These polls you mention are they representative of opinion in Scotland? What is the methodology used and the sample size?

 

If the SNP don't speak for Scotland, who does, Alistair Jack, Boris Johnson?

 

There is an election next week which will reveal a bit more but Brexit will be the game changer and will be the motivator for the doubters to support Indy. The Tories will be the facilitators of independence through their usual self serving arrogance. Denying us a second referendum changes our status from one of a partner in a union to a colony. 

[Hasselhoff]

19 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

We have a first past the post system at WM so all we need is a majority of SNP MPs in Scotland provided that is in the manifesto.

 

yep, agreed.  That is why there is currently no mandate for another Indyref as the Greens support was required to get that vote through and they didn’t have a manifesto commitment to have another indyref (they didn’t get their 1 million signatures after all)

 

19 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

We didn't have a sustained period of support for bombing Syria or going to war with Iraq. It wasn't even in their manifestos, we just did it even though popular opinion was against it.

 

These polls you mention are they representative of opinion in Scotland? What is the methodology used and the sample size?

 

sample size typical around 1000. I’ve never been asked either btw. 

 

19 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

If the SNP don't speak for Scotland, who does, Alistair Jack, Boris Johnson?

 

Nobody speaks for the whole of Scotland other than when the people get a vote. We all knew the severity of the 2014 vote and as a result there was record turnout. 

 

19 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

There is an election next week which will reveal a bit more but Brexit will be the game changer and will be the motivator for the doubters to support Indy. The Tories will be the facilitators of independence through their usual self serving arrogance. Denying us a second referendum changes our status from one of a partner in a union to a colony. 

I think you will get a shock next Friday. People are going in both directions when it comes to voting in Scotland. 
 

Dilution of unionist votes is the only chance the SNP has and shows why FPTP is needing replaced. In the end though, it will all come down to a binary vote in an indyref 2 and currently it is about 60/40 for unionist parties. 
 

Sturgeon is again claiming that a vote for the SNP is not necessarily a vote for independence and many SNP leaflets don’t even mention Indy on them. They lie about Scotland being able to have avoided austerity over the last 10 years if they had followed the recommendations of the Growth commission despite there being clear evidence to the contrary. They blame the Scottish deficit on being part of the UK instead of acknowledging it is because of their overspending in trying to bribe the Scottish electorate with free things like prescriptions, etc. 
 

Looking forward to Friday to see some big names hit the scrap heap just like 2017. 
 

 

[Hasselhoff]

19 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

We have a first past the post system at WM so all we need is a majority of SNP MPs in Scotland provided that is in the manifesto.

 

yep, agreed.  That is why there is currently no mandate for another Indyref as the Greens support was required to get that vote through and they didn’t have a manifesto commitment to have another indyref (they didn’t get their 1 million signatures after all)

 

19 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

We didn't have a sustained period of support for bombing Syria or going to war with Iraq. It wasn't even in their manifestos, we just did it even though popular opinion was against it.

 

These polls you mention are they representative of opinion in Scotland? What is the methodology used and the sample size?

 

sample size typical around 1000. I’ve never been asked either btw. 

 

19 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

If the SNP don't speak for Scotland, who does, Alistair Jack, Boris Johnson?

 

Nobody speaks for the whole of Scotland other than when the people get a vote. We all knew the severity of the 2014 vote and as a result there was record turnout. 

 

19 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

There is an election next week which will reveal a bit more but Brexit will be the game changer and will be the motivator for the doubters to support Indy. The Tories will be the facilitators of independence through their usual self serving arrogance. Denying us a second referendum changes our status from one of a partner in a union to a colony. 

I think you will get a shock next Friday. People are going in both directions when it comes to voting in Scotland. 
 

Dilution of unionist votes is the only chance the SNP has and shows why FPTP is needing replaced. In the end though, it will all come down to a binary vote in an indyref 2 and currently it is about 60/40 for unionist parties. 
 

Sturgeon is again claiming that a vote for the SNP is not necessarily a vote for independence and many SNP leaflets don’t even mention Indy on them. They lie about Scotland being able to have avoided austerity over the last 10 years if they had followed the recommendations of the Growth commission despite there being clear evidence to the contrary. They blame the Scottish deficit on being part of the UK instead of acknowledging it is because of their overspending in trying to bribe the Scottish electorate with free things like prescriptions, etc. 
 

Looking forward to Friday to see some big names hit the scrap heap just like 2017. 
 

 

[ri Alban]

45 minutes ago, Hasselhoff said:

 

yep, agreed.  That is why there is currently no mandate for another Indyref as the Greens support was required to get that vote through and they didn’t have a manifesto commitment to have another indyref (they didn’t get their 1 million signatures after all)

 

 

sample size typical around 1000. I’ve never been asked either btw. 

 

 

Nobody speaks for the whole of Scotland other than when the people get a vote. We all knew the severity of the 2014 vote and as a result there was record turnout. 

 

I think you will get a shock next Friday. People are going in both directions when it comes to voting in Scotland. 
 

Dilution of unionist votes is the only chance the SNP has and shows why FPTP is needing replaced. In the end though, it will all come down to a binary vote in an indyref 2 and currently it is about 60/40 for unionist parties. 
 

Sturgeon is again claiming that a vote for the SNP is not necessarily a vote for independence and many SNP leaflets don’t even mention Indy on them. They lie about Scotland being able to have avoided austerity over the last 10 years if they had followed the recommendations of the Growth commission despite there being clear evidence to the contrary. They blame the Scottish deficit on being part of the UK instead of acknowledging it is because of their overspending in trying to bribe the Scottish electorate with free things like prescriptions, etc. 
 

Looking forward to Friday to see some big names hit the scrap heap just like 2017. 
 

 

Don't recall any big name Scottish Tory Mps.

[coconut doug]

55 minutes ago, Hasselhoff said:

 

yep, agreed.  That is why there is currently no mandate for another Indyref as the Greens support was required to get that vote through and they didn’t have a manifesto commitment to have another indyref (they didn’t get their 1 million signatures after all)

 

 

sample size typical around 1000. I’ve never been asked either btw. 

 

 

Nobody speaks for the whole of Scotland other than when the people get a vote. We all knew the severity of the 2014 vote and as a result there was record turnout. 

 

I think you will get a shock next Friday. People are going in both directions when it comes to voting in Scotland. 
 

Dilution of unionist votes is the only chance the SNP has and shows why FPTP is needing replaced. In the end though, it will all come down to a binary vote in an indyref 2 and currently it is about 60/40 for unionist parties. 
 

Sturgeon is again claiming that a vote for the SNP is not necessarily a vote for independence and many SNP leaflets don’t even mention Indy on them. They lie about Scotland being able to have avoided austerity over the last 10 years if they had followed the recommendations of the Growth commission despite there being clear evidence to the contrary. They blame the Scottish deficit on being part of the UK instead of acknowledging it is because of their overspending in trying to bribe the Scottish electorate with free things like prescriptions, etc. 
 

Looking forward to Friday to see some big names hit the scrap heap just like 2017. 
 

 

 

I agree the tactical voting could throw up a few shocks and agree that there is not enough popular support for indy voters to win Indyref2. I would be surprised though if the SNP do not get 50% of seats. Under our voting system this should entitle them to Indyref2 but then why would you if you are certain to lose. That is why i say Brexit is the potentially the game changer. We will be heading for a No Deal Brexit and the damage that will create will be obvious to all.

 

Dilution of Unionist votes is a strange phrase though. It's almost as if there is little or no difference between Lib, Lab, Con. SNP voting is the best way to resist Brexit in almost all seats in Scotland and maybe Brexit is the biggest and most imminent issue. Would anybody vote Tory to stop Indyref2 when they have already been told it will not happen in any circumstances and the Tories are a near certainty to win UK wide?

 

I'm not sure what you think the lie is about austerity. If you mean increases in expenditure below inflation you might be right but this is a standard political lie e.g. record investment in the NHS from the Tories. In any case the Growth Commission was merely one projection made at one specific time and circumstances have changed since then. 

 

       Scotland does not have a deficit despite what you and many members of the SNP say. The Scottish parliament balances its income and expenditure every year. The "free things" that Scotland has e.g. prescriptions, tuition fees etc  comes from this pot. It may be that some think this money could be better spent elsewhere but these "free things" are paid for by the block grant.

 

  There is a notional Scottish deficit which is derived from our population proportion of the UK debt. This notional debt does not accurately reflect the fiscal situation in Scotland for a number of reasons. These include debt repayments, a large proportion of which is owed to the Bank of England for which would not be liable in an Indy Scotland as Scotland would also have the commensurate assets as well as the liabilities. We are also being attributed a cost for Trident renewal, which we would not have as well as the burden of onerous PFI contracts. Generally the figures are skewed by allocating cost to Scotland for expenditure Scotland would not have were it independent.

 

Looking forward to big names hitting the scrapheap and presumably looking forward to lower living standards, greater inequality, privatisation of the NHS, rising child poverty, greater alignment with Trump, lower food standards and even more international ridicule. Presumably you are looking forward to being represented on the world stage by a pathological liar who is unable to hold a conversation without rambling off into some public schoolboy chanting and/or Tory sloganeering. you''ll  be voting for a leader who has few if any moral standards and who has surrounded himself with those of a similar persuasion. Don't take my word for it look at what his former employers and political colleagues have to say about him. He has offended all manner of groups in our society and shrugs off all criticism with his sense of entitlement honed at Eton and the Bullingdon club.

 

  Anybody voting Conservative knows they are voting for this, and many other horrible prospects and those in Scotland also know that they are voting for the downgrading and further marginalisation of Scotland. No thinking, compassionate person is going to vote for that but if they do get significant support the Indy choice will become even more stark. Vote to stay in an isolated, failing UK state or or choose to be a part of progressive Scotland. 

 

 When it does happen we should not forget the role the Conservative party has played in making it possible.  

[Hasselhoff]

3 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

I agree the tactical voting could throw up a few shocks and agree that there is not enough popular support for indy voters to win Indyref2. I would be surprised though if the SNP do not get 50% of seats. Under our voting system this should entitle them to Indyref2 but then why would you if you are certain to lose. That is why i say Brexit is the potentially the game changer. We will be heading for a No Deal Brexit and the damage that will create will be obvious to all.

 

Dilution of Unionist votes is a strange phrase though. It's almost as if there is little or no difference between Lib, Lab, Con. SNP voting is the best way to resist Brexit in almost all seats in Scotland and maybe Brexit is the biggest and most imminent issue. Would anybody vote Tory to stop Indyref2 when they have already been told it will not happen in any circumstances and the Tories are a near certainty to win UK wide?

 

I'm not sure what you think the lie is about austerity. If you mean increases in expenditure below inflation you might be right but this is a standard political lie e.g. record investment in the NHS from the Tories. In any case the Growth Commission was merely one projection made at one specific time and circumstances have changed since then. 

 

       Scotland does not have a deficit despite what you and many members of the SNP say. The Scottish parliament balances its income and expenditure every year. The "free things" that Scotland has e.g. prescriptions, tuition fees etc  comes from this pot. It may be that some think this money could be better spent elsewhere but these "free things" are paid for by the block grant.

 

  There is a notional Scottish deficit which is derived from our population proportion of the UK debt. This notional debt does not accurately reflect the fiscal situation in Scotland for a number of reasons. These include debt repayments, a large proportion of which is owed to the Bank of England for which would not be liable in an Indy Scotland as Scotland would also have the commensurate assets as well as the liabilities. We are also being attributed a cost for Trident renewal, which we would not have as well as the burden of onerous PFI contracts. Generally the figures are skewed by allocating cost to Scotland for expenditure Scotland would not have were it independent.

 

Looking forward to big names hitting the scrapheap and presumably looking forward to lower living standards, greater inequality, privatisation of the NHS, rising child poverty, greater alignment with Trump, lower food standards and even more international ridicule. Presumably you are looking forward to being represented on the world stage by a pathological liar who is unable to hold a conversation without rambling off into some public schoolboy chanting and/or Tory sloganeering. you''ll  be voting for a leader who has few if any moral standards and who has surrounded himself with those of a similar persuasion. Don't take my word for it look at what his former employers and political colleagues have to say about him. He has offended all manner of groups in our society and shrugs off all criticism with his sense of entitlement honed at Eton and the Bullingdon club.

 

  Anybody voting Conservative knows they are voting for this, and many other horrible prospects and those in Scotland also know that they are voting for the downgrading and further marginalisation of Scotland. No thinking, compassionate person is going to vote for that but if they do get significant support the Indy choice will become even more stark. Vote to stay in an isolated, failing UK state or or choose to be a part of progressive Scotland. 

 

 When it does happen we should not forget the role the Conservative party has played in making it possible.  

Boris is not for life, independence is. 
 

If independence would be so good, the SNP shouldn’t need to lie about it.  They would engage in debates with people who actually know their stuff (it is a disgrace that Andrew Neil is the only one who is capable of pointing out the obvious flaws with independence) and actively counter arguments from Kevin Hague rather than just ignore him and hope he goes away. 

http://chokkablog.blogspot.com/2019/12/the-snp-living-in-past.html?m=1

 

http://chokkablog.blogspot.com/2019/12/dissecting-deception.html?m=1

The SNP should be proving that they are capable of running a country to inspire people into trusting them to run an independent country. Instead they are struggling with what powers they have and blaming it all on Westminster as usual. 
 

Quite amusing watching the Yes factions all arguing amongst themselves. Wings is at loggerheads with some of the LGBT gang and it doesn’t look like it will end well. Sturgeon will be hoping she isn’t pressured into having this second Indyref or she will be out of a job before she knows it. 

 

[ri Alban]

1 minute ago, Hasselhoff said:

Boris is not for life, independence is. 
 

If independence would be so good, the SNP shouldn’t need to lie about it.  They would engage in debates with people who actually know their stuff (it is a disgrace that Andrew Neil is the only one who is capable of pointing out the obvious flaws with independence) and actively counter arguments from Kevin Hague rather than just ignore him and hope he goes away. 

http://chokkablog.blogspot.com/2019/12/the-snp-living-in-past.html?m=1

 

http://chokkablog.blogspot.com/2019/12/dissecting-deception.html?m=1

The SNP should be proving that they are capable of running a country to inspire people into trusting them to run an independent country. Instead they are struggling with what powers they have and blaming it all on Westminster as usual. 
 

Quite amusing watching the Yes factions all arguing amongst themselves. Wings is at loggerheads with some of the LGBT gang and it doesn’t look like it will end well. Sturgeon will be hoping she isn’t pressured into having this second Indyref or she will be out of a job before she knows it. 

 

Independence isn't an SNP coronation. FFS! 

[Boab]

Just now, ri Alban said:

Independence isn't an SNP coronation. FFS! 

Of course not but large swathes of the population are, basically, ******* idiots.

[coconut doug]

16 minutes ago, Hasselhoff said:

Boris is not for life, independence is. 
 

If independence would be so good, the SNP shouldn’t need to lie about it.  They would engage in debates with people who actually know their stuff (it is a disgrace that Andrew Neil is the only one who is capable of pointing out the obvious flaws with independence) and actively counter arguments from Kevin Hague rather than just ignore him and hope he goes away. 

http://chokkablog.blogspot.com/2019/12/the-snp-living-in-past.html?m=1

 

http://chokkablog.blogspot.com/2019/12/dissecting-deception.html?m=1

The SNP should be proving that they are capable of running a country to inspire people into trusting them to run an independent country. Instead they are struggling with what powers they have and blaming it all on Westminster as usual. 
 

Quite amusing watching the Yes factions all arguing amongst themselves. Wings is at loggerheads with some of the LGBT gang and it doesn’t look like it will end well. Sturgeon will be hoping she isn’t pressured into having this second Indyref or she will be out of a job before she knows it. 

 

 

I think maybe you should attempt to explain your assertions as you claim the SNP do not know their stuff. 

 

You actually told us that our free things were bribes "They blame the Scottish deficit on being part of the UK instead of acknowledging it is because of their overspending in trying to bribe the Scottish electorate with free things like prescriptions, etc."

You then go on to tell us that this Scottish deficit is a result of "their" overspending and by "their" i assume you mean the Scottish government. This of course as i pointed out is rubbish. I'm surprised you didn't know this as i can only assume that you posted what you posted because you were ignorant of the facts and were not trying to mislead. The SG cant overspend, they are not allowed to by law. Did you really not know that?

 

Clearly you didn't understand or accept the veracity of my point on the notional Scottish deficit either. Chokkablog does know it  though but it does not stop him posting rubbish and furnishing it with meaningless graphs.  Do you not accept that a sizeable amount of Scotland's notional deficit is because of debt owed to the Bank of England and money allocated for a by population share of Trident renewal. These components of the  deficit would be removed if we were independent and would significantly improve our fiscal position at the start of Independence. This would likely mean that we could cut debt repayments,  avoid austerity and that the growth in the economy would allow public services to be maintained. I think that's the SNP argument

 

You might want to consider which of these statements you disagree with and tell us why rather than link chokkablog. You might even tell me why you feel the need to live in a state governed by the Tories from England when you know they have little or no regard for Scotland, its people, culture or values. Actually, i think i remember, it's because you think you and your family will be better off financially. Seems even that flimsy argument will perish on the Brexit rocks.  
 

[Hasselhoff]

14 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

I think maybe you should attempt to explain your assertions as you claim the SNP do not know their stuff. 

 

You actually told us that our free things were bribes "They blame the Scottish deficit on being part of the UK instead of acknowledging it is because of their overspending in trying to bribe the Scottish electorate with free things like prescriptions, etc."

You then go on to tell us that this Scottish deficit is a result of "their" overspending and by "their" i assume you mean the Scottish government. This of course as i pointed out is rubbish. I'm surprised you didn't know this as i can only assume that you posted what you posted because you were ignorant of the facts and were not trying to mislead. The SG cant overspend, they are not allowed to by law. Did you really not know that?

 

Clearly you didn't understand or accept the veracity of my point on the notional Scottish deficit either. Chokkablog does know it  though but it does not stop him posting rubbish and furnishing it with meaningless graphs.  Do you not accept that a sizeable amount of Scotland's notional deficit is because of debt owed to the Bank of England and money allocated for a by population share of Trident renewal. These components of the  deficit would be removed if we were independent and would significantly improve our fiscal position at the start of Independence. This would likely mean that we could cut debt repayments,  avoid austerity and that the growth in the economy would allow public services to be maintained. I think that's the SNP argument

 

You might want to consider which of these statements you disagree with and tell us why rather than link chokkablog. You might even tell me why you feel the need to live in a state governed by the Tories from England when you know they have little or no regard for Scotland, its people, culture or values. Actually, i think i remember, it's because you think you and your family will be better off financially. Seems even that flimsy argument will perish on the Brexit rocks.  
 

So you agree that the myth that Scotland gives an amount to Westminster and only gets crumbs back is nonsense? We get more back than we put in. The money we put in pays for collective debt interest payments accrued by the uk as is fair. Pooling and sharing works two ways. 
 

Why don’t we refuse the extra money or put it away as a fund for the future? Simulate losing the Barnett formula now before independence to show what things would be like. Of course things like free prescriptions etc are a bribe. Sturgeon boasted about spending more money on health per head etc. in a recent interview and insinuated it was because of her progressive taxation policy in Scotland. Nonsense, it is because of being in the UK where we get the dividend of being in the Uk. 
 

The Scottish government cannot overspend you say but they are given £10bn extra as part of the fiscal transfer. They choose to spend most of this money (they manage to not spend a bit each year). This is money we wouldn’t have if independent. So tell me what would Scotland do without once Indy if we didn’t have that £10bn? Or would we just simply grow the economy, as if nobody ever tried doing that before!

Add a comment on Kevin Hague’s blog pointing out where he is wrong and he will surely answer you. Unlike nationalists he is keen to discuss the details and will correct anything that you point out to him is a mistake. I don’t pretend to understand things to the degree he does but you clearly thing he is wrong so let’s see you engage in a conversation with him to see who is right. 

 

 

 

[jamb0_1874]

8 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Independence won't be catastrophic. The only reason Brexit will be to Scotland is because we are not independent. Scotland will be just fine in or out of the EU whilst independent.

 

What makes you say this?

[coconut doug]

1 hour ago, Hasselhoff said:

So you agree that the myth that Scotland gives an amount to Westminster and only gets crumbs back is nonsense? We get more back than we put in. The money we put in pays for collective debt interest payments accrued by the uk as is fair. Pooling and sharing works two ways. 
 

Why don’t we refuse the extra money or put it away as a fund for the future? Simulate losing the Barnett formula now before independence to show what things would be like. Of course things like free prescriptions etc are a bribe. Sturgeon boasted about spending more money on health per head etc. in a recent interview and insinuated it was because of her progressive taxation policy in Scotland. Nonsense, it is because of being in the UK where we get the dividend of being in the Uk. 
 

The Scottish government cannot overspend you say but they are given £10bn extra as part of the fiscal transfer. They choose to spend most of this money (they manage to not spend a bit each year). This is money we wouldn’t have if independent. So tell me what would Scotland do without once Indy if we didn’t have that £10bn? Or would we just simply grow the economy, as if nobody ever tried doing that before!

Add a comment on Kevin Hague’s blog pointing out where he is wrong and he will surely answer you. Unlike nationalists he is keen to discuss the details and will correct anything that you point out to him is a mistake. I don’t pretend to understand things to the degree he does but you clearly thing he is wrong so let’s see you engage in a conversation with him to see who is right. 

 

 

 

 

We don't get more back than we put in unless you count the money Westminster spends on our behalf. Debt repayment money attributed as expenditure to Scotland but racked up by city based financial speculators and Trident money which we don't want is counted too and massively inflates our notional level of indebtedness or subsidy depending on how you look at it. Some like to claim both. Scottish revenues to Westminster far exceed the payments Westminster makes to Scotland.

 

 We would be silly to refuse extra money as we have a pressing need for it. We should have put money in a fund mny years ago when we were flush with N Sea revenues but we were not allowed to do so. Losing Barnett formula money may not be as big a hit as suggested for the reasons i have given previously in any case why would anybody want to be basing their constitutional future on a continuing hope of a reasonably small bung from Westminster?

 

We do spend more per capita on health in Scotland than in rUK and this is because of greater per capita sums from the UK treasury but it is also true that tax changes in Scotland have been designed to increase this further and that health spending has been increased on the basis of additional anticipated tax revenues. Nicola spoke the truth.

 

 Scotland being given £10 billion in Barnett consequentials or whatever has no bearing on the Scottish government's legal inability to overspend. They are not allowed to overspend and have never done so irrespective of who has been in power. I thought you would know this. While this money will be welcome i think t comes to Scotland as a result of extra spending in England and so the proportions of funding will stay the same. What is concerning though is the increased funding has come about because of a perceived need in England and the are legally required to make a commensurate payment to Scotland. I don't think that works the other way round and so the system is not as sympathetic to Scotland's needs as it might be. The £10billion we wouldn't have if we were independent is borrowed and the cost of that borrowing allocated to the notional Scottish deficit, whether we want it or not. It is not free money.

 

  I won't be asking Kevin Hague anything i understand the points he is making it is his stating premise i object to. He is not making a mistake he is simply refusing to reduce Scotland's notional deficit by reducing it for things which Scotland would not want and by failing to recognise that in amongst the notioan debt there are notional assets. I am attempting to engage with you and so maybe you could acknowledge that some of the things you have said are not correct.

 

  A simple one to start with - Would you agree that your claim that Scotland's deficit has been brought about by overspending on free things like prescriptions is wrong?

 

[Hasselhoff]

18 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

We don't get more back than we put in unless you count the money Westminster spends on our behalf. Debt repayment money attributed as expenditure to Scotland but racked up by city based financial speculators and Trident money which we don't want is counted too and massively inflates our notional level of indebtedness or subsidy depending on how you look at it. Some like to claim both. Scottish revenues to Westminster far exceed the payments Westminster makes to Scotland.

 

 We would be silly to refuse extra money as we have a pressing need for it. We should have put money in a fund mny years ago when we were flush with N Sea revenues but we were not allowed to do so. Losing Barnett formula money may not be as big a hit as suggested for the reasons i have given previously in any case why would anybody want to be basing their constitutional future on a continuing hope of a reasonably small bung from Westminster?

 

We do spend more per capita on health in Scotland than in rUK and this is because of greater per capita sums from the UK treasury but it is also true that tax changes in Scotland have been designed to increase this further and that health spending has been increased on the basis of additional anticipated tax revenues. Nicola spoke the truth.

 

 Scotland being given £10 billion in Barnett consequentials or whatever has no bearing on the Scottish government's legal inability to overspend. They are not allowed to overspend and have never done so irrespective of who has been in power. I thought you would know this. While this money will be welcome i think t comes to Scotland as a result of extra spending in England and so the proportions of funding will stay the same. What is concerning though is the increased funding has come about because of a perceived need in England and the are legally required to make a commensurate payment to Scotland. I don't think that works the other way round and so the system is not as sympathetic to Scotland's needs as it might be. The £10billion we wouldn't have if we were independent is borrowed and the cost of that borrowing allocated to the notional Scottish deficit, whether we want it or not. It is not free money.

 

  I won't be asking Kevin Hague anything i understand the points he is making it is his stating premise i object to. He is not making a mistake he is simply refusing to reduce Scotland's notional deficit by reducing it for things which Scotland would not want and by failing to recognise that in amongst the notioan debt there are notional assets. I am attempting to engage with you and so maybe you could acknowledge that some of the things you have said are not correct.

 

  A simple one to start with - Would you agree that your claim that Scotland's deficit has been brought about by overspending on free things like prescriptions is wrong?

 

Scotland is spending the additional money that we get as part of the Union dividend on things like free education and prescriptions. In an Indy Scotland that is simply unaffordable. We are spending far more than we are creating. Simple as that. Only being in the UK allows the Scottish government to run that way. 
 

You say Westminster spends  the money on our behalf. Trident is £200m a year. What else could we cut back on if independent? 
 

pensions?

benefits?

defence?

 

These are reserved and paid for by the uk government currently
 

Kevin Hague has put together a page to answer your questions. Couple of years old but the theory is still the same
http://chokkablog.blogspot.com/2017/08/gers-2016-17-journey-in-graphs.html?m=1

 

“Of course some of that money is controlled by Westminster. In the cases of debt interest and defence these cost are allocated to us on a per capita basis. The other main reserved expenditure is elements of social security, most notably pensions, which are allocated on an actual spend basis.

 

Remembering that the value of the fiscal transfer from the rest of the UK to Scotland is £10bn, it's worth noting that if you (ridiculously) assume no debt and no defence costs at all we'd still be looking for £4bn a year if we were out of the UK and wanted to continue to spending these other sums (without running a greater deficit than that we share with the UK).”

Enjoy

 

Don’t be afraid of graphs, they are useful for presenting complex data sets in an easy to understand format. They aren’t black magic. 

[coconut doug]

1 hour ago, Hasselhoff said:

Scotland is spending the additional money that we get as part of the Union dividend on things like free education and prescriptions. In an Indy Scotland that is simply unaffordable. We are spending far more than we are creating. Simple as that. Only being in the UK allows the Scottish government to run that way. 
 

You say Westminster spends  the money on our behalf. Trident is £200m a year. What else could we cut back on if independent? 
 

pensions?

benefits?

defence?

 

These are reserved and paid for by the uk government currently
 

Kevin Hague has put together a page to answer your questions. Couple of years old but the theory is still the same
http://chokkablog.blogspot.com/2017/08/gers-2016-17-journey-in-graphs.html?m=1

 

“Of course some of that money is controlled by Westminster. In the cases of debt interest and defence these cost are allocated to us on a per capita basis. The other main reserved expenditure is elements of social security, most notably pensions, which are allocated on an actual spend basis.

 

Remembering that the value of the fiscal transfer from the rest of the UK to Scotland is £10bn, it's worth noting that if you (ridiculously) assume no debt and no defence costs at all we'd still be looking for £4bn a year if we were out of the UK and wanted to continue to spending these other sums (without running a greater deficit than that we share with the UK).”

Enjoy

 

Don’t be afraid of graphs, they are useful for presenting complex data sets in an easy to understand format. They aren’t black magic. 

 

Yes Scotland spends the extra money it gets on free education and prescriptions. Who has disputed this, certainly not me. This money is effectively borrowed as we (UK) are running a fiscal deficit. In this way Scotland's current account is penalised twice. Once because we actually receive the money and it is then credited to our expenditure account which is fair enough but then again when the debt has to be serviced. This is not sound economics, the UK cannot afford to do this.  

 

I'm not disputing what Kevin Hague has to say and i know that he understands that Scotland's finances going forward will be determined to a large degree by whatever our share of the debt might be. I'm also not disputing that as things stand at least, Scotland would most likely be borrowing more, taxing more or spending less than it otherwise would be if nothing changed and we remain in the UK. There are a lot of changes coming up now though not least Brexit and a Tory government promising tax cuts. The writing is on the wall for the NHS and the Barnett formula anyway. Social provision and public spending are not going to increase under the Tories.

 

 What concerns me is your inability to answer my question or support  "your claim that Scotland's deficit has been brought about by overspending on free things like prescriptions" You know how the deficit is calculated but chose to misrepresent the situation, why did you do that?

 

[ri Alban]

6 hours ago, jamb0_1874 said:

 

What makes you say this?

Expendables.

[Hasselhoff]

4 hours ago, coconut doug said:

 

Yes Scotland spends the extra money it gets on free education and prescriptions. Who has disputed this, certainly not me. This money is effectively borrowed as we (UK) are running a fiscal deficit. In this way Scotland's current account is penalised twice. Once because we actually receive the money and it is then credited to our expenditure account which is fair enough but then again when the debt has to be serviced. This is not sound economics, the UK cannot afford to do this.  

 

I'm not disputing what Kevin Hague has to say and i know that he understands that Scotland's finances going forward will be determined to a large degree by whatever our share of the debt might be. I'm also not disputing that as things stand at least, Scotland would most likely be borrowing more, taxing more or spending less than it otherwise would be if nothing changed and we remain in the UK. There are a lot of changes coming up now though not least Brexit and a Tory government promising tax cuts. The writing is on the wall for the NHS and the Barnett formula anyway. Social provision and public spending are not going to increase under the Tories.

 

 What concerns me is your inability to answer my question or support  "your claim that Scotland's deficit has been brought about by overspending on free things like prescriptions" You know how the deficit is calculated but chose to misrepresent the situation, why did you do that?

 

NHS is devolved to Scotland. The only way the writing could be on the wall for it is if Scotland do something to threaten it. If something happens to the Barnett formula in future which cuts the money Scotland receives then I would consider independence as it becomes more financially viable. Until then, it is just scaremongering to suggest otherwise. 
 

The Tories have had to make difficult decisions to reverse the damage done to the deficit by the Labour government as they always have to. Those decisions are never going to be popular. The worst of the austerity, or spending within your means, is now over and so they can invest again in public services. 
 

SNP have been in the fortunate position of having minimal responsibility but with a vast chequebook to work with. They could have put more money into the NHS, mirroring increases in the consequentials, but instead give away “freebies” to the well-off like free university and prescriptions. 
 

Do you agree that if Scotland didn’t offer these “freebies” and instead choose to invest the money, they would then have less of a notional deficit and would be able to have a fund for the future? 
 

At least you agree that in an Indy Scotland without the Barnett money we would need to spend less or tax more to make up the shortfall. Now try and put some figures to that as we are talking about billions here. Even the recent tax adjustments in Scotland didn’t raise quite what they thought they would raise. How do you fill the void that leaving the UK would bring about? Add the additional costs of setting up an independent country which would likely be about £2bn, not the laughable £200m suggested last time round. 
 

Why does Sturgeon quote the IFS when it comes to criticising Brexit but when they claim Scottish independence would affect up to 5x as many jobs, says that she respectfulmy disagrees with them?
 

She has no proper answer to the border question either. Why is introducing trade friction between Indy Scotland and rUK for the 62% of trade that we actually do better than having trade friction between Scotland (in UK) and the EU where we do almost a quarter of the trade? They always spin it as the EU being eight times the size but that is just potential, not actual. There has been nothing stopping us selling to the EU for the last 10 years and yet trade to the UK grows faster every year. Amazing what shared language, values and locality does for business! 
 

If Scotland is to ever be independent, someone needs to run the country who is honest and up front about the choices we would have to make and the implications there would be of going it alone. Until they can engage in debate with people a lot smarter than me and answer their concerns, the only chance of winning independence is for them to pull the wool over peoples eyes and deceive their way there instead. 

[jamb0_1874]

3 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Expendables.

 

Am not sure I understand, are you saying that you think Scotland is expendable to the UK?

 

If so you do realise the definition of expendable is someone or something that is disposable or not necessary or important. A person who contributes nothing to a project and who is thus not necessary to complete it is an example of someone who is expendable.

 

Are you saying that Scotland brings nothing to the UK. If so how can you claim that we will be ok as an independent country?

 

 

 

[ri Alban]

1 hour ago, Hasselhoff said:

NHS is devolved to Scotland. The only way the writing could be on the wall for it is if Scotland do something to threaten it. If something happens to the Barnett formula in future which cuts the money Scotland receives then I would consider independence as it becomes more financially viable. Until then, it is just scaremongering to suggest otherwise. 
 

The Tories have had to make difficult decisions to reverse the damage done to the deficit by the Labour government as they always have to. Those decisions are never going to be popular. The worst of the austerity, or spending within your means, is now over and so they can invest again in public services. 
 

SNP have been in the fortunate position of having minimal responsibility but with a vast chequebook to work with. They could have put more money into the NHS, mirroring increases in the consequentials, but instead give away “freebies” to the well-off like free university and prescriptions. 
 

Do you agree that if Scotland didn’t offer these “freebies” and instead choose to invest the money, they would then have less of a notional deficit and would be able to have a fund for the future? 
 

At least you agree that in an Indy Scotland without the Barnett money we would need to spend less or tax more to make up the shortfall. Now try and put some figures to that as we are talking about billions here. Even the recent tax adjustments in Scotland didn’t raise quite what they thought they would raise. How do you fill the void that leaving the UK would bring about? Add the additional costs of setting up an independent country which would likely be about £2bn, not the laughable £200m suggested last time round. 
 

Why does Sturgeon quote the IFS when it comes to criticising Brexit but when they claim Scottish independence would affect up to 5x as many jobs, says that she respectfulmy disagrees with them?
 

She has no proper answer to the border question either. Why is introducing trade friction between Indy Scotland and rUK for the 62% of trade that we actually do better than having trade friction between Scotland (in UK) and the EU where we do almost a quarter of the trade? They always spin it as the EU being eight times the size but that is just potential, not actual. There has been nothing stopping us selling to the EU for the last 10 years and yet trade to the UK grows faster every year. Amazing what shared language, values and locality does for business! 
 

If Scotland is to ever be independent, someone needs to run the country who is honest and up front about the choices we would have to make and the implications there would be of going it alone. Until they can engage in debate with people a lot smarter than me and answer their concerns, the only chance of winning independence is for them to pull the wool over peoples eyes and deceive their way there instead. 

The UK have just jumped out of trade with the EU worth 50%. Add to this 16% from Scotland, which is about £15/£20b more than it spends in Scotland. Weird that, a country 10x smaller spends, you'd think  it would be only £5b , not £65b+.

Anyway, the Scottish government receives half of of the supposed figure it brings in. The UK government spends the rest. The UK is very lucky it has had Londo and the Home counties well invested in from Scottish oil and Gas and has all the ports and Channel tunnel. That it now produces a surplus that allows Unionists to play mind games with the Scottish people. Wales' notional deficit is £14 and NI's is £10. Scotland's is £12b. Take London and the home counties out and the UK is in notional trouble. Independence for all four would be the best for everyone.

 

 

[ri Alban]

4 minutes ago, jamb0_1874 said:

 

Am not sure I understand, are you saying that you think Scotland is expendable to the UK?

 

If so you do realise the definition of expendable is someone or something that is disposable or not necessary or important. A person who contributes nothing to a project and who is thus not necessary to complete it is an example of someone who is expendable.

 

Are you saying that Scotland brings nothing to the UK. If so how can you claim that we will be ok as an independent country?

 

 

 

Yes, the people are expendable, our assets will be sold off for the trade deals required, as our vote matters not. Independence is the only way we cannot be used and abused.

 

In short, we die well!

Edited December 9, 2019 by ri Alban

[manaliveits105]

3 hours ago, Hasselhoff said:

NHS is devolved to Scotland. The only way the writing could be on the wall for it is if Scotland do something to threaten it. If something happens to the Barnett formula in future which cuts the money Scotland receives then I would consider independence as it becomes more financially viable. Until then, it is just scaremongering to suggest otherwise. 
 

The Tories have had to make difficult decisions to reverse the damage done to the deficit by the Labour government as they always have to. Those decisions are never going to be popular. The worst of the austerity, or spending within your means, is now over and so they can invest again in public services. 
 

SNP have been in the fortunate position of having minimal responsibility but with a vast chequebook to work with. They could have put more money into the NHS, mirroring increases in the consequentials, but instead give away “freebies” to the well-off like free university and prescriptions. 
 

Do you agree that if Scotland didn’t offer these “freebies” and instead choose to invest the money, they would then have less of a notional deficit and would be able to have a fund for the future? 
 

At least you agree that in an Indy Scotland without the Barnett money we would need to spend less or tax more to make up the shortfall. Now try and put some figures to that as we are talking about billions here. Even the recent tax adjustments in Scotland didn’t raise quite what they thought they would raise. How do you fill the void that leaving the UK would bring about? Add the additional costs of setting up an independent country which would likely be about £2bn, not the laughable £200m suggested last time round. 
 

Why does Sturgeon quote the IFS when it comes to criticising Brexit but when they claim Scottish independence would affect up to 5x as many jobs, says that she respectfulmy disagrees with them?
 

She has no proper answer to the border question either. Why is introducing trade friction between Indy Scotland and rUK for the 62% of trade that we actually do better than having trade friction between Scotland (in UK) and the EU where we do almost a quarter of the trade? They always spin it as the EU being eight times the size but that is just potential, not actual. There has been nothing stopping us selling to the EU for the last 10 years and yet trade to the UK grows faster every year. Amazing what shared language, values and locality does for business! 
 

If Scotland is to ever be independent, someone needs to run the country who is honest and up front about the choices we would have to make and the implications there would be of going it alone. Until they can engage in debate with people a lot smarter than me and answer their concerns, the only chance of winning independence is for them to pull the wool over peoples eyes and deceive their way there instead. 

Great post 

True dat 

[frankblack]

4 hours ago, Hasselhoff said:

NHS is devolved to Scotland. The only way the writing could be on the wall for it is if Scotland do something to threaten it. If something happens to the Barnett formula in future which cuts the money Scotland receives then I would consider independence as it becomes more financially viable. Until then, it is just scaremongering to suggest otherwise. 
 

The Tories have had to make difficult decisions to reverse the damage done to the deficit by the Labour government as they always have to. Those decisions are never going to be popular. The worst of the austerity, or spending within your means, is now over and so they can invest again in public services. 
 

SNP have been in the fortunate position of having minimal responsibility but with a vast chequebook to work with. They could have put more money into the NHS, mirroring increases in the consequentials, but instead give away “freebies” to the well-off like free university and prescriptions. 
 

Do you agree that if Scotland didn’t offer these “freebies” and instead choose to invest the money, they would then have less of a notional deficit and would be able to have a fund for the future? 
 

At least you agree that in an Indy Scotland without the Barnett money we would need to spend less or tax more to make up the shortfall. Now try and put some figures to that as we are talking about billions here. Even the recent tax adjustments in Scotland didn’t raise quite what they thought they would raise. How do you fill the void that leaving the UK would bring about? Add the additional costs of setting up an independent country which would likely be about £2bn, not the laughable £200m suggested last time round. 
 

Why does Sturgeon quote the IFS when it comes to criticising Brexit but when they claim Scottish independence would affect up to 5x as many jobs, says that she respectfulmy disagrees with them?
 

She has no proper answer to the border question either. Why is introducing trade friction between Indy Scotland and rUK for the 62% of trade that we actually do better than having trade friction between Scotland (in UK) and the EU where we do almost a quarter of the trade? They always spin it as the EU being eight times the size but that is just potential, not actual. There has been nothing stopping us selling to the EU for the last 10 years and yet trade to the UK grows faster every year. Amazing what shared language, values and locality does for business! 
 

If Scotland is to ever be independent, someone needs to run the country who is honest and up front about the choices we would have to make and the implications there would be of going it alone. Until they can engage in debate with people a lot smarter than me and answer their concerns, the only chance of winning independence is for them to pull the wool over peoples eyes and deceive their way there instead. 

 

Great post. 👍

[Space Mackerel]

Bit of bad news for the Unionists over the weekend, one of my best mates who voted Leave and UKIP for last few years has just posted his vote off for Joanna Cherry. 😁😁😁

[Ron Burgundy]

1 hour ago, Space Mackerel said:

Bit of bad news for the Unionists over the weekend, one of my best mates who voted Leave and UKIP for last few years has just posted his vote off for Joanna Cherry. 😁😁😁

Couple of things.

 

1.That never happened.

 

2. You have no mates.

[jamb0_1874]

12 hours ago, Hasselhoff said:

NHS is devolved to Scotland. The only way the writing could be on the wall for it is if Scotland do something to threaten it. If something happens to the Barnett formula in future which cuts the money Scotland receives then I would consider independence as it becomes more financially viable. Until then, it is just scaremongering to suggest otherwise. 
 

The Tories have had to make difficult decisions to reverse the damage done to the deficit by the Labour government as they always have to. Those decisions are never going to be popular. The worst of the austerity, or spending within your means, is now over and so they can invest again in public services. 
 

SNP have been in the fortunate position of having minimal responsibility but with a vast chequebook to work with. They could have put more money into the NHS, mirroring increases in the consequentials, but instead give away “freebies” to the well-off like free university and prescriptions. 
 

Do you agree that if Scotland didn’t offer these “freebies” and instead choose to invest the money, they would then have less of a notional deficit and would be able to have a fund for the future? 
 

At least you agree that in an Indy Scotland without the Barnett money we would need to spend less or tax more to make up the shortfall. Now try and put some figures to that as we are talking about billions here. Even the recent tax adjustments in Scotland didn’t raise quite what they thought they would raise. How do you fill the void that leaving the UK would bring about? Add the additional costs of setting up an independent country which would likely be about £2bn, not the laughable £200m suggested last time round. 
 

Why does Sturgeon quote the IFS when it comes to criticising Brexit but when they claim Scottish independence would affect up to 5x as many jobs, says that she respectfulmy disagrees with them?
 

She has no proper answer to the border question either. Why is introducing trade friction between Indy Scotland and rUK for the 62% of trade that we actually do better than having trade friction between Scotland (in UK) and the EU where we do almost a quarter of the trade? They always spin it as the EU being eight times the size but that is just potential, not actual. There has been nothing stopping us selling to the EU for the last 10 years and yet trade to the UK grows faster every year. Amazing what shared language, values and locality does for business! 
 

If Scotland is to ever be independent, someone needs to run the country who is honest and up front about the choices we would have to make and the implications there would be of going it alone. Until they can engage in debate with people a lot smarter than me and answer their concerns, the only chance of winning independence is for them to pull the wool over peoples eyes and deceive their way there instead. 

 

Great post, you sir are far too sensible for this thread. 

[jamb0_1874]

10 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Our assets will be sold off for the trade deals required

 

What assets are you thinking will be sold off?

 

10 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Independence is the only way we cannot be used and abused.

 

Why do you think this? I take it Hollyrood would be different to Westminster when it comes to trying to balance the books

[Space Mackerel]

6 hours ago, Ron Burgundy said:

Couple of things.

 

1.That never happened.

 

2. You have no mates.

He’s actually one of your mates too Mr Ron. I’ll send you a wee PM on the Faceybook. 😁😁😁

[Trapper John McIntyre]

1 hour ago, jamb0_1874 said:

 

What assets are you thinking will be sold off?

 

 

Why do you think this? I take it Hollyrood would be different to Westminster when it comes to trying to balance the books

 

Topkapi restaurant and Greggs in Gorgie.

 

Goldmines both.

[Space Mackerel]

What’s an uber right wing Tory commentator Tweeting such utter filth as this? 😁😁😁

Edited December 9, 2019 by Space Mackerel

[Auld Reekin']

2 hours ago, Space Mackerel said:

What’s an uber right wing Tory commentator Tweeting such utter filth as this? 😁😁😁

 

His grammar isn't the best, however...      What do they teach them at your average, hideously-expensive, public school these days? (Bread-roll throwing? Sneering? Xenophobia? Creative tax-returning?)   

[manaliveits105]

He obviously missed Pierce Morgan taking her apart this morning - wee nippy lost it 

[freddiemac]

12 hours ago, Ron Burgundy said:

Couple of things.

 

1.That never happened.

 

2. You have no mates.

Great post,but i am sure he has a few mates at parkhead.

[manaliveits105]

Two days to go - any policies yet ???

 

 

[Ron Burgundy]

2 hours ago, manaliveits105 said:

Two days to go - any policies yet ???

 

 

Freedum.

[frankblack]

2 hours ago, manaliveits105 said:

Two days to go - any policies yet ???

 

 

 

Usual tactics - blame everyone else and hope no one points at your weak policies or record in government.

[coconut doug]

On 09/12/2019 at 04:26, Hasselhoff said:

 

Seems you still don’t want to apologise for telling us this notional Scottish deficit was not a result of an overspend by the SG. It suits your narrative to pretend that the SG can’t manage its finances when in reality it is Westminster that can’t.

Reduction or abolition of the Barnett formula does not make Scotland “more financially viable” you are contradicting your whole argument with that statement. What it might do is make Scotland less financially dependent in the long run but even then Scotland’s finances would still be effectively determined by Westminster. The Barnett formula is not popular in parliament and is not popular with English people generally many of whom share your mistaken view that it is used to balance SG overspend on “free things”. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11225021/Time-to-scrap-the-Barnett-formula-An-outline-of-who-has-demanded-flawed-measure-be-radically-recast.html 

 

NHS is devolved to Scotland. The only way the writing could be on the wall for it is if Scotland do something to threaten it. If something happens to the Barnett formula in future which cuts the money Scotland receives then I would consider independence as it becomes more financially viable. Until then, it is just scaremongering to suggest otherwise. 

 

The NHS is devolved but the Tories have already alluded to taking control of it. Johnson said of the SG that it might “forfeit all right to manage the NHS in Scotland” Did you miss that or are you just disregarding it as another lie?

 

The Tories have had to make difficult decisions to reverse the damage done to the deficit by the Labour government as they always have to. Those decisions are never going to be popular. The worst of the austerity, or spending within your means, is now over and so they can invest again in public services. 

 

The Tories have not had to make difficult decisions. They have happily screwed the poor and disabled and boasted of the large number of people and families who are “just about managing” as a result. According to the Lancet 130,000 people have died as a result of their cuts and very few Tories  will have the slightest concern about that, having much more concern for the wealthy and showing it by cutting income tax for higher earners, cutting inheritance tax, preventing the public buying RBS and other shares as well as protecting their tax havens. They also continued to sell off what’s left of public assets to their sponsors at knock down prices. All easy decisions to make if you have no conscience or concern for the disadvantaged.

 Sure the country was broke when the Tories got in but that was not Labour’s fault. There was an international banking crisis which affected the UK disproportionately hard because we don’t have a well structured economy and have too much reliance on financial activity.

The worst of austerity is not over. Have you seen the size of the national debt? It is massive and continues to grow quickly. Our GDP per capita still remains below 2008 levels and is not showing any signs of improving. The so called massive investment in the NHS will not keep pace even with the historical average. The Tories once again are proposing tax cuts and this is before we leave the EU. It does seem though that whatever lies the Tories tell on these matters the indoctrinated will believe and accept on the basis that it keeps Corbyn and the Nats out. Against this you are seriously suggesting the Tories are ready to start investing in public services again. If the Tories were interested in public services they would not have starved them of resource for so long. None of their ridiculous targets will be met. Whether it’s 50,000 nurses or 20,000 police or any of the other empty promises they have made.  Amazingly police numbers increased in Scotland and crime went down. The numbers of health professionals is proportionately and significantly higher in Scotland than RUK. Its easier to see a GP or be attended to in A+E. You hardly ever see a 4 year old boy lying on the floor with a line in him. All this and freebies too.

 

SNP have been in the fortunate position of having minimal responsibility but with a vast chequebook to work with. They could have put more money into the NHS, mirroring increases in the consequentials, but instead give away “freebies” to the well-off like free university and prescriptions.

 

The increase in spending in Scottish NHS is increasing faster than in RUK whether this comes from consequentials or not.

 The giving away of freebies as you describe it is nonsense. They have to be paid for and those who pay for them are entitled to benefit from them just the same as everybody else, especially so when we are considering prescriptions and tertiary education. It is a puerile and divisive argument to suggest that those who pay taxes shouldn’t benefit from the services they fund unless of course you plan to provide a second rate publically funded service that only the very poorest in society would use because they have been priced out the market for a higher quality service. Keeping people well educated and in good health is a massive benefit to society. If (almost) everybody contributes to it and everybody uses it then it will be universally valued. This seems to be part of Scottish values where we have always valued the widest participation in education and the part that can play in social mobility.

The SNP cannot avoid scrutiny and responsibility for devolved matters. Everyday there is a battery of negative and inflammatory headlines about Sturgeon in particular. Almost never does the narrative match the headline but the aggression from the press is there for all to see as it is on here. They hate her because she has a total grasp of her brief, can relate to regular people and has the ability to make her opponents look inept and ill informed.

 

 

Do you agree that if Scotland didn’t offer these “freebies” and instead choose to invest the money, they would then have less of a notional deficit and would be able to have a fund for the future? 

 

  It’s clearly true that if Scotland got less in the block grant then the notional debt would be less however where we choose to spend our money is largely up to us. Choosing to spend it on educating our children and helping the sick irrespective of how wealthy these people or their families might be is O.K by me. You seem to think it would be a good idea to withhold this spending and keep it as a “fund for the future”. That’s exactly what education is an investment in the future.

 

At least you agree that in an Indy Scotland without the Barnett money we would need to spend less or tax more to make up the shortfall. Now try and put some figures to that as we are talking about billions here. Even the recent tax adjustments in Scotland didn’t raise quite what they thought they would raise. How do you fill the void that leaving the UK would bring about? Add the additional costs of setting up an independent country which would likely be about £2bn, not the laughable £200m suggested last time round. 

 

The problem you outline is not unique to Scotland. It applies to every part of the U.K. outside London and the SE. In fact Scotland fares better than average according to this accounting measure. The problem we all have is that this shortfall you talk about is not real. It is notional. The methodology and accuracy of Gers and other regional figures is widely questioned. London and the SE shows a massive fiscal surplus but it is not surprising given the much higher wages and wealth there. Revenue from Income Tax, property Tax and Inheritance Tax is much higher. What London and the SE approximate is a Scandinavian style high tax/high spend type of economy. However this is to some extent paid for by the rest of the country in taxes and the syphoning off of revenues. Maybe this guy will help you to understand why the figures in Gers are not accurate.

 https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2019/08/21/putting-scotlands-deficit-according-to-gers-in-context-and-explaining-why-this-nonsense-happens/  He is a professor of economics and this is his area of expertise. Richard Dunleavy is the guy who estimated start up costs at £200 million and the same guy who challenged and exposed the inaccuracies of Danny Alexander’s figures during the 2014 indy debate, Dunleavy predicating his argument on the idea that Scotland already has separate systems in most areas and refuting the UK govt argument on the basis that they did not take this into account. The UK gov also based their calculation on an assumption that Scotland would initiate 180 government departments which it clearly would not. It was exposed as propaganda then but has still managed to survive in your consciousness. You are right the tax changes in Scotland haven’t brought in the money they predicted. They’ve actually given most Scots a tax cut. Amazing really higher levels of service, free things and tax cuts.

 

Why does Sturgeon quote the IFS when it comes to criticising Brexit but when they claim Scottish independence would affect up to 5x as many jobs, says that she respectfulmy disagrees with them?

 

Nicola is entitled to quote who she likes, when she likes it’s up to her opponents to refute what she says and support their own alternative views. The IFS though is not the arbiter of everything but if you think they have produced a knock out blow on Indy prospects you should read their opinions again.

 

She has no proper answer to the border question either. Why is introducing trade friction between Indy Scotland and rUK for the 62% of trade that we actually do better than having trade friction between Scotland (in UK) and the EU where we do almost a quarter of the trade? They always spin it as the EU being eight times the size but that is just potential, not actual. There has been nothing stopping us selling to the EU for the last 10 years and yet trade to the UK grows faster every year. Amazing what shared language, values and locality does for business! 

 

Why would you expect Nicola to have a definitive answer to the border question. The terms of Brexit have not been set out yet and the UK/RUK’s relationship with the EU is not known. Until it is we don’t know what will happen at the border. It shouldn’t really need pointing out that any border will be constructed as a response to RUK leaving the EU and not Scotland leaving the UK.

Tories (philp) telling us we have a free trade deal with the EU so Scotland will continue to have a free trade relationship with RUK. It seems exports to the EU are growing a lot faster with the EU than it is with RUK https://www2.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Economy/Exports/ESSPublication but maybe you can support your claim that it is not. Exports are the bit that makes money and exports to the EU are now 35% of those to RUK. You are the one talking about our inability to sell to the EU but the official figures show different. Where do you get your figures from?

 

If Scotland is to ever be independent, someone needs to run the country who is honest and up front about the choices we would have to make and the implications there would be of going it alone. Until they can engage in debate with people a lot smarter than me and answer their concerns, the only chance of winning independence is for them to pull the wool over peoples eyes and deceive their way there instead.

 

Priceless to hear a Tory in the current election talk about honesty.  Indy supporters on here and elsewhere constantly engage their opponents and discuss the complexities of it all. When people tell lies call them out but do it with some attempt at using evidence and reasoning otherwise it just becomes name calling. The political response is no you can’t have Indyref 2 and on here it’s often stuff about how thick we are, how we are in a cult, how we base our arguments on grievance where the really infantile amongst them opt for jibes about  Krankie or Brigadoon. Who are these smarter people you keep telling us about and what is it they say that we are unable to counter?

 

[Space Mackerel]

14 hours ago, freddiemac said:

Great post,but i am sure he has a few mates at parkhead.

 

Ron B, daft froddo thinks am a Tim noo. 😕

[manaliveits105]

56% say NAW 

Mon the 56 

[manaliveits105]

Corbyn and his shadow health minister shown up to be absolute liars after the gaff today

oh he was only joking he has a strange sense of humour says Corbyn !

labour are toast