FAO No Voters

[Thumper]

There is more to Ayrshire than Ayr you know.

I very well know. And there are hardly more jobs in North and East Ayrshire than there are in West Ayrshire.

[Blaven]

I very well know. And there are hardly more jobs in North and East Ayrshire than there are in West Ayrshire.

And far fewer Tory voters.

[ddfg]

My biggest gripe with the Yes campaign so far is that they never respond to questions with a direct answer. I appreciate this is the norm for politicians but given the significance of what we will be voting about I would have thought that all involved could have shed a new skin and been up front and clear and concise on their answers.

This morning I'm readng about a request from the opposition parties for an estimated cost of setting up an independent Scotland.

I would have assumed this would be something the SNP would be acutely aware of and able to provide to allow voters to factor the costs into their thinking around how to vote. But in response a spokesman says it's an attempt to divert attention away from misleading UK government figures. That might well be the case but why not just answer the question with a figure, the failure to answer leaves me with two questions of my own.

They either don't know or the cost will be so high they don't want anyone to know.

[I'm Brian]

Well Better Together seem to have over estimated it a tad. Don't know how switched on to the debate you are, but it was a big story last week

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-horses-mouth-and-other-parts/#more-55929

As I understand it, there are claims that the SNP were going to do a detailed analysis of the set up costs. Their line now is that they cannot accurately calculate it until the negotiations are complete post a Yes vote.

[H_B]

Well Better Together seem to have over estimated it a tad.

And the SNP drastically underestimated it. Strange you didn't point that out?

their line now is that they cannot accurately calculate it until the negotiations are complete post a Yes vote.

[I'm Brian]

And the SNP drastically underestimated it. Strange you didn't point that out?

I didn't point it out as I never knew they had quoted a figure, but I'll bow to your greater knowledge that they had.

[H_B]

I didn't point it out as I never knew they had quoted a figure, but I'll bow to your greater knowledge that they had.

Uh huh. It's strange that the really credible source of information, from Somerset, didn't point this out either?

Let's see what an independent analysis states :-

"SNP ministers are “selling a view of an independent Scotland’s future without thinking through the costs” and are “vastly underestimating the cost of divorce”, according to an analysis by one of Europe’s leading banks.

Commerzbank said that a new state would fare “considerably worse than the nationalists believe” and was “extremely unlikely” to be set up within Alex Salmond’s 18-month timetable."

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/scotland/article4076705.ece

[H_B]

And of course, according to the Clown Collective, the SNP are different and are really much more trustworthy than "wastemonster" politicos....

"She said the Scottish Government should publish the costings, which were to have been worked out two years ago, according to a leaked report from Mr Swinney to cabinet colleagues."

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/479145/SNP-fail-to-convince-on-cost-of-setting-up-independent-Scotland

So, where are these costs? Have they been worked out and haven't actually been published? Are the SNP hiding them from us? Have they failed to work them out? Do they need a loan of a calculator, or an abacus?

[the jambo-rocker]

Using the Express to point score. Really HB?

[I'm Brian]

Uh huh. It's strange that the really credible source of information, from Somerset, didn't point this out either?

Let's see what an independent analysis states :-

"SNP ministers are “selling a view of an independent Scotland’s future without thinking through the costs” and are “vastly underestimating the cost of divorce”, according to an analysis by one of Europe’s leading banks.

Commerzbank said that a new state would fare “considerably worse than the nationalists believe” and was “extremely unlikely” to be set up within Alex Salmond’s 18-month timetable."

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/scotland/article4076705.ece

So what was the figure then. I genuinely haven't heard it and I would have pointed it out if I had. I'm not trying to make a case. It's the same old thing though. The actual cost won't be as high as the unionists are saying and it won't be as low as the SNP are saying. The truth will be in the middle.

It is interesting however that the financial institutions never seem to agree with each other over Scottish Independence.

[H_B]

Using the Express to point score. Really HB?

They are one of the many to have reported the utter shambles Swinney has ended up in here.

A true Michael Howard moment for him. Great work.

Here's a verbatim account of the complete fool of himself Swinney made. No doubt the NCC will gather for a group hug to berate the BBC for outrageously trying to get a Nat to answer a question.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/john-swinney-refuses-thirteen-times-3618528

[H_B]

So what was the figure then. I genuinely haven't heard it and I would have pointed it out if I had. I'm not trying to make a case. It's the same old thing though. The actual cost won't be as high as the unionists are saying and it won't be as low as the SNP are saying. The truth will be in the middle.

It is interesting however that the financial institutions never seem to agree with each other over Scottish Independence.

Salmond stated 250 million would seem a "reasonable figure".

Yet, we could of course be much better informed if :-

"It's simple - he can publish the document that was produced two years ago and sets out the costs for the transition to an independent Scotland."

So, will those who are in the "grassroots" Yes campaign press the SNP to reveal these figures? After all, you are all for transparency and the voters being kept informed? Right?

[I'm Brian]

Salmond stated 250 million would seem a "reasonable figure".

Yet, we could of course be much better informed if :-

"It's simple - he can publish the document that was produced two years ago and sets out the costs for the transition to an independent Scotland."

So, will those who are in the "grassroots" Yes campaign press the SNP to reveal these figures? After all, you are all for transparency and the voters being kept informed? Right?

I am. But as I am diddly squat to do with the SNP I am hardly likely to be in a position to do so. So I would say it is BT's job to press them, and it would appear that they are doing just that. It is now up to the SNP to produce them.

As far as I am concerned whatever price it takes is a price worth paying, and cheaper than a train set that stops 150 miles from the border, or an aircraft carrier we have no planes for etc

[H_B]

I am. But as I am diddly squat to do with the SNP I am hardly likely to be in a position to do so.

But the non-partisan "It's not about the SNP" Yes campaign will no doubt be demanding the SNP publish this?

Because they are all about Scots getting the figures that matter? and the information they need to make an informed choice? Aren't they?

When will Blair Jenkins be demanding these figures are published?

[I'm Brian]

But the non-partisan "It's not about the SNP" Yes campaign will no doubt be demanding the SNP publish this?

Because they are all about Scots getting the figures that matter? and the information they need to make an informed choice? Aren't they?

When will Blair Jenkins be demanding these figures are published?

Christ your in good form today. Did you get a good sleep last night?

I'll tell you what as I have to get a good sleep after my nightshift. Once both sides start publishing detailed sets of figures we'll both be happy. Unfortunately this ideal scenario is unlikely to ever appear. And as a defender of the union you'll be calling for all the hidden documents the unionists have covered up to be released. and to save you the bother I'll cry 'whataboutery' on your behalf.

[H_B]

Christ your in good form today. Did you get a good sleep last night?

An excellent one, yep.

And So, you are happy that we don't ask the SNP too many nasty questions, to actually publish their figures, just cos ?

Mr Swinney wrote: “Work is currently under way in finance and OCEA (Office of the Chief 
Economic Adviser) to build a comprehensive overview of the institutions, costs and staff 
numbers which I will draw together and provide and update to cabinet in June.”

this is classic SNP behaviour. They are incredibly non-transparent, and their lapsogs, like yourself, gladly swallow this.

It's the exact same thing with the legal advice on separation. What we get is the UK government publishing data, and the Scottish government saying "we don't like your report, and it's wrong, but we're not giving the public ours".

And people like yourswelf show their true partisan colours when you just nod at this approach and say "Yep".

It' smuch easier to attack someone else's report or opinion than it is to detail, with sourced data, your own. Hence why the Scottish government have been completely owned on the issue of legal advice and have made a total fool of themselves, and are in the process of doing the same here.

By all means doubt the figures Alexander is detailing. There may be many valid reasons for that. But to do so, whilst refusing to publish your own figures, is just cowardly, embarrassing and utterly amateurish. And only Clown Collective types are pretending any different.

[Confidemus]

Ignoring H_B's quite spectacular tantrum this morning, this all came about because the Treasury, attempting to quote Professor Patrick Dunleavy, put the cost at setting up an iScotland at an eye watering £2.7 billion.

Prof Dunleavy then called this "crude misinformation" and rightly took the Treasury to task for associating him with this figure.

Quite why the Treasury haven't been given the same level of bollocking as Salmond/ the SNP is anyone's guess.

Truth be told, this is yet another point that doesn't change how I'm going to vote, but it is pleasant to see H_B on the verge of tears over this.

[H_B]

Ignoring H_B's quite spectacular tantrum this morning, this all came about because the Treasury, attempting to quote Professor Patrick Dunleavy, put the cost at setting up an iScotland at an eye watering £2.7 billion.

No they didn't.

[H_B]

What an absolute disaster you are having here this morning.

Could be time for you to take a break I reckon.

[Confidemus]

No they didn't.

Yes they did:

"The Treasury goes further, pointing to studies by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the London School of Economics, which calculate that to establish a policy department would cost £15m. Applying this, says the analysis, to the "180 departments" the Scottish Government says it would need in an independent Scotland, this "could see Scottish taxpayers fork out £2.7bn" - around £1000 per household. Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury who will launch Whitehall's final analysis paper in Scotland, said: "The Scottish Government is trying to leave the UK but it won't tell anyone how much the set-up surcharge is for an independent Scotland."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/set-up-cost-of-independence-1000-a-family-says-treasury.24329010

I'll await the usual deflective pish from you.