When will indyref2 happen?

[Double Jack D]

On 14/08/2019 at 21:46, Double Jack D said:

 

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=409072756546230&id=398035157649990

All this talk about deficits reminded me of the video I've hopefully linked above.

A view from an Irish perspective. People from other countries really must wonder wtf we were thinking in 2014!

 

4 hours ago, Malky3 said:

So another day passes with no Nationalists "demolishing" any arguments against Independence. 

You didn't watch the video then.

I'm still waiting on a Unionist telling me who's spending our £13bn and what it's being spent on.

[Malky3]

17 minutes ago, BawWatchin said:

We don't have the figures, because the UK Government won't provide them m8. Instead, we have "GERS", which assumes that the other half of Scotlands tax money held by Wesminster + 13bn borrowed by Westminster (in Scotlands name) is spent by the UK Government in Scotland proportionally the same as the Scottish Government spends it's  ̶p̶̶̶o̶̶̶c̶̶̶k̶̶̶e̶̶̶t̶̶̶m̶̶̶o̶̶̶n̶̶̶e̶̶̶y̶̶̶ ̶̶̶b̶̶̶u̶̶̶d̶̶̶g̶̶̶e̶̶̶t̶̶̶ pocketmoney.

You don't need figures from the UK government though, do you? Where are the costings from the SNP to show how much Scotland could run those services ourselves? Where are the alternatives to simply going back to the current providers of those services and hoping they will charge less than they currently do?

Instead we're supposed to hope that blind faith will get us through. It's crazy. If Scotland can run the same services for a fraction of the cost, then publish it. If it stacks up it could go a long way to convincing people like me to vote Yes. It would certainly be better than the assumptions that were published in the White Paper which we now absolutely know would have left the Scottish Economy with a £29.9Bn black hole - and no ability to borrow the cash.

[Malky3]

8 minutes ago, Double Jack D said:

 

You didn't watch the video then.

I'm still waiting on a Unionist telling me who's spending our £13bn and what it's being spent on.

I did watch the video. It didn't answer any of the pertinent questions at all. It simply made assumptions based on the fact that Ireland exists as an Independent country. 

 

[D Angelo Barksdale]

Thinking the DWP, Defence and HMRC are 'efficient and reliable' though.

 

[Malky3]

18 minutes ago, Henderson to deliver ..... said:

Thinking the DWP, Defence and HMRC are 'efficient and reliable' though.

 

Where are an Independent Scotland's better choices? 

Nationalists on here have been complaining about the bill charged to Scotland for those services within the Union, so it should be simple. Show us all what you would use instead or if you are intent using the same suppliers - as is current policy - tell us how you have worked out that Westminister will charge less than it currently does.

I don't deny that Scotland could be an Independent country that balances it's books. I simply want to see where you are proposing making £29.9Bn of cuts from what was proposed in the SNP White Paper. Would you cut pensions? Would you scrap the NHS? Where would the savings come from? 

Edited August 16, 2019 by Malky3

[NotThePars]

47 minutes ago, sophia said:

An independent Scotland will be an inclusive environment whereby, amongst other modern things, automatic assumptions about gender won't be a thing.

 

Bold assumption that the Wings Party won't govern a post-indy Scotland

[scrooge1928]

It isn't Phil.   It's probably McSpreader though.  

Not McSpreader. He always wrote as if he had an IQ of about 90. This guy can stitch together his Scotland In Union briefing notes in a coherent fashion. It's only when he tries to improvise (eg OBFA) that he tends to stumble.

[strichener]

17 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

If you want a Scottish Government vanity project that wasted vast sums of money you go for Holyrood itself you silly bugger. I'll give you nuance, the Scottish Government didn't want the trams and were defeated by the opposition. The trams are 90% down to Edinburgh's Labour Council.

 

I am surprised that no-one has pulled you up on this.  The reason that the Scottish Parliament building can't really be classed as a Scottish Government vanity project is, well quite simply, it wasn't the Scottish Government that instigated it.  The project originated in the Scottish Office.  You really do need to pipe down with these insults regarding the intelligence of others, when you make posts like this.

17 hours ago, Henderson to deliver ..... said:

The project was run by the council and it's various arms length bodies. Therefore, all subsequent funding, technical and contractual f**k ups belong to them. It's patently unfair to blame the government for the council's inability to run a project in anything approaching a semi competent manner.

The tram was agitated for by the Labour led council and passed through parliament by the Lib-Lab coalition. After winning the 2007 election, the minority SNP administration tried to cancel the project but were defeated twice, they then agreed to go ahead with it on the condition no more public money was spent.

Again, a bit disingenuous to say they 'dictated the project scope'. They witheld funding due to the utterly stupid council decision to end the line at Haymarket, (a move that would have rendered the entire project virtually worthless and an even bigger waste of money given that they had dug up half the city centre and Leith Walk already), and insisted that the line continued to St Andrews Square. The line eventually continued to York Place.

 

Sorry but this is just wrong.  The Labour Scottish Government passed the legislation for the project without which there would be no trams.  It also agreed to provide £200m of funding (about 86% of the estimated costs) at the commencement of the project.   Then provided grants for the majority of the initial cost via Transport Scotland, increased the grant when the project got into financial difficulty, gave Transport Scotland a role in the oversight with a  place on the Trams Project Board.

Your recollection of what happened in 2007/2008 is incorrect.  Prior to the SNP Government agreeing a project funding cap of £500m, the Scottish Government commitment to the project was £375m so they did not "go ahead with it on the condition no more public money was spent", an addition £125m was promised and provided taking the commitment to (91.7% of eligible capital costs).

Finally, there is significant difference between your partial quote "dictating the project scope" and what I actually stated.  However at least you are honest enough to show that there was "latterly" Scottish Government involvement in the scope of the project.

[BawWatchin]

1 hour ago, Malky3 said:

You don't need figures from the UK government though, do you? Where are the costings from the SNP to show how much Scotland could run those services ourselves? Where are the alternatives to simply going back to the current providers of those services and hoping they will charge less than they currently do?

Instead we're supposed to hope that blind faith will get us through. It's crazy. If Scotland can run the same services for a fraction of the cost, then publish it. If it stacks up it could go a long way to convincing people like me to vote Yes. It would certainly be better than the assumptions that were published in the White Paper which we now absolutely know would have left the Scottish Economy with a £29.9Bn black hole - and no ability to borrow the cash.

How can the Scottish Government cost all of the services in Scotland, when they're not even aware of what all of the services are? The UK Government spends money in Scotland (presumably on services), but the Scottish Government has no idea where or what those services are. They have the assumption figures from GERS, that's it.

Bit hard to build an economic case for independence when you don't even know where half of Scotlands tax revenue is spent in Scotland.

[Dan Steele]

1 hour ago, Malky3 said:

I did watch the video. It didn't answer any of the pertinent questions at all. It simply made assumptions based on the fact that Ireland exists as an Independent country. 

 

There are those who relish the idea of an independent country making its own way, making all its decisions and mistakes but at the end of the day following what is the norm for a country. Then there those like you who wish to remain yoked to what increasingly is an isolationist, xenophobic and rudderless boat. I actually feel quite sorry that you think what is, and what is about to happen, is the best possible outcome for Scotland. Oh, and your continual sniping is, quite frankly, tedious, empty and boring.

[HTG]

9 minutes ago, The Skelpit Lug said:

There are those who relish the idea of an independent country making its own way, making all its decisions and mistakes but at the end of the day following what is the norm for a country. Then there those like you who wish to remain yoked to what increasingly is an isolationist, xenophobic and rudderless boat. I actually feel quite sorry that you think what is, and what is about to happen, is the best possible outcome for Scotland. Oh, and your continual sniping is, quite frankly, tedious, empty and boring.

He'll not last. You just need to stop giving him his oxygen. Look at his post this morning after nobody replied to him for 10 hours. A desperate "look at me" howl. That's all he's got. He'll be emptied before much longer - not because of what he pretends to believe but because he's such a needy arsehole. 

[Baxter Parp]

Sorry but this is just wrong.  The Labour Scottish Government passed the legislation for the project without which there would be no trams.  It also agreed to provide £200m of funding (about 86% of the estimated costs) at the commencement of the project.   Then provided grants for the majority of the initial cost via Transport Scotland, increased the grant when the project got into financial difficulty, gave Transport Scotland a role in the oversight with a  place on the Trams Project Board.

Your recollection of what happened in 2007/2008 is incorrect.  Prior to the SNP Government agreeing a project funding cap of £500m, the Scottish Government commitment to the project was £375m so they did not "go ahead with it on the condition no more public money was spent", an addition £125m was promised and provided taking the commitment to (91.7% of eligible capital costs).

Finally, there is significant difference between your partial quote "dictating the project scope" and what I actually stated.  However at least you are honest enough to show that there was "latterly" Scottish Government involvement in the scope of the project.

So Holyrood wasn't Scottish Government, trams were proposed by and the works overseen by Edinburgh's Labour council and final funding was provided against the Scottish Government's wishes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Trams Looks like you've got f**k all, bud.

 

[welshbairn]

2 hours ago, NotThePars said:

 

Bold assumption that the Wings Party won't govern a post-indy Scotland

The Bath party will assign rigidly defined genders whether we like it or not. The Reverend Campbell will appoint Ross Thomson as Inspector General.

[D Angelo Barksdale]

1 hour ago, strichener said:

Sorry but this is just wrong.  The Labour Scottish Government passed the legislation for the project without which there would be no trams.  It also agreed to provide £200m of funding (about 86% of the estimated costs) at the commencement of the project.   Then provided grants for the majority of the initial cost via Transport Scotland, increased the grant when the project got into financial difficulty, gave Transport Scotland a role in the oversight with a  place on the Trams Project Board.

This is all very well and good but you've still not explained why the government, who provided funding for the project, are responsible for the shambles as opposed to the organisations who actually ran the project.

1 hour ago, strichener said:

Your recollection of what happened in 2007/2008 is incorrect.  Prior to the SNP Government agreeing a project funding cap of £500m, the Scottish Government commitment to the project was £375m so they did not "go ahead with it on the condition no more public money was spent", an addition £125m was promised and provided taking the commitment to (91.7% of eligible capital costs).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/6243158.stm

Mr Swinney told BBC Scotland: "We didn't want the trams project but parliament has voted for it and the opposition has put a financial constraint on it and I will vigorously apply that financial constraint."

MSPs backed a parliamentary amendment by Labour's Wendy Alexander to go ahead with trams, but within the budget set by the previous Scottish Executive.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/trams-given-green-light-but-it-s-the-end-for-earl-and-delay-for-other-key-projects-1-906839

John Swinney, the finance secretary, then made a brief statement to MSPs conceding defeat and making it clear that the Executive would accede to the wishes of parliament. The trams project will now go-ahead as planned, but with the proviso that it has to remain within the agreed budget and that any cost overruns will be met by Edinburgh City Council and the other bodies involved, not by the Executive. 

1 hour ago, strichener said:

Finally, there is significant difference between your partial quote "dictating the project scope" and what I actually stated.  However at least you are honest enough to show that there was "latterly" Scottish Government involvement in the scope of the project.

Your original quote was, 'It was the Scottish government that passed the legislation, provided the majority of the funding and latterly dictated the project scope by threatening to refuse to hand over grant money.' 

It was of course the council who drastically changed the scope of the project.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-14713476

Finance Secretary John Swinney said: "The government has made clear to the City of Edinburgh Council that a proposal which takes the tram system to Haymarket, that requires ongoing public subsidy in the years to come, is a significant departure from the original concept that the government supported, and which it was prepared to put forward £500m for. "As a consequence of that we are just not prepared to make available any further funding to the city council. "But I have made clear to them, also, that if they come forward with a credible proposition then government will consider that."

So not really 'laterally dictating the project scope', more like holding the council to account for that shambles it was responsible for.

 

[D Angelo Barksdale]

2 hours ago, Malky3 said:

Where are an Independent Scotland's better choices? 

Nationalists on here have been complaining about the bill charged to Scotland for those services within the Union, so it should be simple. Show us all what you would use instead or if you are intent using the same suppliers - as is current policy - tell us how you have worked out that Westminister will charge less than it currently does.

I don't deny that Scotland could be an Independent country that balances it's books. I simply want to see where you are proposing making £29.9Bn of cuts from what was proposed in the SNP White Paper. Would you cut pensions? Would you scrap the NHS? Where would the savings come from? 

You've dodged my question about the OBFA 5 times now. Perhaps if you approached this thread in good faith, you might actually get some constructive responses, rather than the scorn and ridicule you currently deserve.

[AUFC90]

I thought the SNP opposed it originally ?

So Holyrood wasn't Scottish Government, trams were proposed by and the works overseen by Edinburgh's Labour council and final funding was provided against the Scottish Government's wishes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Trams Looks like you've got f**k all, bud. 

[tirso]

58 minutes ago, Henderson to deliver ..... said:

This is all very well and good but you've still not explained why the government, who provided funding for the project, are responsible for the shambles as opposed to the organisations who actually ran the project.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/6243158.stm

Mr Swinney told BBC Scotland: "We didn't want the trams project but parliament has voted for it and the opposition has put a financial constraint on it and I will vigorously apply that financial constraint."

MSPs backed a parliamentary amendment by Labour's Wendy Alexander to go ahead with trams, but within the budget set by the previous Scottish Executive.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/trams-given-green-light-but-it-s-the-end-for-earl-and-delay-for-other-key-projects-1-906839

John Swinney, the finance secretary, then made a brief statement to MSPs conceding defeat and making it clear that the Executive would accede to the wishes of parliament. The trams project will now go-ahead as planned, but with the proviso that it has to remain within the agreed budget and that any cost overruns will be met by Edinburgh City Council and the other bodies involved, not by the Executive. 

Your original quote was, 'It was the Scottish government that passed the legislation, provided the majority of the funding and latterly dictated the project scope by threatening to refuse to hand over grant money.' 

It was of course the council who drastically changed the scope of the project.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-14713476

Finance Secretary John Swinney said: "The government has made clear to the City of Edinburgh Council that a proposal which takes the tram system to Haymarket, that requires ongoing public subsidy in the years to come, is a significant departure from the original concept that the government supported, and which it was prepared to put forward £500m for. "As a consequence of that we are just not prepared to make available any further funding to the city council. "But I have made clear to them, also, that if they come forward with a credible proposition then government will consider that."

So not really 'laterally dictating the project scope', more like holding the council to account for that shambles it was responsible for.

 

seems quite clear cut this.

[Malky3]

3 hours ago, BawWatchin said:

How can the Scottish Government cost all of the services in Scotland, when they're not even aware of what all of the services are? The UK Government spends money in Scotland (presumably on services), but the Scottish Government has no idea where or what those services are. They have the assumption figures from GERS, that's it.

Bit hard to build an economic case for independence when you don't even know where half of Scotlands tax revenue is spent in Scotland.

So the Scottish Government doesn't know what it needs to provide to replace what the Union does for it? That would be about right I guess. It doesn't fill me with confidence in your blind faith though..... 

[BawWatchin]

5 minutes ago, Malky3 said:

So the Scottish Government doesn't know what it needs to provide to replace what the Union does for it? That would be about right I guess. It doesn't fill me with confidence in your blind faith though..... 

The Scottish Government doesn't know what it needs, because the UK government ensures that it doesn't.

What does that tell you about your precious union, when the UK Government actively withholds useful information to maximize uncertainty around the independence question?

[Malky3]

3 hours ago, The Skelpit Lug said:

There are those who relish the idea of an independent country making its own way, making all its decisions and mistakes but at the end of the day following what is the norm for a country. Then there those like you who wish to remain yoked to what increasingly is an isolationist, xenophobic and rudderless boat. I actually feel quite sorry that you think what is, and what is about to happen, is the best possible outcome for Scotland. Oh, and your continual sniping is, quite frankly, tedious, empty and boring.

I could relish that too if it didn't look like we were pissing away our futures. The last time the SNP shared its vision they said we would have everything we've got just now and be better off. This was in the White Paper where they got their figures wrong. We know the fiscal gap would have been £29.9Bn. So all I want to know is what bits of what we've currently got would we have had to have given up? 

Surely its a simple question?