SNP Lies, Corruption and Hypocrisy- add them here

[lichtgilphead]

6 minutes ago, Jedi2 said:

There have in fairness only been the 4 policy positions in the last 2 months..

Yousaf: Most seats, start negotiations (sounds rather like a Declaration of Independence based on most seats)

Swinney: Agree with Yousaf

Swinney/Flynn: Sorry didn't mean start negotiations meant ask for a Ref within 5 years if most seats.

Swinney: It's about gaining more powers for the Scottish Parliament.

What it is today..no idea

 

Why not wait for the SNP manifesto, instead of this endless misinterpretation of newspaper reports?

For example, I see that the Labour manifesto has dropped the “NHS is not for sale” line that their National Policy Forum proposed. 

That's a fact, not just misguided speculation.

[Jedi2]

The IFS (beloved of the SNP) spokesperson on Radio Scotland this morning reiterating that their figures are based on a 1 year projection, and can't at the moment, measure potential future economic growth. UK economy is currently growing, albeit by 0.2%.

Also stated that potential cuts would fall somewhere between 6 to 16 billion (hardly 18 billion which is a lie), and wouldn't affect protected budgets such as Health, Education and Social Care, but rather would be in unprotected areas such as Foreign Aid, Justice, and the Home Office.

Same guy did however forecast a decade of austerity with sharp cuts to public services under the SNP's plans for Independence 

So the SNP need to come clean both on the lie about 18 billion and tell the truth which the IFS actually set out, and if they want to continue citing the IFS then cite their Independence message as well 

Edited June 16 by Jedi2

[lichtgilphead]

Says the guy whose latest prediction is that there will be 651 MP's (instead of 649 plus the speaker) and that Northern Irish parties will only win 17 seats (out of the 18 available) between them.

Laughable.

[Jedi2]

Yeah...one out on the Speaker as a Prediction equates to the IFS spokesperson lying...see the logic.

Other folks predictions not adding up to your 649 either but not to mind.

Edited June 16 by Jedi2

[lichtgilphead]

I'm just pointing out 2 pretty major inaccuracies in one of your posts from yesterday. Even now, you appear to be unable to comprehend that predicting 651 total MP's in an election where 649 MP's plus the speaker will be elected is an error of two MP's, not one. 

In addition, you still haven't explained what happened to the 18th Northern Irish MP?

Please note that I didn't actually say anything about the IFS spokesman lying. I know that they were quoted as saying that £18 billion worth of cuts were coming (BBC 13th June), but cannot be arsed looking up your completely reference-free assertations. Please try to link to at least semi-reputable sources to back up your claims.

Given your record for innaccuracies, misrepresentations and outright lies, why should anyone believe anything you say?

 

[strichener]

Michael Matheson accepting £12,700 (tax free) after lying about his roaming bill. 

 

Quote

completely ridiculous for disgraced former ministers to receive taxpayer-funded pay-outs.  Incompetence should lead to “a sacking” not “sack-loads of cash”. - MM

 

Edited June 17 by strichener

[lichtgilphead]

On 14/06/2024 at 17:31, Jedi2 said:

There have in fairness only been the 4 policy positions in the last 2 months..

Yousaf: Most seats, start negotiations (sounds rather like a Declaration of Independence based on most seats)

Swinney: Agree with Yousaf

Swinney/Flynn: Sorry didn't mean start negotiations meant ask for a Ref within 5 years if most seats.

Swinney: It's about gaining more powers for the Scottish Parliament.

What it is today..no idea

 

 

On 14/06/2024 at 17:43, lichtgilphead said:

Why not wait for the SNP manifesto, instead of this endless misinterpretation of newspaper reports?

For example, I see that the Labour manifesto has dropped the “NHS is not for sale” line that their National Policy Forum proposed. 

That's a fact, not just misguided speculation.

I'm surprised that @Jedi2 hasn't been on yet to complain about the ambiguities in the SNP manifesto. I have absolutely no idea what their position is on independence, given this ambiguous statement on page 1

The detail is set out on page 7

Independence

Independence is a vital necessity for Scotland because decisions taken at Westminster have made life more difficult for people, families, communities and businesses across the country.

Austerity has caused cuts to public spending, Brexit has wiped billions of pounds from our economy compared with EU membership and made the cost of living crisis worse by pushing up food prices and other household costs.

The UK economy has delivered stagnant wages and, for typical households, low living standards compared with similar countries.

Indeed, for far too many people the UK economy is broken and it is clear Westminster doesn’t work for Scotland.

It doesn’t have to be that way.

Independent countries comparable to Scotland like Denmark, Sweden and Ireland have used the decision-making powers of independence to create more successful countries. They enjoy higher national income per head and combine that with lower inequality than the UK.

They have higher levels of productivity, which is the key driver of living standards, and lower levels of poverty.

So why not Scotland? We have the resources, industries and talent to match that success. We have extraordinary energy resources, a world-class food and drink industry, brilliant tourism, financial services and creative industries and we are leading in cutting edge sectors such as satellite building.

Independence is the means of addressing concerns over the cost of living and funding of the NHS. We believe the powers that come with independence are essential to building the stronger economy required to boost living standards and public services.

The Scottish Parliament election of 2021 resulted in a clear majority of MSPs in favour of both independence and a referendum. People gave their democratic verdict.

The UK Government, however, refused to cooperate with the Scottish Government to put that democratic mandate into effect.

Given the UK is going so badly in the wrong direction it is more important than ever for the mandate won in 2021 to be respected.

At this election we are asking you to vote SNP for an independent Scotland. If the SNP wins a majority of Scottish seats, the Scottish Government will be empowered to begin immediate negotiations with the UK Government to give democratic effect to Scotland becoming an independent country. 

It is through the power of democratic pressure that we will secure the right of people in Scotland to decide their future.

Yeah, that looks like the wishy-washy devo-max agenda that Jedi predicted. Well done Jedi! Another brilliant prediction! No wonder you're known as the Nostradamus of Pie & Bovril.

[Jedi2]

It is still of course, a U turn from Yousaf's position of just a couple of months ago, which was 'most seats', start negotiations (not a Referendum).

Last week Swinney was talking about 'more powers' for the Scot Parliament..now, Referendum published, and we are back to 'most seats', but not to 'start negotiations' (a la Yousaf/Sturgeon) but rather to 'ask' for a Referendum within 5 years.

That is a middle line on a 'De Facto' Referendum, but what they are asking of voters is...should there be another Referendum in the next 5 years or not?

If they win most seats ie 29 or over, then, there you go...they have a 'mandate' for another Ref (there is no contingency for WM simply saying 'No' of course). Don't win a majority of seats, and a Referendum is off the table for the next 5 years.

 

[Alan Twelve]

1 hour ago, Jedi2 said:

Last week Swinney was talking about 'more powers' for the Scot Parliament

I honestly don't understand why you keep brining this up like it's some sort of "gotcha" moment. In what way is wanting more powers for the parliament we currently have incompatible with the desire for independence in the future?

[lichtgilphead]

Hi @Jedi2

I see you've responded to my latest post, but that you appear to have forgotten to reply to my 2 previous questions. Here's a reacp (in the order I asked them

1) The 18th NI seat

In your fantastic prediction of 651 MP's being elected, (to 649 seats),  you predict 7 DUP, 7 Sinn Fein, and 1 each for SDLP, UUP & Alliance. Who wins the 18th NI seat?

2) The IFS £18 billion lie

Apart from a vague reference to 'something you heard on the radio', you've not provided any proof of your assertion that the Labour cuts would only amount to up to £16 billion instead of the £18 billion mentioned in the BBC article I quoted. 

3)The SNP's position on Indy

You previously claimed that Humza was going to announce UDI if he won 29 seats, and that Swinney wanted to be the leader of a DevoMax party, just wanting a few more powers for Holyrood. 

I suggested that you wait for the SNP manifesto.

Now the manifesto has been published, is there anything in it to support either of these views?

 

[Jedi2]

N.Ireland's 'missing seat'

Couldn't give two hoots what the outcome is in N.Ireland..so I was one out with the Speaker..I've yet to see you questioning other posters whose numbers didn't 'add up' precisely as well, but still..

Yousaf and strategy v most seats is a call for a Ref

7https://www.thenational.scot/news/23855165.humza-yousaf-backs-independence-strategy-based-majority-seats/

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/15/humza-yousaf-quells-snp-rebellion-independence-strategy-compromise

 

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/humza-yousaf-eyes-29-seat-target-for-scottish-independence-talks-dnc0fmnkx

Humza Yousaf is set to overhaul his plan to achieve independence by going into the next general election arguing that winning a majority of seats would be a mandate for independence.

The SNP leader is expected to support a plan to set the bar for talks at 29 seats, rather than simply winning the largest number of seats.

Something you heard on the radio

The IFS spokesperson is from 25 minutes in...'between 6 and 16 billion cuts to unprotected budget's...and listen to his views on an Independent Scotland's first decade as well.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002080n

I know, I know, Humza, Swinney and the IFS spokesperson are simply 'lying'

[Jedi2]

And Swinney on QT tonight suggesting that the result of this election doesn't really matter in any case, as, they have a pro-Independence majority at Holyrood..ergo there should be another Referendum in the next 5 years 

Hope he tries to sell that in 2 weeks, if its a bad night.

[lichtgilphead]

4 hours ago, Jedi2 said:

N.Ireland's 'missing seat'

Couldn't give two hoots what the outcome is in N.Ireland..so I was one out with the Speaker..I've yet to see you questioning other posters whose numbers didn't 'add up' precisely as well, but still..

I haven't noticed any other posters whose numbers are quite so catastrophically wrong. Perhaps Jedi can provide some examples.

Interestingly, Jedi claims not to give two hoots about Northern Ireland. Does this mean that we are not 'Better Together' after all? In addition,  I thought that Labour had an agreement with the SDLP? Has Sir Keir abandoned that too?

 

4 hours ago, Jedi2 said:

Yousaf and strategy v most seats is a call for a Ref

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23855165.humza-yousaf-backs-independence-strategy-based-majority-seats/

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/15/humza-yousaf-quells-snp-rebellion-independence-strategy-compromise

 

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/humza-yousaf-eyes-29-seat-target-for-scottish-independence-talks-dnc0fmnkx

Humza Yousaf is set to overhaul his plan to achieve independence by going into the next general election arguing that winning a majority of seats would be a mandate for independence.

The SNP leader is expected to support a plan to set the bar for talks at 29 seats, rather than simply winning the largest number of seats.

First link - behind a paywall - no mention of UDI in the bit I can see

Second link - no mention of UDI, but does contain the exact wording of Page 1 Line 1 of the manifesto I quoted above

Third link - again behind a paywall - no mention of UDI in the headline

I nore that Jedi doesn't even attempt to justify his claim about Swinney only wanting DevoMax.

Come on Jedi - at least try to justify your previous posts instead of quoting paywalled articles or articles that appear to have nothing to do with your ridiculous claims.

Your actual quote says that Humza would have attempted to start talks with Westminster if he won 29 seats. Nothing about UDI.

The SNP manifesto says that " If the SNP wins a majority of Scottish seats, the Scottish Government will be empowered to begin immediate negotiations with the UK Government to give democratic effect to Scotland becoming anP independent country."  - Please explain how this is a policy difference from Humza's position

4 hours ago, Jedi2 said:

Something you heard on the radio

Thank you for providing the link. I see that David Phillips, the IFS spokesman, thinks that Scotland outperforms the rest of the UK, even though both are doing badly (that's under Westminster, of course).

He also thinks that the higher taxes in Scotland has increased the number of higher tax-payers, even though the full impact hasn't worked through yet. That takes up the first 5 minutes. 

He then goes on to the £18 billion figure. He firstly sets out the current Tory plan, which he estimates ro result in £10 - £20 billion worth of cuts to unprotected services by the end of the next parliament. Then he says (and I quote) "The Labour manifesto found some additional funding, actually, for the NHS & schools - not much - it was pretty thin gruel - but we estimate the cuts to the unprotected services now from the (Labour) manifesto are about 6 to 16 billion pounds based on the debt rules Labour signed up to, the tax rises it said it would do and the additional money it's put in on top of the plans it had  basically inherited from Jeremy Hunt from the March budget. So 6 to 16 billion pounds. So the SNP figure is above the top of that range but as it stands, Labour 's plans do imply cuts to unprotected services."

So effectively, Jedi is crowing about the fact that the IFS now say that Labour is only predicted to cut spending by up to £16 billion, instead of by £18 billion. What a zinger!

Now, how does this square with Anas Sarwar's quote at 30 minutes into the show "Read my lips - no austerity under Labour" 

Is a minimum of £6 billion of cuts under Labour (and probably nearer £16 billion) not defined as austerity in Sarwar's playbook?

Please Jedi, stop the selective summaries of what people say & start posting verified quotes in their correct context (with links).

Edited Thursday at 22:40 by lichtgilphead
corrected '6 to £6" to '6 to 16'

[Jedi2]

Can you possibly comment on David Phillips comments on the first decade of Independence which I note you (selectively) omit.

I am not 'crowing' about (potential) cuts to some services of (between 6 and 16 billion), rather pointing out the SNPs lies about 18 billion as a figure...a lie which they continue to peddle, despite the IFS dismissing it in this very interview.

There is clearly a heck of a difference between 6 billion if you take the lowest figure and 18.

Numbers on a (prediction) are 'catastrophically' wrong..(1 out..have a word with yourself).

You will also find that Humza Yousaf cited a majority of seats as a mandate for Independence...not a Referendum not a negotiation on next steps,but a mandate for Scotland 'to be Independent'.

Somewhat different to Swinneys most seats Referendum comes next (or if not we already have a mandate from 2021, so one should take place anyway)

Edited Friday at 06:55 by Jedi2

[lichtgilphead]

17 minutes ago, Jedi2 said:

Can you possibly comment on David Phillips comments on the first decade of Independence which I note you (selectively) omit.

Haven't listened to it. I was looking for your proof of your outrageous claims. I didn't want to listen to a full 2 hour radio programme.

However, since you ask, I agree that setting up an independent Scotland will cost money. I'm looking at the long term, not just the first few years of iScotland. Was that your point?

24 minutes ago, Jedi2 said:

There is clearly a heck of a difference between 6 billion if you take the lowest figure and 18.

So you agree - Labout will cut spending by a minimum of £6 billion and possibly up to £10 billion more. How does this square with your own assertion that Labour will prioritise investment in public services and Sarwar's "Read my lips - no austerity under Labour" quote?

 

28 minutes ago, Jedi2 said:

You will also find that Humza Yousaf cited a majority of seats as a mandate for Independence...not a Referendum not a negotiation on next steps,but a mandate for Scotland 'to be Independent'.

You said Humza would declare UDI. Why not defend that lie first?

33 minutes ago, Jedi2 said:

Somewhat different to Swinneys most seats Referendum cokes next (or if not we already have a mandate from 2021, so one should take place anyway)

That makes no sense. Maybe if you try to use grammar, punctuation & normal phrases, it might help. I have honestly no idea what "Referendum cokes next" might be referring to

[DeeTillEhDeh]

The Professor is trying too hard.

Edited Friday at 07:30 by DeeTillEhDeh

[Jedi2]

9 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

Haven't listened to it. I was looking for your proof of your outrageous claims. I didn't want to listen to a full 2 hour radio programme.

However, since you ask, I agree that setting up an independent Scotland will cost money. I'm looking at the long term, not just the first few years of iScotland. Was that your point?

So you agree - Labout will cut spending by a minimum of £6 billion and possibly up to £10 billion more. How does this square with your own assertion that Labour will prioritise investment in public services and Sarwar's "Read my lips - no austerity under Labour" quote?

 

You said Humza would declare UDI. Why not defend that lie first?

 

That makes no sense. Maybe if you try to use grammar, punctuation & normal phrases, it might help. I have honestly no idea what "Referendum cokes next" might be referring to

Haven't listened to it. I was looking for your proof of your outrageous claims. I didn't want to listen to a full 2 hour radio programme.

 

I appreciate that your attention span is only a few minutes long,(wouldn't expect anything less), but guess what..David Phillips covers Independence at 32 mins in (so you would 'only' have had to listen to 8 whole minutes of his interview..maybe even you could manage that, not 2 hours.

He (Phillips) states that the 'first decade' (his words), would mean significant cuts to public services in Scotland given that spending per head on such services is higher in Scotland than rUK, with lower tax takes. In other words, WM block.grants enable current levels of spending on public services in Scotland.

Phillips goes on (in the whole 8 minute interview) to state that the significant cuts to public services with the SNP' plans would be 'in addition' to what is projected at UK level (the 6 to 16 billion).

So when it comes to cutting public services (according to the IFS..liars and charlatans that they are)...you can have possible unprotected budgets cuts of (lower end) 6 billion initially with a Labour govt (after which spending could still rise), or austerity on steroids for a decade under the SNP proposals.

In addition to me being a liar you can add David Phillips, the IFS, the National, Swinney, Sturgeon and Yousaf to your ever growing list.

Perhaps while you are crowing about 'only' having a decade of deep cuts to the public sector in Scotland.

Edited Friday at 09:01 by Jedi2

[Jedi2]

Not content with lying about the 18 billion of 'Labour cuts', Swinney was at it again last night on QT. When asked what he would do/has done for manufacturing in Scotland. Bizarrely, he cited the new rocket launch station in the Shetlands. a) Launching rockets is not 'manufacturing' b)The Shetland enterprise is a UK-government project with which the SNP government in Edinburgh has barely been involved.

And of course we also have the report today of their putting stamps for election materials on expenses, which they aren't allowed to do:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg334q4z0npo

I wouldn't trust Swinney to tell me it was Friday

[lichtgilphead]

7 hours ago, Jedi2 said:

Haven't listened to it. I was looking for your proof of your outrageous claims. I didn't want to listen to a full 2 hour radio programme.

I appreciate that your attention span is only a few minutes long,(wouldn't expect anything less), but guess what..David Phillips covers Independence at 32 mins in (so you would 'only' have had to listen to 8 whole minutes of his interview..maybe even you could manage that, not 2 hours.

So, by responding only to the part of the interview that you suggested that I listen to, I missed a whole minute at the end of the interview. Wow! Are there any other parts of thw whole 2 hours that you also expect me to listen to before responding to your nonsense?

7 hours ago, Jedi2 said:

He (Phillips) states that the 'first decade' (his words), would mean significant cuts to public services in Scotland given that spending per head on such services is higher in Scotland than rUK, with lower tax takes. In other words, WM block.grants enable current levels of spending on public services in Scotland.

Phillips goes on (in the whole 8 minute interview) to state that the significant cuts to public services with the SNP' plans would be 'in addition' to what is projected at UK level (the 6 to 16 billion).

Right. So, at a UK level, Phillips predicts that Labour will make between £6 billion and £16 billion worth of cuts to unprotected services across the UK during the course of the next parliament. We are agreed on that, yes? Up to £16 billion over 5 years?

Now, obviously, at the simplest level, this means between £0.6 billion and £1.6 billion in Scotland over the same period (assuming that Scotland receives 10% of UK spending - which it doesn't, but I'm trying to keep the sums easy for you)

I would agree that this would mean cuts or tax rises on top of Scotland's share of Labour's cuts. As I have previously suggested, the first cuts should be Scotland's share of the nukes, HS2 & Crossrail. Perhaps we could also cut the bloated House of Lords (wasn't that a Labour policy once?) and the money wasted on the monarchy.

In addition, an independent Scotland would have borrowing powers. Remind me, is the UK currently balancing the books, or is it still racking up debt? This link might help you decide https://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/

This is just the same argument as extrapolating Scotland's post-indy finances from the Gers figures.

However, as you helpfully point out, this 10 year period is just a medium term forecast. In 10 years, it will be 2034. Labour would be chasing a third term at Westminster. Maybe they can acheive this, for only the second time in their history, but (as we all know), rUK elects Tory governments more often than Labour. It's inevtiable that the Tories will be back in power in 15 years maximum.

Personally, I'd rather pay a bit of extra tax (in addition to getting rid of nukes & the monarchy) in the medium term to practically guarantee that the Conservative & Unionist Party never have a majority again in an independent Scotland.

Labour, by comparison, appear happy to abandon all their principles for a couple of terms in power at WM. An absolute disgrace of a party.

8 hours ago, Jedi2 said:

In addition to me being a liar you can add David Phillips, the IFS, the National, Swinney, Sturgeon and Yousaf to your ever growing list.

It's nice that you can personally admit to being a liar. It saves me pointing it out again.

However, please point out where I have actually specifically accused anyone else on your list of telling lies. You won't be able to do so.

[Jedi2]

In the course of your utterly pathetic and trolling rants about 'lies' being constituted by anything and anyone which doesn't fit your own echo chamber and playing to the gallery viewpoint, you have dismissed direct quotes from all of The National, Yousaf, Swinney, The BBC, the Mail, the Express, various Econonists, and continue to paint me as lying about the Labour cuts even when the IFS spokesperson demolishes the SNPs own lies.

Glad to hear that you welcome tax hikes to partially offset the decade or more of austerity which would make George Osbourne blush. Hardly need to get rid of the Tories when you can replace them with the Diet version.

Edited Friday at 17:47 by Jedi2