Francesca R
Girl
Well for clarity, it is what I am saying. Don't really care about what some folks over there somewhere might be saying.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
UK political landscape after the referendum
- Thread starter Darat
- Start date
Francesca R
Girl
That is how I interpreted your statement about the deficit being somewhat artificial.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
Had you required further clarity on my meaning perhaps it would have been better to ask for it than to insult?
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
And yet you claim Sturgeon agrees with you on the extent of the deficit and that the EU would have to ignore it?
Have we not had enough political discussion based on lies in the past few months?
Francesca R
Girl
The deficit is somewhat artificial in the same way Scottish independence is somewhat artificial. To consider one it is necessary to consider the other. End of.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
Presumably we agree on how independence is defined. Does everyone agree on how your deficit calculation came up with the number?
Anyway i think the Indyref 2 thread is the correct one for arrogant English people to insist they know better. End of, indeed.
Again I say it. You are asserting that a large deficit exists. Nobody is stating that independent Scotland exists. Adding end of doesn't sustain your argument in any way.
Francesca R
Girl
The data is on the Scottish Government's web site.
I had thought that would fend off endless quibbling and avoidance. No such luck.
I linked it in an above post, perhaps you did not look. Probably not since you also evidently think that Nicola Sturgeon denies her own government's data (which she does not, as I also linked)
When you have capacity to discuss data and issues let the thread know, perhaps.
Francesca R
Girl
Again I say it. Look at your own government website for the data.
Perhaps you are not familiar with your own government.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
The data on the Scottish Government website is not the deficit of an independent Scotland. It is not published by the Scottish Government and I can't find any quote attributed to Nicola Sturgeon where she admits the extent of the deficit that an independent Scotland would be running. Your link was to a newspaper article which didn't include what you said it did.
When asked to provide the facts you deflected and blustered. If you insist on supporting your case with lies then so be it.
Francesca R
Girl
Rejected. I have linked facts which are agreed by your own government. Whose First Minister is Nicola F Sturgeon MSP. Your denial could not be more obvious nor more amusing.
Scotland has no deficit indeed. Ha ha.
Scotland has no deficit indeed. Ha ha.
Last edited:
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
Reject what you like. It makes as much sense as 'End of' as an argument.
I have not said Scotland has or would have no deficit. I have made no argument regarding whether the deficit of an independent Scotland would be better or worse than the number you gave.
What I have said is that you are being dishonest in your argument in attempting to equate two things which are not the same. Your continued insistence that you are right means that you are doing it deliberately. You are a liar. End of.
Francesca R
Girl
The deficit is somewhat artificial in the same way Scottish independence is somewhat artificial. To consider one it is necessary to consider the other.
When you are able to try some focus on data or issues let the thread know. If not, perhaps try not posting?
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
Do you even understand the question? Not much point discussing data or issues with someone willing to lie to make their point, who refuses to answer straight questions and who believes 'end of' is any kind of argument, is there?
Francesca R
Girl
1. Scotland does not meet EMU deficit criteria. Not nearly.
2. Saying "Scotland has no deficit" or "The deficit is somewhat artificial" is a pathetic attempt to obfuscate and avoid. (An easier way to avoid is to not contribute)
3. The EU might wave this away. And wave other things away. Or it might not. Nobody can say
2. Saying "Scotland has no deficit" or "The deficit is somewhat artificial" is a pathetic attempt to obfuscate and avoid. (An easier way to avoid is to not contribute)
3. The EU might wave this away. And wave other things away. Or it might not. Nobody can say
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
Quite possibly true. But simply asserting it doesn't make it so and lying about things doesn't make your case stronger.
Good thing I never said either of those things. Pathetic would be to lie about things and then claim people said things that they didn't to try to get out of it, no?
Indeed. Or it might not have to given that we are talking about the future. It still isn't a justification for lying to make your point.
Francesca R
Girl
Yes you did. False.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
Quote me. I was very careful with what I said. I even double checked that I hadn't mispoke and said something I didn't mean to.
Edited by Agatha:
Edited to remove accusation of lying. As this post has the same timestamp as the modbox, an edit will suffice this time.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rolfe
Adult human female
Scotland has no deficit at the moment. What share of the current UK deficit Scotland might accept on gaining independence is a matter for negotiation.
Every country on earth has a deficit except one. Norway. (Actually that's what they say but I wonder about Dubai and Kuwait and some other places like that, but leave it for now.) What country does Scotland most resemble in terms of natural resources, except Scotland is better off? Why Norway actually. If Scotland, like Norway, had been independent in the 1970s when oil revenues started to flow we may have handled these as wisely as Norway did or we might not. Nobody knows, because we weren't.
I've heard unionists (even Scottish ones) crowing "England took all the oil and pissed it away and it's gone now and Scotland's bankrupt so can never be independent and England owns it forever, yay!" and that's only slightly paraphrased. Declaring that a country's assets were squandered by another country who had control of them at the time, therefore the country that owned the assets must let the squandering country manage its affairs in perpetuity seems irrational to me.
Ireland took none of the UK defecit when it gained independence, as part of a negotiated deal. Sturgeon is prepared for an independent Scotland to take some of the UK deficit, and she has made that quite clear. How much, who knows?
Any assessment of Scotland's finances at present as they might relate to EMU criteria is purely notional. Scotland doesn't have control over its own resources or spending. It turns 100% of its resources over to Westminster and gets pocket-money back. Westminster largely decides what gets counted as Scottish revenue and Scottish spending and (here's a shock) it has consistently understated the former and overstated the latter since it started doing the sums.
GERS was originally dreamed up by a Tory government explicitly as a way to keep Scotland in the union by making its finances look bad and making it appear dependent on "handouts". After Swinney got some control over what was and wasn't counted it got better, but it still excludes swathes of stuff - exports of Scottish products that leave the UK from English ports or airports for a start, most whisky revenue, a lot of revenue from UK-wide companies with HQs in England for example. It also includes things that no sane Scottish government would ever spend money on, from a chunk of defence spending (think Trident, and invasions of countries like Iraq), and even a per capita share of spending on things like the London sewers and the Olympics. In contrast the Forth Bridge and the Commonwealth Games and the upcoming dualling of the A9 have had to be entirely financed from Scotland's pocket money.
Look at it this way. You're a girl of marriageable age. I nice young lad is courting you. He owns a farm. The farm's finances look pretty disastrous on paper. If you take him on, will you be in penury all your married life? But you look at the farm. It's quite large and fertile and the climate is excellent. It has mineral deposits and renwable energy potential. But it is currently being run by your nice lad's neighbour who takes all the decisions about what to plant and what to rear and how to manage everything. There's also a suspicion that some of your lad's farm's revenues might be finding themselves on the credit side of the neighbour's books, and some of the neighbour's expenses on the debit side of your lad's farm's books.
But if your lad marries you, he gains personal control of his farm. He can run it as he best sees fit. He might find himself with a bit of debt at the beginning, remember those accounting anomalies and the atrocious way the farm has been run, but he seems a hard worker and he has a good degree in agriculture. So, are you going to look at the books and say, no way, I'll find myself an investment banker instead? Or are you going to look at the blatantly obvious potential of the farm itself? Another neighbouring farm with excellent resources (but still inferior to your lad's farm) has been well run by its owner for the past 40 years and that owner is now so filthy rich he and his descendants are set up in perpetuity.
Are you going to marry him and set about making that farm as prosperous as the other farm's example shows it can be? Or are you going to turn him down on the basis of these current accounts which he didn't create and couldn't influence?
Every time-point where I have been able to find some commentary, from 1720 (Daniel Defoe) to the 1960s before oil (John Jappy) with several in between has shown Scotland to be losing out overall from the union. Having capital and resources bled away to London, starving the country of infrastructure and investment. After oil, and Thatcher, it only got worse. I'm in favour of stopping that particular type of self-harm.
Every country on earth has a deficit except one. Norway. (Actually that's what they say but I wonder about Dubai and Kuwait and some other places like that, but leave it for now.) What country does Scotland most resemble in terms of natural resources, except Scotland is better off? Why Norway actually. If Scotland, like Norway, had been independent in the 1970s when oil revenues started to flow we may have handled these as wisely as Norway did or we might not. Nobody knows, because we weren't.
I've heard unionists (even Scottish ones) crowing "England took all the oil and pissed it away and it's gone now and Scotland's bankrupt so can never be independent and England owns it forever, yay!" and that's only slightly paraphrased. Declaring that a country's assets were squandered by another country who had control of them at the time, therefore the country that owned the assets must let the squandering country manage its affairs in perpetuity seems irrational to me.
Ireland took none of the UK defecit when it gained independence, as part of a negotiated deal. Sturgeon is prepared for an independent Scotland to take some of the UK deficit, and she has made that quite clear. How much, who knows?
Any assessment of Scotland's finances at present as they might relate to EMU criteria is purely notional. Scotland doesn't have control over its own resources or spending. It turns 100% of its resources over to Westminster and gets pocket-money back. Westminster largely decides what gets counted as Scottish revenue and Scottish spending and (here's a shock) it has consistently understated the former and overstated the latter since it started doing the sums.
GERS was originally dreamed up by a Tory government explicitly as a way to keep Scotland in the union by making its finances look bad and making it appear dependent on "handouts". After Swinney got some control over what was and wasn't counted it got better, but it still excludes swathes of stuff - exports of Scottish products that leave the UK from English ports or airports for a start, most whisky revenue, a lot of revenue from UK-wide companies with HQs in England for example. It also includes things that no sane Scottish government would ever spend money on, from a chunk of defence spending (think Trident, and invasions of countries like Iraq), and even a per capita share of spending on things like the London sewers and the Olympics. In contrast the Forth Bridge and the Commonwealth Games and the upcoming dualling of the A9 have had to be entirely financed from Scotland's pocket money.
Look at it this way. You're a girl of marriageable age. I nice young lad is courting you. He owns a farm. The farm's finances look pretty disastrous on paper. If you take him on, will you be in penury all your married life? But you look at the farm. It's quite large and fertile and the climate is excellent. It has mineral deposits and renwable energy potential. But it is currently being run by your nice lad's neighbour who takes all the decisions about what to plant and what to rear and how to manage everything. There's also a suspicion that some of your lad's farm's revenues might be finding themselves on the credit side of the neighbour's books, and some of the neighbour's expenses on the debit side of your lad's farm's books.
But if your lad marries you, he gains personal control of his farm. He can run it as he best sees fit. He might find himself with a bit of debt at the beginning, remember those accounting anomalies and the atrocious way the farm has been run, but he seems a hard worker and he has a good degree in agriculture. So, are you going to look at the books and say, no way, I'll find myself an investment banker instead? Or are you going to look at the blatantly obvious potential of the farm itself? Another neighbouring farm with excellent resources (but still inferior to your lad's farm) has been well run by its owner for the past 40 years and that owner is now so filthy rich he and his descendants are set up in perpetuity.
Are you going to marry him and set about making that farm as prosperous as the other farm's example shows it can be? Or are you going to turn him down on the basis of these current accounts which he didn't create and couldn't influence?
Every time-point where I have been able to find some commentary, from 1720 (Daniel Defoe) to the 1960s before oil (John Jappy) with several in between has shown Scotland to be losing out overall from the union. Having capital and resources bled away to London, starving the country of infrastructure and investment. After oil, and Thatcher, it only got worse. I'm in favour of stopping that particular type of self-harm.