Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
shull

Scottish Independence Referendum

Recommended Posts

So he is alive. Some would say, pity. But not me.

I'm waiting on babyki11er to provide proof of what he claimed i wrote.

I even gave him the chance to give his beloved tories some of my hard earned money.

Why are you not taking up this opportunity Mr Dickson?

You're not taking the cowards route now are you and kidding on you've got me on ignore?

Think about your poor children. There farther is a proven liar, bigot, grass, coward etc etc.

Surely you'll want to provide that proof to refute those names.

Eh babyki11er, so where's the actual proof of what you've claimed i wrote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kevin Hague, pet food salesman and unionist twitterer now being treated like a respected knowledgeable journalist.
No wonder the Daily Record is struggling. They'll be re- running the story about noise at St.Mirren training ground next. Oh, wait...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This



Now where else have I seen advice like that? Oh yeah, The Scientology Cult. Only talk to your own, don't listen to naysayers, and believe 100% in the daft story about aliens.

Got to love when the Natsi try so desperately to pull the drawbridge up


Then this

Oh dear. Mr Salmond has had his arse handed to him yet again. I guess this also debunks the ridiculous shite being peddled by Natsis on here about the Scottish deficit. We know Natsis don't like to do sums cause they don't like the answers, after all they believed the White Paper, but hopefully this article will help with its plain speaking style. Bottom line - Scotland is f**ked if we vote for Independence from the rest of the UK. Utterly f**ked.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/d-9065740



He never tires of trying to take Carlsberg's crown for irony, does he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, salmonbuddie said:

This

Then this

He never tires of trying to take Carlsberg's crown for irony, does he?
 

 

There's no irony in my post. The financial assertions of the White Paper are there today to be utterly ridiculed. Scotland spends £15Bn more per annum than it raises in income. It can do this because of the Barnett Formula which has been proven time and time again to be hugely beneficial to the people of Scotland. If Scotland becomes independent then the revenue the Scottish Government has to spend has to be generated through it's own tax take and through it's own investments so the £15Bn annual deficit is extremely relevant when considering what the country would look like without the generous subsidy from Westminster. How would the SNP fund a Scottish NHS? how would they pay benefits and pensions? What public services would they have to cut further still? And what taxes would have to be raised and by how much to make the books balance? If the SNP continues to refuse to answer those points then the credibility of the Independence argument remains completely and utterly destroyed. 

As the Daily Record article shows in very simple terms the bollocks spouted by Natsi's about it all being funded by the savings from not having to pay for Trident, or the renovations at Westminster, or the HS2 project simply don't hold water. So where else will those savings come from? And how the hell does the SNP square that huge deficit with it's promises of free childcare for all? 

It's time the SNP really were called to account. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tony soprano said:

Kevin Hague, pet food salesman and unionist twitterer now being treated like a respected knowledgeable journalist.
No wonder the Daily Record is struggling. They'll be re- running the story about noise at St.Mirren training ground next. Oh, wait...

Ah now see this is the standard cultist way to deal with criticism. Thanks for this glorious example Tony. Remember all those TV documentaries on the scientologists when they produced their own cameramen to film the reporter and camera crew? Remember the stalking out the reporters personal life desperately trying to find some sort of scandal to silence the critic? 

His figures are accurate, his criticism of Alex Salmond's sneering at being questioned on the subject utterly valid, yet instead with deal with the facts as they have been presented you choose to smear. This is one of the reasons the 55% will never vote for Independence. It's sad really. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, El Gingero said:

I agree with you Stuart that presently it would be a financial disaster for Scotland to be independent but the Tory party at Westminster are making some people want to be independent at whatever cost to Scotland.

I honestly don't think they are El Gingero. Ruth Davidson is now regularly polling as the most respected politician in Scottish Politics. Her approval rating even amongst traditional Labour voters and SNP voters is substantially higher than that of Nicola Sturgeon. The Conservatives even put in a strong showing in the last Scottish Election pushing themselves into second place in Scotland and denying the SNP a majority. Theresa May is also more respected in Scotland than David Cameron ever was, perhaps because of the perception that she's less posh and that she's far less likely to tolerate fools. Even the latest opinion polls show that support for Scottish Independence peaked some time ago and that there is very little support in Scotland for a second referendum no matter whether it's a "hard" or "soft" Brexit - whatever the f**k those terms are supposed to mean. 

The SNP are even finding out, to their cost now, that they can't hide their politicians in England and make loads of boasts about how they run Holyrood relying on the ignorance of the audience not to pick them up on their lies. 

I think Independence is a dead duck now. The current SNP leadership and that under Alex Salmond have ensured through their mismanagement and their lack of credibility that the  majority of Scots will never trust them on the independence issue ever again. Views on that are more entrenched than ever now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Stuart Dickson said:

Oh dear. Mr Salmond has had his arse handed to him yet again. I guess this also debunks the ridiculous shite being peddled by Natsis on here about the Scottish deficit. We know Natsis don't like to do sums cause they don't like the answers, after all they believed the White Paper, but hopefully this article will help with its plain speaking style. Bottom line - Scotland is f**ked if we vote for Independence from the rest of the UK. Utterly f**ked.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/d-9065740

Hague is a reactionary trumpet.

Anyway, that aside (and apologies if this has already been asked of you) but could you kindly explain how Scotland can find itself with its own deficit when it cannot borrow and receives a block grant from the UK government?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Drew said:

Hague is a reactionary trumpet.

Anyway, that aside (and apologies if this has already been asked of you) but could you kindly explain how Scotland can find itself with its own deficit when it cannot borrow and receives a block grant from the UK government?

The deficit is the calculated difference on the GERS report between the amount given to Scotland through the Barnett Formula and the amount of income generated from Scotland. It's simple and it's clear. Scotland gets more money to spend than it raises. Alex Salmond was quick to produce the GERS figures when it showed back in 2013 than Scotland was generating slightly more in tax revenues than it was getting back through the Barnett Formula. He's not quite as accepting of the GERS report since it has started to show the actual perilous state of Scottish finances. 

I've got to add that I'm sad to see you also abusing Kevin Hague. He's produced his figures and shown his calculations. If those are wrong then argue with the case he puts forward. Don't smear him by calling him a "reactionary trumpet". I would have thought out of all of the eejits on this forum that you might have been above that. :rolleyes:

Edited by Stuart Dickson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hague is a reactionary trumpet.

Anyway, that aside (and apologies if this has already been asked of you) but could you kindly explain how Scotland can find itself with its own deficit when it cannot borrow and receives a block grant from the UK government?


Yoons like to conveniently forget that Scotland has very limited borrowing powers and will continue to have limited borrowing even once the Scotland Act is introduced.

The GERS figures are skewed to make Scotland look bad - not my opinion, the opinion of Iain Lang the Tory ex sec of state for Scotland who introduced GERS.

Don't forget Scotland's finances are currently calculated to include our share of UK infrastructure spending. Off the top of my head that would include London crossrail, London Olympics, proposed HS2 rail from London to Birmingham and the refurbishment of Westminster (currently around £7 billion but it's early days for that estimate).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Babyki11er, why you not talk to me. Is it because you don't like the truth.

Now we see the grassing liar squirm and in denial.

You can't just go around making false allegations about folk, surely your lawyer told you that at your imaginary visit.

Squirm babyki11er, squirm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Stuart Dickson said:

The deficit is the calculated difference on the GERS report between the amount given to Scotland through the Barnett Formula and the amount of income generated from Scotland. It's simple and it's clear. Scotland gets more money to spend than it raises. Alex Salmond was quick to produce the GERS figures when it showed back in 2013 than Scotland was generating slightly more in tax revenues than it was getting back through the Barnett Formula. He's not quite as accepting of the GERS report since it has started to show the actual perilous state of Scottish finances. 

I've got to add that I'm sad to see you also abusing Kevin Hague. He's produced his figures and shown his calculations. If those are wrong then argue with the case he puts forward. Don't smear him by calling him a "reactionary trumpet". I would have thought out of all of the eejits on this forum that you might have been above that. :rolleyes:

Now, now, Stuart, you're not above calling people out who you don't respect. I don't respect Kevin Hague. He has a highly partisan agenda, and will as happily manipulate figures to reflect that agenda as any politician (including Salmond) would. As such, he is no more above criticism than anyone else (including Salmond, who you are so fond of abusing).

Onto GERS, you do know that this was a construct that was very deliberately and specifically introduced to undermine the case for ANY devolution of power to Scotland?

This contention that it is possible to extrapolate a defecit based on what Scotland receives via a block grant and what it generates in income is utterly spurious.  A deficit is a calculation based on borrowing versus revenue (income). When Scotland's income is dictated by a grant awarded from Whitehall, the calculation becomes yet another construct.

We've been through this before, Stuart. Much like Oaksoft doesn't do fitba, you don't do economics, and no amount of frenzied Wikipedia trawling is going to change that fact, I'm afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Drew said:

Now, now, Stuart, you're not above calling people out who you don't respect. I don't respect Kevin Hague. He has a highly partisan agenda, and will as happily manipulate figures to reflect that agenda as any politician (including Salmond) would. As such, he is no more above criticism than anyone else (including Salmond, who you are so fond of abusing).

Onto GERS, you do know that this was a construct that was very deliberately and specifically introduced to undermine the case for ANY devolution of power to Scotland?

This contention that it is possible to extrapolate a defecit based on what Scotland receives via a block grant and what it generates in income is utterly spurious.  A deficit is a calculation based on borrowing versus revenue (income). When Scotland's income is dictated by a grant awarded from Whitehall, the calculation becomes yet another construct.

We've been through this before, Stuart. Much like Oaksoft doesn't do fitba, you don't do economics, and no amount of frenzied Wikipedia trawling is going to change that fact, I'm afraid.

It's not a construct Drew. Scotland spends more than it earns. If it was an Independent country Scotland would be heavily in debt with an a national annual budget deficit against GDP 250% higher than that of the UK. 

If Hague has manipulated the figures please can you show, in the same plain speaking terms where he has done so, where his logic is flawed, and where the Scottish Government would find the £15Bn needed annually just to keep spending at it's current levels. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Stuart Dickson said:

It's not a construct Drew. Scotland spends more than it earns. If it was an Independent country Scotland would be heavily in debt with an a national annual budget deficit against GDP 250% higher than that of the UK. 

If Hague has manipulated the figures please can you show, in the same plain speaking terms where he has done so, where his logic is flawed, and where the Scottish Government would find the £15Bn needed annually just to keep spending at it's current levels. 

Have a wee look at the OECD figures on respective GDP of UK and Scotland.

Again, though, quite how a GDP can be calculated for what is effectively a region of the UK is anyone's guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah so now you accept that it was a lie to claim that negotiations hadn't started. It was a lie when it was claimed Liam Fox was sent home with a flea in his ear and now you are about to lie and claim you are an avid reader of a Norwegian newspaper written in Norwegian and that you didn't get your story from the propaganda papers you usually read so avidly. You're spinning so fast I'm surprised you aren't humming.... Oh wait - you probably do stink. You're a Natsi after all

And there's the meltdown.

Now lie down and read through again who wrote what, where and when.

Then comeback and apologise for the slur on my good character before i goto an imaginary lawyer to sue you for defamation. You fruitcake.

ETA

Div, as you're the owner of this forum i believe you have a duty and care responsibility to protect folk from losing there mind and it would be wise to impose a sabatical on Mr Dickson for his own well being.

PS, you might be to late now.




The point I was making Drew is that Coward lied when he claimed he'd read the misinformed article in a Norwegian language newspaper.

Case proved I think




I'm guessing you're referring to myself.

So go on show us where i claimed I'd actually read the article.

Infact as you've put up wagers recently I'm willing to take it up.

So £100 from me to the tories if you can prove it, but £100 from you to the Scottish National Party if you can't. Sounds fair to me, well how about it?


Would babyki11er like to apologise or provide proof of his allegations against me?

What's wrong with him, can't he read through the tears after he's realised he was wrong again.

If your children have read this I apologise for having to show you up again for the lying cowardly grassing bigot you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's no irony in my post. The financial assertions of the White Paper are there today to be utterly ridiculed. Scotland spends £15Bn more per annum than it raises in income. It can do this because of the Barnett Formula which has been proven time and time again to be hugely beneficial to the people of Scotland. If Scotland becomes independent then the revenue the Scottish Government has to spend has to be generated through it's own tax take and through it's own investments so the £15Bn annual deficit is extremely relevant when considering what the country would look like without the generous subsidy from Westminster. How would the SNP fund a Scottish NHS? how would they pay benefits and pensions? What public services would they have to cut further still? And what taxes would have to be raised and by how much to make the books balance? If the SNP continues to refuse to answer those points then the credibility of the Independence argument remains completely and utterly destroyed. 

As the Daily Record article shows in very simple terms the bollocks spouted by Natsi's about it all being funded by the savings from not having to pay for Trident, or the renovations at Westminster, or the HS2 project simply don't hold water. So where else will those savings come from? And how the hell does the SNP square that huge deficit with it's promises of free childcare for all? 

It's time the SNP really were called to account. 

You don't see the irony of accusing Indy supporters of only reading pro-indy literature at the same time as only quoting pro-unionist literature (and after stating that you'd never read pro-indy websites)?

I knew you struggled with the English language, but jeezo, that's some going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ITheresa May is also more respected in Scotland than David Cameron ever was, perhaps because of the perception that she's less posh and that she's far less likely to tolerate fools.




Stuart, are you really sure that you meant to type this? Mibbes I don't pay enough attention but Respected for being less posh!..... and not tolerating fools! Is yon Boris 1/fool then?

I don't know what the optimum posh/un-posh respect index is .....?

Aye, maybe I'm not paying attention to who is speaking on my behalf....


Carry on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still no apology from Herr Dickson, it must be killing you that I've made you look stupid again. Try reading the posts below. It might help jog your memory. You do know if you have had another breakdown with memory loss you must consult your doctor.


So we currently don't have any trade agreements with the wider world outwith the EU? :-/
This is what your post implies yet doesn't actually answer the question my previous post was asking. It was a genuine query.

I know the UK gov sent a minister to Norway a few days ago trying to get started on a trade deal. They got sent away with a flea in their ear.

Oh dear - was that what the propaganda rag was reporting. 

Here's what the Guardian reported

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/11/norway-rejects-uk-request-for-joint-trade-taskforce-report-eea-eu




Did you actually read the article, it clearly shows who reported it originally?


To quote.

The business daily Dagens Næringsliv earlier reported that Britain’s international trade secretary, Liam Fox, had asked Norway’s trade and industry minster, Monica Mæland, to form a bilateral trade working group at a meeting on 14 September.

The paper said the request was passed to the Norwegian foreign ministry, which is coordinating Norway’s Brexit response, where it was turned down as likely to jeopardise Norway’s European Economic Area (EEA) agreement and “inappropriate” while Britain was still a full member of the EU.

Did you read the article? Once you get past the speculative story that made this news in the first place, you get to the denial from the Norwegian government and from the UK Government. It really would help if your carer got past the first couple of lines :rolleyes: 





Where did I contradict the denial from the Norwegian Government?

I simply showed where the story came from. That well known Scottish propaganda newspaper the business daily Dagens Næringsliv.

So £100 for anywhere you'd like me to donate the money to, show me where I actually contradict or deny the Norwegian rebuttal.

Remember it's got to be real proof and not speculative of what an imaginary mate, dinner guest or a dream of yours you may try and use.




Ah so now you accept that it was a lie to claim that negotiations hadn't started. It was a lie when it was claimed Liam Fox was sent home with a flea in his ear and now you are about to lie and claim you are an avid reader of a Norwegian newspaper written in Norwegian and that you didn't get your story from the propaganda papers you usually read so avidly. You're spinning so fast I'm surprised you aren't humming.... Oh wait - you probably do stink. You're a Natsi after all

And there's the meltdown.

Now lie down and read through again who wrote what, where and when.

Then comeback and apologise for the slur on my good character before i goto an imaginary lawyer to sue you for defamation. You fruitcake.

ETA

Div, as you're the owner of this forum i believe you have a duty and care responsibility to protect folk from losing there mind and it would be wise to impose a sabatical on Mr Dickson for his own well being.

PS, you might be to late now.



So I'll be expecting you to do the decent thing and post a full written public apology after the horrid things you wrote. I'm so hurt that my ribs are now sore from all the laughing at you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Stuart Dickson said:

It's not a construct Drew. Scotland spends more than it earns. If it was an Independent country Scotland would be heavily in debt with an a national annual budget deficit against GDP 250% higher than that of the UK. 

If Hague has manipulated the figures please can you show, in the same plain speaking terms where he has done so, where his logic is flawed, and where the Scottish Government would find the £15Bn needed annually just to keep spending at it's current levels. 

 

CsyQs11XEAAVDWB.jpg

Cu6fVOOWIAATDrr.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear oh dear Mr Bundy. Did you engage your brain before reposting any of Stewart Campbell cultish shite. For example in each one of those projects you mention, Scotlands got back MORE than it spent thanks to the consequentials in the Barnett Formula. And of course the rUK has contributed significantly to projects like the M74 extension, the M8 extention, the M9 spur link, the new Forth Road bridge, the upgrade at the Raithy Interchange, the Borders railway, and the upgrade of Queen Street Station as well as the huge sums of money wasted on unused cycle lanes in Scotland amongst many other projects. It also has and continues to contribute to the cost of many of the new schools the SNP like to take credit for and it makes a huge contribution to the cost of running the police, the NHS and the Scottish Education System, each of which the SNP have systematically destroyed with its mismanagement.

The fact that Scotland can spend £15Bn more than it raises is obvious testimony to the huge contribution the rUK makes to Scotland. None of your bulls hit details how an independent Scotland would replace all that money.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...