Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 2

[Pesty]

ViperPict said:

I don't always agree with the SNP but 'Here, Here'!

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-n...

That is so obviously spin in order to get people to vote for independence.

Look nasty man in london making all these cuts that are hurting our proud Scotich brothers and sisters.

Vote independence and it will all be better, there, there, shush rubs hands down face.

ViperPict said:

, it is not for me to say what the alternative should be. But it is obvious their should be one.

Is it obvious? how do you know an alternative won't be worse?
an alternative could make us teh next greece with increased boorrowing costs.

our deficit is huge we are fked we need austerity even though Im not sure we are having as this government continues borrowing more and more.

Edited by Pesty on Friday 17th August 17:41

[WhereamI]

ViperPict said:

This is your blinkered 'I don't like your answer' nonsense again. Go and look at the old thread where that was answered...

The bottom line is that it's CLEARLY not working and some sort of change is needed. Not having my hands on the reins, it is not for me to say what the alternative should be. But it is obvious their should be one. I'm quite happy to go with the propsals that the SNP or Labour or Boris are proposing.

I find it amazing that when presented with clear evidence that the 'policies' of Mr. 110% are not working that you are so sychophantic to still blindly support him and his fellow numpties. It's quite extraordinary behaviour...

Where I'd take issue is with the concept that it's not working. You need to compare the outcomes happening now with the probable outcomes if a different course was taken. Whilst the economy might not be booming, in the circumstances that we face it is doing pretty well, certainly better than if a policy was in place that did not start to address the deficit issue.

[ViperPict]

WhereamI said:

ViperPict said:

This is your blinkered 'I don't like your answer' nonsense again. Go and look at the old thread where that was answered...

The bottom line is that it's CLEARLY not working and some sort of change is needed. Not having my hands on the reins, it is not for me to say what the alternative should be. But it is obvious their should be one. I'm quite happy to go with the propsals that the SNP or Labour or Boris are proposing.

I find it amazing that when presented with clear evidence that the 'policies' of Mr. 110% are not working that you are so sychophantic to still blindly support him and his fellow numpties. It's quite extraordinary behaviour...

Where I'd take issue is with the concept that it's not working. You need to compare the outcomes happening now with the probable outcomes if a different course was taken. Whilst the economy might not be booming, in the circumstances that we face it is doing pretty well, certainly better than if a policy was in place that did not start to address the deficit issue.

Doing pretty well but worse than the Eurozone...

This is what I mean - failure to see the reality when the evidence is staring you in the face...

[ViperPict]

Pesty said:

ViperPict said:

I don't always agree with the SNP but 'Here, Here'!

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-n...

That is so obviously spin in order to get people to vote for independence.

Look nasty man in london making all these cuts that are hurting our proud Scotich brothers and sisters.

Vote independence and it will all be better, there, there, shush rubs hands down face.

Is it? Naw?

[TheHeretic]

ViperPict said:

This is your blinkered 'I don't like your answer' nonsense again. Go and look at the old thread where that was answered...

The bottom line is that it's CLEARLY not working and some sort of change is needed. Not having my hands on the reins, it is not for me to say what the alternative should be. But it is obvious their should be one. I'm quite happy to go with the propsals that the SNP or Labour or Boris are proposing.

I find it amazing that when presented with clear evidence that the 'policies' of Mr. 110% are not working that you are so sychophantic to still blindly support him and his fellow numpties. It's quite extraordinary behaviour...

I am not sycophanticaly supporting him. When someone decides to make a statement, in this case you and your 'It's not working, we need to change policies', I find it is best to have some sort of idea as to what you would like to see instead of current policies. It seems to me that you have no idea what policies are bad, and which are good. You just take the figures from the news articles, and then proclaim that something has to be done... What?

You have several options. You can as a government spend money. On what, it doesn't matter, but the injection of cash into the economy is what is important. It has a trickle down effect to other industries, and eventually to Bob McJoebloggs on the street. However, the issue is where does this money come from?

Taxation? Loans? Cuts from other areas? The selling of assets, and so on and so forth. So, when you ask to stop doing A and do B, you have to have at least an idea of how that will happen, and what effect it will have. Higher taxes effect everyone, to a degree. Tax the folks on the street and they spend less, and tend to save. This essentially takes this money out of the economy, as it is basically sat there, (yes, banks will invest it, etc, but for the sake of an illustrative point, let it by), and with a much lower tax rate. This has the drag of effect of less revenue going through the retail sector, which has the added issue of even less taxation take up by VAT, etc, as well as less corporate tax being paid, and so on, and so forth.

Loans are exactly that. Putting more debt, onto the debt you already have as a nation is never a great idea. You could print more money, I suppose, but that will simply lower the worth of the currency, giving other issues.

Spending cuts to fund spending elsewhere. A nice idea, but essentially stealing from Peter to feed Paul. The money spent will remain the same. The only benefit could be if the new spend creates more jobs, (over the jobs lost from the last cut), and depending on what was cut, domino effects could have an issue.

The selling of assets, especially on the cheap as One-eye did, is just a net loss, u less it can be shown that the private sector take up will either be more efficient, more profitable, and create jobs, and so on.


So, VP, when you ask for policy A to be dropped, what would you suggest in its stead? This argument counts for now, as much as it would post-independence, when you talk of investment, and spending.

Edited by TheHeretic on Friday 17th August 18:24

[s2art]

ViperPict said:

Doing pretty well but worse than the Eurozone...

This is what I mean - failure to see the reality when the evidence is staring you in the face...

Try looking at the performance of the UK economy with the performance of the Eurozone countries with a similar deficit and debt. Sure the whole Eurozone is doing better, but thats due to the distortion of Germany's economic dominance. What you are saying is that we are doing worse than Germany. No st Sherlock.

[ViperPict]

TheHeretic said:

ViperPict said:

This is your blinkered 'I don't like your answer' nonsense again. Go and look at the old thread where that was answered...

The bottom line is that it's CLEARLY not working and some sort of change is needed. Not having my hands on the reins, it is not for me to say what the alternative should be. But it is obvious their should be one. I'm quite happy to go with the propsals that the SNP or Labour or Boris are proposing.

I find it amazing that when presented with clear evidence that the 'policies' of Mr. 110% are not working that you are so sychophantic to still blindly support him and his fellow numpties. It's quite extraordinary behaviour...

I am not sycophanticaly supporting him. When someone decides to make a statement, in this case you and your 'It's not working, we need to change policies', I find it is best to have some sort of idea as to what you would like to see instead of current policies. It seems to me that you have no idea what policies are bad, and which are good. You just take the figures from the news articles, and then proclaim that something has to be done... What?

You have several options. You can as a government spend money. On what, it doesn't matter, but the injection of cash into the economy is what is important. It has a trickle down effect to other industries, and eventually to Bob McJoebloggs on the street. However, the issue is where does this money come from?

Taxation? Loans? Cuts from other areas? The selling of assets, and so on and so forth. So, when you ask to stop doing A and do B, you have to have at least an idea of how that will happen, and what effect it will have. Higher taxes effect everyone, to a degree. Tax the folks on the street and they spend less, and tend to save. This essentially takes this money out of the economy, as it is basically sat there, (yes, banks will invest it, etc, but for the sake of an illustrative point, let it by), and with a much lower tax rate. This has the drag of effect of less revenue going through the retail sector, which has the added issue of even less taxation take up by VAT, etc, as well as less corporate tax being paid, and so on, and so forth.

Loans are exactly that. Putting more debt, onto the debt you already have as a nation is never a great idea. You could print more money, I suppose, but that will simply lower the worth of the currency, giving other issues.

Spending cuts to fund spending elsewhere. A nice idea, but essentially stealing from Peter to feed Paul. The money spent will remain the same. The only benefit could be if the new spend creates more jobs, (over the jobs lost from the last cut), and depending on what was cut, domino effects could have an issue.

The selling of assets, especially on the cheap as One-eye did, is just a net loss, u less it can be shown that the private sector take up will either be more efficient, more profitable, and create jobs, and so on.


So, VP, when you ask for policy A to be dropped, what would you suggest in its stead? This argument counts for now, as much as it would post-independence, when you talk of investment, and spending.

Edited by TheHeretic on Friday 17th August 18:24

What, selling of assets like school playing fields you mean? And then lying about it. That sort of thing?

[TheHeretic]

ViperPict said:

What, selling of assets like school playing fields you mean? And then lying about it. That sort of thing?

If that really is the best you have to the stuff I put in that post, then you really are lost.

[ViperPict]

s2art said:

ViperPict said:

Doing pretty well but worse than the Eurozone...

This is what I mean - failure to see the reality when the evidence is staring you in the face...

Try looking at the performance of the UK economy with the performance of the Eurozone countries with a similar deficit and debt. Sure the whole Eurozone is doing better, but thats due to the distortion of Germany's economic dominance. What you are saying is that we are doing worse than Germany. No st Sherlock.

We're doing worse than the mean of Europe. Worse than France too. That must wind some of you lot up.

[s2art]

ViperPict said:

s2art said:

ViperPict said:

Doing pretty well but worse than the Eurozone...

This is what I mean - failure to see the reality when the evidence is staring you in the face...

Try looking at the performance of the UK economy with the performance of the Eurozone countries with a similar deficit and debt. Sure the whole Eurozone is doing better, but thats due to the distortion of Germany's economic dominance. What you are saying is that we are doing worse than Germany. No st Sherlock.

We're doing worse than the mean of Europe. Worse than France too. That must wind some of you lot up.

I can merely repeat myself. Try looking at the countries with similar deficits and debt. Dont worry, with Hollande in charge it wont be long before we overtake them. The reasons for our huge deficit has been done to death; think Blair and Brown. It will take many years to recover from that.

[TheHeretic]

s2art said:

I can merely repeat myself. Try looking at the countries with similar deficits and debt. Dont worry, with Hollande in charge it wont be long before we overtake them. The reasons for our huge deficit has been done to death; think Blair and Brown. It will take many years to recover from that.

It is weird. The memory of Thatcher lives on, 20+ years after she left office, and yet the current government, a coalition who have only just got into power, are to blame for everything. It is like the years of Labour never happened at all.

[ViperPict]

TheHeretic said:

ViperPict said:

What, selling of assets like school playing fields you mean? And then lying about it. That sort of thing?

If that really is the best you have to the stuff I put in that post, then you really are lost.

To be honest, I just skimmed your email. There's no point in writing long posts as I won't read them.

[General Bilko]

TheHeretic said:

Deja vu indeed. Another question gone unanswered. How on earth can you articulate an argument about how terrible the current economic situation is, and not even have an idea as to why you think it, apart from being told on various articles that 'it's bad mmmkay'? If you want to argue that we need to increase spending, then where is that money coming from, who provides said money, what will be cut if the taxation spate is not to be increased, and so on, and so forth.

You k ow money doesn't grow on trees, don't you?

Apparently after independence Scotland will adopt the leaf as its new currency.....

[thinfourth2]

Okay lets say that virtually pointless is correct and the torys are completely wrong and are unelectable

In 3 years we will have the glorious millbrain as PM who isn't a tory so must be fking excellent and he has also said he will increase squandering

So this will be about 12 months after the scottish referendum


So is it worth binning the union because you don't like the current PM?


As the more virtually pointless rants we see i have constructed his reasons for independence

1 Maggie thatcher
2 David Cameron
3 Maggie thatcher
4 Something that happened 700 years ago


I just don't feel that is good enough reasons to convince me

[TheHeretic]

ViperPict said:

To be honest, I just skimmed your email. There's no point in writing long posts as I won't read them.

Too short an attention span?

[ViperPict]

TheHeretic said:

ViperPict said:

To be honest, I just skimmed your email. There's no point in writing long posts as I won't read them.

Too short an attention span?

More important stuff to put my attention to. Sorry but it's true...

[TheHeretic]

ViperPict said:

More important stuff to put my attention to. Sorry but it's true...

So why argue anything then?

[ViperPict]

TheHeretic said:

ViperPict said:

More important stuff to put my attention to. Sorry but it's true...

So why argue anything then?

Light relief to an otherwise stressful existence at the moment.

[TheHeretic]

ViperPict said:

Light relief to an otherwise stressful existence at the moment.

Nonsense. You post stuff, and attempt to justify it, but fail miserably when pushed.

[WhereamI]

ViperPict said:

s2art said:

ViperPict said:

Doing pretty well but worse than the Eurozone...

This is what I mean - failure to see the reality when the evidence is staring you in the face...

Try looking at the performance of the UK economy with the performance of the Eurozone countries with a similar deficit and debt. Sure the whole Eurozone is doing better, but thats due to the distortion of Germany's economic dominance. What you are saying is that we are doing worse than Germany. No st Sherlock.

We're doing worse than the mean of Europe. Worse than France too. That must wind some of you lot up.

No we aren't. You are looking at one measure, the most notoriously unreliable one. Look at the broader picture of employment, unemployment, tax receipts etc. - the indicators that are true measures and not just a survey - and you will see a much stronger picture. That is why, for example, the stock market is close to its 52 week high.