General Election 2019 - AND IT’S LIVE!

[YassinMoutaouakil]

NUKE THE SQUIRRELS

[Malky3]

5 minutes ago, hearthammer said:

We're currently being shafted royally by westminster and kept to heel by the tories, therefore i'd much prefer to have our own controls and our own debt management.  If it's remaining as westminster's lapdog and suffering more severe austerity similar to what we've been experiencing, or fighting our own struggle for fiscal parity within Scotland, i'd much prefer to fly solo.

You won't agree with your entrenched unionist mindset, but as a former Labour voter, i have a vision for a free and self-determining country that will be more beneficial for my children and their children.  The alternative is a draconian and subservient existence at the behest of the westminster illuminati. 

Ok, lets do this the Nationalist way. Please can you provide proof, ONS Reports, GERs Reports - anything of that ilk that PROVES your opinion that Scotland is being "royally shafted"? 

 

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

27 minutes ago, Malky3 said:

You can try to ignore the £12.6Bn deficit all you want, 

You could always explain why an independent Scotland would have to cut public spending by this amount while we are here?

[Cerberus]

[Malky3]

4 minutes ago, Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo said:

You could always explain why an independent Scotland would have to cut public spending by this amount while we are here?

I've shown that EVEN Nicola Sturgeon believes the deficit would have to be cut from 8% down to around 3% of GDP. I've provided the link so many times I'm being accused - correctly - of being "cut and paste Malky". There is little point in me explaining a simple point to a buffoon so entrenched in their opinion they won't even accept that of those who should know on THEIR side! 

Now can you help out your friend here and prove, with a nice we reference to some sort of official static, that Scotland is being "Royally shafted" or is it your intention just to keep trying to deflect attention away from how fucked Scotland would be if it wasn't for the Barnett Formula

 

Edited November 20, 2019 by Malky3

[hearthammer]

2 minutes ago, Malky3 said:

Ok, lets do this the Nationalist way. Please can you provide proof, ONS Reports, GERs Reports - anything of that ilk that PROVES your opinion that Scotland is being "royally shafted"? 

 

I see things my way through living my life in Scotland and by observing and listening to politics with a reasonably coherent ability.

You trawl (or should that be troll) through reams of internet sites to find stimuli for your agenda, then copy and paste the guff here, basically boring the tits aff everyone else trying to offer their own viewpoints.  You consider yourself the authority on all things political here, but have been outed as someone who is just trying to promote your own self-importance and pick arguments to try and "educate" others and twist them into your way of thinking.

Stick the GERS and ONS reports up your arse.  Look around you and see what westminster pocket money does and gets you in Scotland. 

 

[DublinMagyar]

Scottish education must have been awful 50 years ago when those who are "alright Jack" say things like "this countries"

 

 

 

 

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

1 minute ago, Malky3 said:

I've shown that EVEN Nicola Sturgeon believes the deficit would have to be cut from 8% down to around 3% of GDP. I've provided the link so many times I'm being accused - correctly - of being "cut and paste Malky". There is little point in me explaining a simple point to a buffoon so entrenched in their opinion they won't even accept that of those who should know on THEIR side! 

So why, if Sturgeon is correct, would Scotland have to reduce public spending by £12.6 billion? I've read all your links. They don't back up your spiel. If you explain it then I'll stop asking.

[Malky3]

1 minute ago, hearthammer said:

I see things my way through living my life in Scotland and by observing and listening to politics with a reasonably coherent ability.

You trawl (or should that be troll) through reams of internet sites to find stimuli for your agenda, then copy and paste the guff here, basically boring the tits aff everyone else trying to offer their own viewpoints.  You consider yourself the authority on all things political here, but have been outed as someone who is just trying to promote your own self-importance and pick arguments to try and "educate" others and twist them into your way of thinking.

Stick the GERS and ONS reports up your arse.  Look around you and see what westminster pocket money does and gets you in Scotland. 

 

So no evidence to back you up - just your own little ignorant opinion. Well that can be discounted as bullshit then. 

At least I can back up my opinions with official statistics, quotes from the First Minister and the Finance Secretary, and with expert analysis from financial experts and actuaries from all sides of the political spectrum. You just have your own petty bigotries. 

Shame that,  

[D Angelo Barksdale]

Malky inadvertantly cutting his £12.6 billion figure almost in half there.

Pity it's taken him 1000 posts of utter drivel to get there.

[Malky3]

1 minute ago, Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo said:

So why, if Sturgeon is correct, would Scotland have to reduce public spending by £12.6 billion? I've read all your links. They don't back up your spiel. If you explain it then I'll stop asking.

It's not my position that Scotland would need to reduce public spending by £12.6Bn. The deficit would have to be reduced significantly. I just want nationalists to be honest about it and to tell us all where they would make their cuts and where they would get their extra tax revenue. 

[Malky3]

Just now, Henderson to deliver ..... said:

Malky inadvertantly cutting his £12.6 billion figure almost in half there.

Pity it's taken him 1000 posts of utter drivel to get there.

I didn't - it was closer to one third, but since you are keen to get involved perhaps you can have a stab at telling us all where you would make your public sector cuts, and how many percentage points in tax would you charge us all for your ideology. 

[hearthammer]

2 minutes ago, Malky3 said:

So no evidence to back you up - just your own little ignorant opinion. Well that can be discounted as bullshit then. 

At least I can back up my opinions with official statistics, quotes from the First Minister and the Finance Secretary, and with expert analysis from financial experts and actuaries from all sides of the political spectrum. You just have your own petty bigotries. 

Shame that,  

You may not agree with my views, but "ignorant" i ain't, preppy.   You're so consumed with your own self-smugness that you must have difficulty typing and pasting with just one free hand.

As they would say in Latinia, you're a cretinus arseholus

[jamamafegan]

Oh Malky just f**k off already you massive, massive c**t

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

9 minutes ago, Malky3 said:

It's not my position that Scotland would need to reduce public spending by £12.6Bn. The deficit would have to be reduced significantly. I just want nationalists to be honest about it and to tell us all where they would make their cuts and where they would get their extra tax revenue. 

So we've made a start. Would you say a £4 billion, 25% reduction in the number you have been banding about this forum is significant enough for people to have been aggrieved by the figure you have been posting on here for months?

ETA: Wrong numbers.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo

[D Angelo Barksdale]

3 minutes ago, Malky3 said:

I didn't - it was closer to one third, but since you are keen to get involved perhaps you can have a stab at telling us all where you would make your public sector cuts, and how many percentage points in tax would you charge us all for your ideology. 

Tell us why you lied about the OBFA and I will account for every penny.

[Malky3]

35 minutes ago, Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo said:

So we've made a start. Would you say a £4 billion, 25% reduction in the number you have been banding about this forum is significant enough for people to have been aggrieved by the figure you have been posting on here for months?

ETA: Wrong numbers.

The number I've been banding about was the £12.6Bn difference between what the Scottish Government currently spends and what Scotland generates in tax revenues. That £12.6Bn extra comes from the Barnett Formula where we get more than a fair share of the wealth generated in London, the South East and the East of England. Those figures are not incorrect in any way shape of form. To completely balance the books the Independent Scottish Government would have to find a way to bridge a gap in funding which equates to just over 90% of the total spend on NHS Scotland. 

The current deficit equates to just under 8% of Scottish GDP - as I've said it would be one of the highest fiscal deficits in the Western world. To rejoin the EU you would need to get that deficit down to less than 3% per annum. That would still allow in Independent Scotland to run a much smaller deficit but each year it does so it puts itself further and further into debt and that kind of fiscal management of a Scottish economy would be completely at odds with the Norweigan one that Nationalists love to draw similarities to where they ran their economy at a surplus - not a deficit - in order to save money in a oil fund. 

Lets face it Scottish Nationalists are aggrieved at everything no matter how much proof and clarity I provide so I'm not concerned in the slightest if people are aggrieved at having the £12.6Bn figure repeated over and over again at them. All I want to know is what public services you would cut, and how much more tax would I have to pay to cover the cost of your fantasy. Be honest with the nation Joey Jo Jo - for the first time - be honest! 

 

[Malky3]

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

Tell us why you lied about the OBFA and I will account for every penny.

You go first cause I don't believe you! 

[BawWatchin]

3 hours ago, Malky3 said:

It's funny how in Communist systems like the one in the Soviet Union, Cuba, or North Korea where the mantra is complete equality - that it also comes with extreme levels of poverty. 

I have little concern for how much those who generate this countries vast wealth earns compared to myself. My concern is for me and my immediate family and I can vouch for the fact that all of my immediate family are significantly more wealthy than my parents, grandparents and great grandparents ever were. 

Black kids in Africa today are more better off than your great grandparents ever were. It's called evolution. We have access to technologies now that were science fiction back in those days. But regardless, it doesn't stop poorer people going hungry,  or being more prone to sickness and other death risks.

Nobody cares how large or advanced their cheapo modern TV is compared to the black and white box of the 30s, if they haven't got food to eat.

[Malky3]

15 minutes ago, BawWatchin said:

Black kids in Africa today are more better off than your great grandparents ever were. It's called evolution. We have access to technologies now that were science fiction back in those days. But regardless, it doesn't stop poorer people going hungry,  or being more prone to sickness and other death risks.

Nobody cares how large or advanced their cheapo modern TV is compared to the black and white box of the 30s, if they haven't got food to eat.

The biggest shock to me is that Sunrise has "liked" your somewhat racist comment! 

You're wrong BTW. It's not evolution. Not by any literal standard. It is actually the success of capitalism,  the cascading of wealth and the benefits of globalisation that has seen great progress in eradicating extreme poverty worldwide. 

You know how I like to post a source....

https://www.economist.com/international/2017/03/30/the-world-has-made-great-progress-in-eradicating-extreme-poverty

You want equality by making us all equally poor and equally hungry. Capitalism might not provide great equality - but it's certainly proven as an economic system that has helped feed many millions of people who previously would have starved.