Scottish Independence

[jonty]

If Scotland separates from the UK it would undoubtedly join the EU adopting all of its criteria whereby getting what the main player big guns Germany and France pressure the smaller ones into accepting what they vote for.

We do very well here in Scotland as part of the UK and I think Scotland plays a major part in developing the UK in spite of the nats.

You missed out the UK from 'the bigs guns'.

Strangely parallel with Westminster pressuring Scotland into accepting what they vote for?

[Tornadoes70]

You missed out the UK from 'the bigs guns'.

Strangely parallel with Westminster pressuring Scotland into accepting what they vote for?

Strange post as we do so democratically as part of the UK that we here in Scotland voted to remain with just a few years ago.

The Leave the EU was again as part of a the wider UK.

Its very simple unless one happens to be a separatist who cannot or just will not accept democracy.

[jonty]

Strange post as we do so democratically as part of the UK that we here in Scotland voted to remain with just a few years ago.

The Leave the EU was again as part of a the wider UK.

Its very simple unless one happens to be a separatist who cannot or just will not accept democracy.

My post was rhetorical.

[Tornadoes70]

My post was rhetorical.

Too clever for me by half.

I take it you accept then hypothetically that by joining the EU and all of its criteria Scotland would not be 'independent' but at the mercy of the main player big guns Germany and France who in all reality run the show despite what some might claim about there being 'umpteen' votes cast.

Scotland's fishing waters would be overrun with fishing boats from all over the EU if the EU demanded it, just one likely scenario.

[Tornadoes70]

I would urge past and present Labour minded voters to stick with the party as we're on the verge of a return to power in the next few years and forget all about the separatist puritan party that is the snp.

The tories are self imploding and Corbyn is playing the long game and is very likely to be in with a great shout of becoming Prime Minister at the next election.

The snp are on a downward spiral and despite their mumping and moaning about separation its extremely likely mumping and moaning is all its ever going to be as there's no chance another separatist ref will be allowed for at least another 20 years or so.

Mon Labour!!!

[jonty]

Too clever for me by half.

I take it you accept then hypothetically that by joining the EU and all of its criteria Scotland would not be 'independent' but at the mercy of the main player big guns Germany and France who in all reality run the show despite what some might claim about there being 'umpteen' votes cast.

Scotland's fishing waters would be overrun with fishing boats from all over the EU if the EU demanded it, just one likely scenario.


I seem to have tumbled into an alternative universe.
Joining the EU strips a county of independence.
Germany and France run the EU.

Scottish fishing water will be overrun by fishing boats from the mighty fleets of countries such as Slovakia, Hungary and Austria.

Its like an episode of black mirror

[CropleyWasGod]

I seem to have tumbled into an alternative universe.
Joining the EU strips a county of independence.
Germany and France run the EU.

Scottish fishing water will be overrun by fishing boats from the mighty fleets of countries such as Slovakia, Hungary and Austria.

Its like an episode of black mirror

There have been a few of these on here recently. There's the one where, instead of cash and cards, we're all having implants put in our hands. So, if we want some drugs, we have to blow our dealer.

Charlie Brooker will be due us royalties for the next series. :greengrin

[Tornadoes70]

I seem to have tumbled into an alternative universe.
Joining the EU strips a county of independence.
Germany and France run the EU.

Scottish fishing water will be overrun by fishing boats from the mighty fleets of countries such as Slovakia, Hungary and Austria.

Its like an episode of black mirror

A very strange post indeed. However, being stuck in the parallel universe of refusing to accept that there will be no consideration of a separation vote from the UK for at least a generation around 20 years or more must be soul destroying.

Acceptance is a virtue.

Spain, France etc have massive fishing fleets that would scoop the fish out of an EU Scotland. We couldn't say no to them in an EU that issued fishing quotas from other EU members fishing waters.

[southfieldhibby]

I would urge past and present Labour minded voters to stick with the party as we're on the verge of a return to power in the next few years and forget all about the separatist puritan party that is the snp.

The tories are self imploding and Corbyn is playing the long game and is very likely to be in with a great shout of becoming Prime Minister at the next election.

The snp are on a downward spiral and despite their mumping and moaning about separation its extremely likely mumping and moaning is all its ever going to be as there's no chance another separatist ref will be allowed for at least another 20 years or so.

Mon Labour!!!

This is quite the take. Labour can't even match the worst Tory party in decades at the polls, they're running 3rd in Scotland and Corbyn is generally seen by all except the lunatic fringes of his party as a total chancer. He'll never be PM.

[Benny Brazil]

I would urge past and present Labour minded voters to stick with the party as we're on the verge of a return to power in the next few years and forget all about the separatist puritan party that is the snp.

The tories are self imploding and Corbyn is playing the long game and is very likely to be in with a great shout of becoming Prime Minister at the next election.

The snp are on a downward spiral and despite their mumping and moaning about separation its extremely likely mumping and moaning is all its ever going to be as there's no chance another separatist ref will be allowed for at least another 20 years or so.

Mon Labour!!!

I can't see Labour getting into power with Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott at the helm.

[Tornadoes70]

I can't see Labour getting into power with Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott at the helm.

I agree that Jeremy should bring to the fore more mainstream acceptable Labour talents to the top table, however, Jeremy himself is a massive asset and if surrounding himself with able folk he will easily win the next election.

[CropleyWasGod]

I agree that Jeremy should bring to the fore more mainstream acceptable Labour talents to the top table, however, Jeremy himself is a massive asset and if surrounding himself with able folk he will easily win the next election.

Let's hope that talent includes the ability to distinguish between a + and a - on a calculator :greengrin

https://www.thenational.scot/news/17296367.scottish-labour-make-embarrassing-error-in-budget-press-release/

[jonty]

A very strange post indeed. However, being stuck in the parallel universe of refusing to accept that there will be no consideration of a separation vote from the UK for at least a generation around 20 years or more must be soul destroying.

Acceptance is a virtue.

Spain, France etc have massive fishing fleets that would scoop the fish out of an EU Scotland. We couldn't say no to them in an EU that issued fishing quotas from other EU members fishing waters.
:faf:
what's strange as you have implied I'm a separatist and now my soul would be destroyed by not having a separatist vote. Yet you know nothing of my background or voting habits.
With attitudes like that its no wonder that labour party is struggling to attract voters if you're a typical foot soldier. Stick with Corbyn and you'll flounder for another 3 years.
You are Theresa May and I claim my £5.

Can I interest you in a black mirror? :greengrin

[Tornadoes70]

Let's hope that talent includes the ability to distinguish between a + and a - on a calculator :greengrin

https://www.thenational.scot/news/17296367.scottish-labour-make-embarrassing-error-in-budget-press-release/

'The National' :rolleyes:

Akin to tories quoting from the daily mail :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

'The National' :rolleyes:

Akin to tories quoting from the daily mail :greengrin

You suggesting they made it up?

[Tornadoes70]

:faf:
what's strange as you have implied I'm a separatist and now my soul would be destroyed by not having a separatist vote. Yet you know nothing of my background or voting habits.
With attitudes like that its no wonder that labour party is struggling to attract voters if you're a typical foot soldier. Stick with Corbyn and you'll flounder for another 3 years.
You are Theresa May and I claim my £5.

Can I interest you in a black mirror? :greengrin

This appears to be somewhat the norm for those taking up arguments against those who think we in Scotland do very well out of the UK.

Crazy Maybe?

Definitely :greengrin

[Tornadoes70]

You suggesting they made it up?

I don't know if they have or they haven't and tbh don't care if a misspeak occurred as politicians are prone to it and in the grander scheme of things its pretty irrelevant.

What's relevant is Jeremy is a huge asset to Labour especially as the tories are in the process of blowing themselves up over brexit and the long term prospects for Labour are looking ever more positive particularly if Jeremy can elevate Labour talents to the top table.

[CropleyWasGod]

I don't know if they have or they haven't and tbh don't care if a misspeak occurred as politicians are prone to it and in the grander scheme of things its pretty irrelevant.

What's relevant is Jeremy is a huge asset to Labour especially as the tories are in the process of blowing themselves up over brexit and the long term prospects for Labour are looking ever more positive particularly if Jeremy can elevate Labour talents to the top table.

You're right. What's £300m these days? :rolleyes:

(ps the + sign is normally the biggest key on the calculator. Just saying...)

[Fife-Hibee]

You're right. What's £300m these days? :rolleyes:

(ps the + sign is normally the biggest key on the calculator. Just saying...)

I think it's irrelevant to him, because he knows the "-" sign will be the biggest key on the calculator after brexit.

[CropleyWasGod]

I think it's irrelevant to him, because he knows the "-" sign will be the biggest key on the calculator after brexit.

Boom :greengrin

[jonty]

You're right. What's £300m these days? :rolleyes:

(ps the + sign is normally the biggest key on the calculator. Just saying...)

maybe its worn out by adding all the revenue from Scotland. :greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

You're right. What's £300m these days? :rolleyes:

(ps the + sign is normally the biggest key on the calculator. Just saying...)

For an accountant you missed the open goal. The compounded error is £600m :wink:

[CropleyWasGod]

For an accountant you missed the open goal. The compounded error is £600m :wink:

I knew that, but I wanted to take the argument in easy steps.... :greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

I knew that, but I wanted to take the argument in easy steps.... :greengrin

Makes sense to do that for the 'challenged' who might be 'labouring' a point :wink:

[Future17]

'The National' :rolleyes:

Akin to tories quoting from the daily mail :greengrin

The National didn't write the tweet, but nice deflection attempt!

[Hibernia&Alba]

Brexit is key for me. During the independence referendum, the No campaign were right to point out the uncertainty of Scotland's position in relation to the EU. Brexit makes that a moot point.

I've gone from No to Yes; I want no part of the Tory race to the bottom post-Brexit, and make no mistake sweatshop Britain is their neoliberal utopia. The end of free movement of people is actually contrary to a key aspect of neoliberal economics, but they gloss over that and can't wait to deregulate and cut further.

Independence would require negotiations to re-enter the EU; a two step process which could take years. What a disaster this all is.

[Tornadoes70]

The National didn't write the tweet, but nice deflection attempt!

No deflection from the fact Scotland does very well out of being partners with their nearest island neighbours.

In direct contrast Scotland in the case of separating from their nearest island neighbours and in doing so becoming part of the EU in all its bits would become just a very small country dependent upon the orders from main player big guns France, Spain and Germany.

Stop pulling the genuine Scottish folks chains and tell them the truth of the matter. I care about the ordinary Scottish folk and would warn them off from becoming just another tiny part of the EU subordinance that would befall us if we separate from our nearest island neighbours.

Labour is a genuine safe bet alternative from the tories and the separatists no matter the nonsense the couldn't care less about Scotland separatists spout.

Mon Labour!!!

[1875godsgift]

No deflection from the fact Scotland does very well out of being partners with their nearest island neighbours.

In direct contrast Scotland in the case of separating from their nearest island neighbours and in doing so becoming part of the EU in all its bits would become just a very small country dependent upon the orders from main player big guns France, Spain and Germany.

Stop pulling the genuine Scottish folks chains and tell them the truth of the matter. I care about the ordinary Scottish folk and would warn them off from becoming just another tiny part of the EU subordinance that would befall us if we separate from our nearest island neighbours.

Labour is a genuine safe bet alternative from the tories and the separatists no matter the nonsense the couldn't care less about Scotland separatists spout.

Mon Labour!!!

It's a really weird place inside your head isn't it?

Do Labour support Brexit or not?

Do Labour want to be part of the Eu or not?

[Fife-Hibee]

No deflection from the fact Scotland does very well out of being partners with their nearest island neighbours.

In direct contrast Scotland in the case of separating from their nearest island neighbours and in doing so becoming part of the EU in all its bits would become just a very small country dependent upon the orders from main player big guns France, Spain and Germany.

Stop pulling the genuine Scottish folks chains and tell them the truth of the matter. I care about the ordinary Scottish folk and would warn them off from becoming just another tiny part of the EU subordinance that would befall us if we separate from our nearest island neighbours.

Labour is a genuine safe bet alternative from the tories and the separatists no matter the nonsense the couldn't care less about Scotland separatists spout.

Mon Labour!!!

I would argue that Scotland does very well under a competent SNP Government that does its damn hardest to shield Scotland from tory policies, policies which are often implemented while Labour MPs sit on their hands at Westminster.

By the looks of it, we're about to lose one of our nearest islands anyway as a result of the backstop fiasco. That leaves Wales and England (one country really) which relies on Scotland's trade 5x more than we do in return. Just imagine how much more they're going to rely on Scotland for trade once they realize they have burned their bridges with all other credible trading partners.

Would rather we had our wee place in the EU with an equal representation with every other nation in the EU, with considerably more powers at the Scottish Parliament, than remain a part of little England who are trying to snatch back as many powers as they can from the Scottish Parliament using the most dubious methods they can conjure up.

I'm afraid red is no longer on the political roulette table. There's no demand in England for a Labour Government, regardless of how bad this current one gets.

It's the SNP way or the highway my friend.

[Mibbes Aye]

I would argue that Scotland does very well under a competent SNP Government

Six years ago, the SNP government introduced legally-binding times for hospital treatment. It was actually Nicola Sturgeon, who was then Health minister.

Since then, something like 120,000 people weren't treated in time.

That's 120,000 times they've broken their own law.

Competent?

[McD]

I would argue that Scotland does very well under a competent SNP Government that does its damn hardest to shield Scotland from tory policies, policies which are often implemented while Labour MPs sit on their hands at Westminster.

By the looks of it, we're about to lose one of our nearest islands anyway as a result of the backstop fiasco. That leaves Wales and England (one country really) which relies on Scotland's trade 5x more than we do in return. Just imagine how much more they're going to rely on Scotland for trade once they realize they have burned their bridges with all other credible trading partners.

Would rather we had our wee place in the EU with an equal representation with every other nation in the EU, with considerably more powers at the Scottish Parliament, than remain a part of little England who are trying to snatch back as many powers as they can from the Scottish Parliament using the most dubious methods they can conjure up.

I'm afraid red is no longer on the political roulette table. There's no demand in England for a Labour Government, regardless of how bad this current one gets.

It's the SNP way or the highway my friend.


Wales and england are “one country really”? That’s pretty dismissive of both Welsh and English people and their heritage. We’d all be pretty pissed off if someone described Scotland and England that way.

[Just Alf]

Wales and england are “one country really”? That’s pretty dismissive of both Welsh and English people and their heritage. We’d all be pretty pissed off if someone described Scotland and England that way.I a way both England and Wales are 'one' in that many of their institutions/laws etc are combined, that said you're correct I'd be a bit miffed at the description (and have been in the past!)


Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Jack]

If Scotland separates from the UK it would undoubtedly join the EU adopting all of its criteria whereby getting what the main player big guns Germany and France pressure the smaller ones into accepting what they vote for.

We do very well here in Scotland as part of the UK and I think Scotland plays a major part in developing the UK in spite of the nats.

It's interesting looking at Brexit negotiations how Westminster looked after Scotland interests and the EU looked after Ireland's interests.

The EU, big guns and all made the small country of Ireland one of the most important aspects of the negotiations, protecting their interests.

Meanwhile Westminster has consistently blocked any meaningful talks with Holyrood, stripping their powers using underhanded methods coordinated by a Labour man.


And in case you hadn't noticed the polls Corbyn has managed to lag a few points behind the worst PM in history. Some feat given the circumstances. Seems not too many of the electorate agree with you about your great leader.

[James310]

Six years ago, the SNP government introduced legally-binding times for hospital treatment. It was actually Nicola Sturgeon, who was then Health minister.

Since then, something like 120,000 people weren't treated in time.

That's 120,000 times they've broken their own law.

Competent?

Apart from Health, Education, Transport and local government its all good though.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Wales and england are “one country really”? That’s pretty dismissive of both Welsh and English people and their heritage. We’d all be pretty pissed off if someone described Scotland and England that way.

Indeed, and look, for example, at how much more widely the Welsh language is spoken than Scots Gaelic. The Welsh wouldn't like to be told they are little more than an English region.

[Glory Lurker]

Six years ago, the SNP government introduced legally-binding times for hospital treatment. It was actually Nicola Sturgeon, who was then Health minister.

Since then, something like 120,000 people weren't treated in time.

That's 120,000 times they've broken their own law.

Competent?


Apart from Health, Education, Transport and local government its all good though.

Mibbes Aye, i’ll take your word on the 120,000, but the obligation is on health boards not the government so you’ve, er, missed your target there.

To both of you, how would you address the problems you perceive?

[hibsbollah]

It's interesting looking at Brexit negotiations how Westminster looked after Scotland interests and the EU looked after Ireland's interests.

The EU, big guns and all made the small country of Ireland one of the most important aspects of the negotiations, protecting their interests.

Meanwhile Westminster has consistently blocked any meaningful talks with Holyrood, stripping their powers using underhanded methods coordinated by a Labour man.


And in case you hadn't noticed the polls Corbyn has managed to lag a few points behind the worst PM in history. Some feat given the circumstances. Seems not too many of the electorate agree with you about your great leader.

Far too many people on here (not necessarily you) drag poll numbers up when they are convenient to them, and ignore the numbers that don't fit their little narrative. Corbyn is NOT trailing in the polls.

The truth is Labour and Tories are neck and neck, one month he's two points ahead, next month she goes four points, next time it's even 38-38. With the margin of error, ALL posters will describe the situation as TCTC.

Now, how you interpret that fact is based on your own personal prejudices.

The anti Labour interpretation a) says that 'Tories are in a mess over Brexit, May is a joke, so a competent Labour leader should be hammering them in the polls, not merely be neck and neck'.

The alternative, more optimistic if you support Labour interpretation b) says 'Wait and think about the historical precedent here. This is a properly Socialist Labour leadership. With a socialist manifesto. For the Many not the Few was a manifesto that was, according to the polls, very popular with the electorate, took Labour from 21 points behind in the polls under Miliband to a hung parliament. For Corbyn and his team to be neck and neck in the polls when the UK as a whole has never been close to validating a socialist alternative is an incredible achievement.

I honestly think the second interpretation stands up to scrutiny more than the first.

John Major was in a very similar position to May back in 92/93. Tories in disarray over Europe, Maastricht, the *******'s, stabbed in the back by his colleagues. I remember clearly him being a joke PM, nobody believed that there was someone in charge so totally lacking in any sort of gravitas. Kinnock was busy bashing the union links in his own party with a centrist manifesto and trying to appeal to middle England.

Useless, laughable, worst PM in history Major, won that election. Because beating the Tories is never an easy thing to do.

[weecounty hibby]

Mibbes Aye, i’ll take your word on the 120,000, but the obligation is on health boards not the government so you’ve, er, missed your target there.

To both of you, how would you address the problems you perceive?
No offense meant to the posters you quote but its not fair asking them for solutions when the Labour party in Scotland can't come up with a coherent answers

[RyeSloan]

Useless, laughable, worst PM in history Major, won that election. Because beating the Tories is never an easy thing to do.

Unless you are Tony Blair...he gubbed them a few times without having the wee red book in his back pocket...

[hibsbollah]

Unless you are Tony Blair...he gubbed them a few times without having the wee red book in his back pocket...

Well yes. Blair certainly had the media X factor. But again, he was up against allegedly 'worst leader ever' Major after black wednesday, euro implosion sex scandals and the CP on its erse. If you want to be uncharitable you'd say he couldn't miss the open goal. Didn't stop me celebrating mind.

[Hibbyradge]

Well yes. Blair certainly had the media X factor. But again, he was up against allegedly 'worst leader ever' Major after black wednesday, euro implosion sex scandals and the CP on its erse. If you want to be uncharitable you'd say he couldn't miss the open goal. Didn't stop me celebrating mind.

There's an open goal waiting for Labour now ...

[hibsbollah]

There's an open goal waiting for Labour now ...

Heres hoping we wont have to wait four years.

edit apologies for the hijack. Annoys me when other folk do it to my OPs.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Far too many people on here (not necessarily you) drag poll numbers up when they are convenient to them, and ignore the numbers that don't fit their little narrative. Corbyn is NOT trailing in the polls.

The truth is Labour and Tories are neck and neck, one month he's two points ahead, next month she goes four points, next time it's even 38-38. With the margin of error, ALL posters will describe the situation as TCTC.

Now, how you interpret that fact is based on your own personal prejudices.

The anti Labour interpretation a) says that 'Tories are in a mess over Brexit, May is a joke, so a competent Labour leader should be hammering them in the polls, not merely be neck and neck'.

The alternative, more optimistic if you support Labour interpretation b) says 'Wait and think about the historical precedent here. This is a properly Socialist Labour leadership. With a socialist manifesto. For the Many not the Few was a manifesto that was, according to the polls, very popular with the electorate, took Labour from 21 points behind in the polls under Miliband to a hung parliament. For Corbyn and his team to be neck and neck in the polls when the UK as a whole has never been close to validating a socialist alternative is an incredible achievement.

I honestly think the second interpretation stands up to scrutiny more than the first.

John Major was in a very similar position to May back in 92/93. Tories in disarray over Europe, Maastricht, the *******'s, stabbed in the back by his colleagues. I remember clearly him being a joke PM, nobody believed that there was someone in charge so totally lacking in any sort of gravitas. Kinnock was busy bashing the union links in his own party with a centrist manifesto and trying to appeal to middle England.

Useless, laughable, worst PM in history Major, won that election. Because beating the Tories is never an easy thing to do.

Very good post, hibsbollah. Corbyn is challenging forty years of neoliberal consensus in Britain, which makes a lot of rich and powerful people and institutions very uncomfortable. Consequently they are trying every trick in the book to discredit him and remove him. Before the last general election the received wisdom was Labour would be wiped out due to Corbyn; a Tory majority well over a hundred etc. In fact Labour's vote increased from 31 per cent to 40 per cent, did it not, with the Tories forced to form a minority government? That's some improvement in the space of one general election.

[bigwheel]

Very good post, hibsbollah. Corbyn is challenging forty years of neoliberal consensus in Britain, which makes a lot of rich and powerful people and institutions very uncomfortable. Consequently they are trying every trick in the book to discredit him and remove him. Before the last general election the received wisdom was Labour would be wiped out due to Corbyn; a Tory majority well over a hundred etc. In fact Labour's vote increased from 31 per cent to 40 per cent, did it not, with the Tories forced to form a minority government? That's some improvement in the space of one general election.

Fair points ..unfortunately he is challenging with 40 year old university days political thinking also ...

[Hibernia&Alba]

Fair points ..unfortunately he is challenging with 40 year old university days political thinking also ...

Millions of people don't agree with you. The enthusiasm for a new approach and a fairer society is undeniable, despite the anti-Corbyn propaganda in the right wing media and amongst many of his own backbenchers! Many of his policy proposals aren't radical at all, but are merely a reversion to policies we used to have under both Labour and Conservative governments e.g. free university tuition (which we still have in Scotland of course) and a functioning and compassionate social security system for those who need it. Hardly Trotskyist radicalism.

[bigwheel]

Millions of people don't agree with you. The enthusiasm for a new approach and a fairer society is undeniable, despite the anti-Corbyn propaganda in the right wing media and amongst many of his own backbenchers! Many of his policy proposals aren't radical at all, but are merely a reversion to policies we used to have under both Labour and Conservative governments e.g. free university tuition (which we still have in Scotland of course) and a functioning and compassionate social security system for those who need it. Hardly Trotskyist radicalism.

There are many things to admire about Corbin’s ideals..I can’t deny that ..particularly with such an unemotional and unjust government...but any rounded analysis also would note there are many weaknesses too..it’s not Trotskyist that is true..but it’s pretty full on Fabianism..and that is nowhere near multi dimensional enough to handle the economic and geo political issues of today..

[Hibernia&Alba]

There are many things to admire about Corbin’s ideals..I can’t deny that ..particularly with such an unemotional and unjust government...but any rounded analysis also would note there are many weaknesses too..it’s not Trotskyist that is true..but it’s pretty full on Fabianism..and that is nowhere near multi dimensional enough to handle the economic and geo political issues of today..

But you're in danger of going down the road of 'no alternative' to neoliberalism, as Thatcher used to say. There absolutely are alternatives, as numerous countries doing much better than ourselves are demonstrating. We only need look to the different social and economic models in Europe which are far more egalitarian and produce better economic performance e.g. Germany and Scandinavia.

All societies run as a result of policy choices, and there are real choices to be had. The question is who do those choices benefit most and what do they achieve? We must never separate the amorphous thing called the economy from the population: the population is the economy and it must produce tangible results in relation to human lives, not merely be reduced to GDP figures etc. As that great leftist Tony Benn used to say, economics isn't science, it's ideological i.e. there is no infallible formula which can be implemented to deliver what is best for everyone; we make policy choices which we hope will deliver the outcomes we want. Thus, when you say Corbyn's policies aren't multi-dimensional enough to handle the modern world, you are really saying they won't produce outcomes and hit economic markers of which you approve. However, everybody's markers are ideological, based upon the outcome they are aiming for. By the same token I don't believe neoliberalism can resolve society's problems, as it fails to remedy the problems I identify as important.

[bigwheel]

But you're in danger of going down the road of 'no alternative' to neoliberalism, as Thatcher used to say. There absolutely are alternatives, as numerous countries doing much better than ourselves are demonstrating. We only need look to the different social and economic models in Europe which are far more egalitarian and produce better economic performance e.g. Germany and Scandinavia.

All societies run as a result of policy choices, and there are real choices to be had. The question is who do those choices benefit most and what do they achieve? We must never separate the amorphous thing called the economy from the population: the population is the economy and it must produce tangible results in relation to human lives, not merely be reduced to GDP figures etc. As that great leftist Tony Benn used to say, economics isn't science, it's ideological i.e. there is no infallible formula which can be implemented to deliver what is best for everyone; we make policy choices which we hope will deliver the outcomes we want. Thus, when you say Corbyn's policies aren't multi-dimensional enough to handle the modern world, you are really saying they won't produce outcomes and hit economic markers of which you approve. However, everybody's markers are ideological, based upon the outcome they are aiming for. By the same token I don't believe neoliberalism can resolve society's problems, as it fails to remedy the problems I identify as important.

You make some interesting points but also some huge leaps about my views ..there is no doubt the ideology of the last 30 years of politics in the UK government has not worked..part of the root of the large degree of dissatisfaction across today’s UK... but it’s not my personal views that suggests you need to drive economic growth..that’s just a matter of arithmetic. I would, like you (I’m assuming), also argue that a principled approach with social development is core for economic growth..so that we can harness and develop the Talents and contributions across our communities...yet Corbyn’s ideals remain too dogmatic and this lack of adaptability is having a major dilution of his and Labour’s impact. The lack of effective challenge to government on Brexit is a prime example..despite his popular base , impressive for sure , he also has quite a narrow PLP support base - that lack of cohesion will show strongly if he gets into power. The lack of policy matching social development and economic growth is why it stands as weak amongst socialist leaders in power today..yes, austerity and reduced public spending has indeed failed..yet there is no suggestion in Corbyn’s weak and unclear policy thinking that he could run an effective alternative ..Corbyn’s prevarication on any topic that challenge his core rebel ideals ..Syria, Brexit , Trident for examples show how hard it will be for him and his team to effectively manage the complexity of the macro issues in play in this generation

[Hibernia&Alba]

You make some interesting points but also some huge leaps about my views ..there is no doubt the ideology of the last 30 years of politics in the UK government has not worked..part of the root of the large degree of dissatisfaction across today’s UK... but it’s not my personal views that suggests you need to drive economic growth..that’s just a matter of arithmetic. I would, like you (I’m assuming), also argue that a principled approach with social development is core for economic growth..so that we can harness and develop the Talents and contributions across our communities...yet Corbyn’s ideals remain too dogmatic and this lack of adaptability is having a major dilution of his and Labour’s impact. The lack of effective challenge to government on Brexit is a prime example..despite his popular base , impressive for sure , he also has quite a narrow PLP support base - that lack of cohesion will show strongly if he gets into power. The lack of policy matching social development and economic growth is why it stands as weak amongst socialist leaders in power today..yes, austerity and reduced public spending has indeed failed..yet there is no suggestion in Corbyn’s weak and unclear policy thinking that he could run an effective alternative ..Corbyn’s prevarication on any topic that challenge his core rebel ideals ..Syria, Brexit , Trident for examples show how hard it will be for him and his team to effectively manage the complexity of the macro issues in play in this generation

Perhaps he does prevaricate on issues; that's an issue of character which Labour Party members have to address. On Brexit, for example, it's well known he's ambivalent about the EU, and perhaps he secretly really would prefer Brexit; I don't know. His style of leadership is certainly less brash than others, but what matters is making the right decision in the end. If he makes the wrong decisions, he'll be in trouble, like any leader. I'm not a Labour voter, but I'm glad we are at least seeing a challenge to the neoliberal dominance of the past forty years. Democratic debate about the type of society we want, as opposed to merely how to best manage neoliberalism, has returned, and it's resonated with millions of people who felt locked out of the system.

By the away, I didn't mean to make any assumptions about your personal views. I was speaking generally; there are plenty who don't want to have the debate; who are using personal attacks on Corbyn's credibility as a means of avoiding the issues he's raising. Those at the top who have benefitted enormously in the past forty years don't want to talk about the adverse consequences and how they might be reversed. I wasn't implying you are one of those. :aok:

[Mibbes Aye]

Mibbes Aye, i’ll take your word on the 120,000, but the obligation is on health boards not the government so you’ve, er, missed your target there.

To both of you, how would you address the problems you perceive?

Sorry, not having that.

Health Boards are directed by government and are funded by them and answer to them. It wasn't health boards who set legally-binding targets, they don't have that power, it was the SNP government. They have failed to meet those targets and broken their own law.

It was 120,000 times around May this year. Given the problem is getting worse, quicker, I would say that it's likely by the end of the calendar year that the law has been broken 150,000 times at least.

So when I challenged the use of the word 'competent', I think I was right. A government that breaks its own law 150,000 times in something as crucial as health care cannot be considered to be competent.

What makes things worse is that what should have been a good thing has turned out to be a massive failure. Unlike many administrations, the SNP had consistency of leadership in health care - Sturgeon held the ministerial role for five years, Robison held the role for four years. Despite (or maybe actually because) of that consistency we have a health service that isn't fit for purpose, requires millions upon millions of government bailouts every year for health boards to balance their books and can't get on the front foot to tackle the real challenges.

And at the same time it breaks its own law 150,000 times.

You asked how I would address the problems I perceive.

They are not the problems I perceive, they are real, tangible and are harmful to the health and wellbeing of Scottish people

I've posted many, many times on this subject on here and suggested many, many things that should or could be done differently.

[Mibbes Aye]

Very good post, hibsbollah. Corbyn is challenging forty years of neoliberal consensus in Britain, which makes a lot of rich and powerful people and institutions very uncomfortable. Consequently they are trying every trick in the book to discredit him and remove him. Before the last general election the received wisdom was Labour would be wiped out due to Corbyn; a Tory majority well over a hundred etc. In fact Labour's vote increased from 31 per cent to 40 per cent, did it not, with the Tories forced to form a minority government? That's some improvement in the space of one general election.

Corbyn had a massive vote shift (Con to Lab) and a massive share of the popular vote IIRC. They were either the biggest in modern time, or matched what Blair did in 1997 and 2001.

When Blair did it, it translated into majorities of 179 and 167, absolutely unprecedented in the modern era. When Corbyn went up against a shambles of a Tory government, with such massive swings, the Tories still took 55 more seats than Labour did.

He appeals to a certain core that doesn't translate into popular success.

From about 1995-97, the Tories were in freefall (eaten apart by Europe, sound familar?) and Labour polled miles ahead. PMQs were televised torture for Major. BBC Question Time regularly had audiences booing Government ministers before they spoke.

The Tories are in a worse place now than they were twenty years ago but Corbyn doesn't capitalise on it, for so many reasons. Some are his old lingering 1970s anti-EEC bollocks, but more is just his general inability and incapacity for leadership.

He's not a leader. In no way, shape or form.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Corbyn had a massive vote shift (Con to Lab) and a massive share of the popular vote IIRC. They were either the biggest in modern time, or matched what Blair did in 1997 and 2001.

When Blair did it, it translated into majorities of 179 and 167, absolutely unprecedented in the modern era. When Corbyn went up against a shambles of a Tory government, with such massive swings, the Tories still took 55 more seats than Labour did.

He appeals to a certain core that doesn't translate into popular success.

From about 1995-97, the Tories were in freefall (eaten apart by Europe, sound familar?) and Labour polled miles ahead. PMQs were televised torture for Major. BBC Question Time regularly had audiences booing Government ministers before they spoke.

The Tories are in a worse place now than they were twenty years ago but Corbyn doesn't capitalise on it, for so many reasons. Some are his old lingering 1970s anti-EEC bollocks, but more is just his general inability and incapacity for leadership.

He's not a leader. In no way, shape or form.

So who would you suggest would have done better than taking Labour from 31% to 40% at the last election? Brown and Miliband each managed around 30%; I would say 40% represents much more than just a 'core'. Didn't Thatcher and Blair both win massive majorities with only 43% of the vote? That's the vicissitudes of our first-past-the-post system in operation. The SNP won almost every seat in Scotland in 2015 on a minority of the vote.

[Mibbes Aye]

So who would you suggest would have done better than taking Labour from 31% to 40% at the last election? Brown and Miliband each managed around 30%; I would say 40% represents much more than just a 'core'. Didn't Thatcher and Blair both win massive majorities with only 43% of the vote? That's the vicissitudes of our first-past-the-post system in operation. The SNP won almost every seat in Scotland in 2015 on a minority of the vote.

I don't think you answer my point.

Any Labour leader had a shot in 2017. Corbyn took what Blair got and lost.

Blair succeeded because that shift took place in marginals. Corbyn failed because his shift was extra votes in seats that would have been his regardless.

[Hibernia&Alba]

I don't think you answer my point.

Any Labour leader had a shot in 2017. Corbyn took what Blair got and lost.

Blair succeeded because that shift took place in marginals. Corbyn failed because his shift was extra votes in seats that would have been his regardless.

I don't agree. I don't think Labour in 2017 could have gotten close to 40% with Miliband or someone further right in the Blairite wing. Corbyn, like him or not, re-energised Labour voters who had been disenfranchised by years of Tory-lite. Their voters in Scotland had turned to the SNP; in their English and Welsh heartlands their vote was declining sharply. The chance to support something outside the neoliberal consensus was popular.

Who do you think could have done better in that election?

[Mibbes Aye]

I don't agree. I don't think Labour in 2017 could have gotten close to 40% with Miliband or someone further right in the Blairite wing. Corbyn, like him or not, re-energised Labour voters who had been disenfranchised by years of Tory-lite. Their voters in Scotland had turned to the SNP; in their English and Welsh heartlands their vote was declining sharply. The chance to support something outside the neoliberal consensus was popular.

Who do you think could have done better in that election?


You may disagree but it doesn't change facts.

Blair took the poll shifts you've cited and turned them into super-majorities.

Corbyn took them and managed to end up 55 seats behind a universally-derided car crash of a Tory regime.

You've said he energised people. The problem is he energised people who don't make a difference in the vote.

Corbyn's only chance of power is based on a gamble that he is seen as less worse than May. Given the depths May has slumped to, that's a damning indictment.

[Hibernia&Alba]

You may disagree but it doesn't change facts.

Blair took the poll shifts you've cited and turned them into super-majorities.

Corbyn took them and managed to end up 55 seats behind a universally-derided car crash of a Tory regime.

You've said he energised people. The problem is he energised people who don't make a difference in the vote.

Corbyn's only chance of power is based on a gamble that he is seen as less worse than May. Given the depths May has slumped to, that's a damning indictment.

You haven't answered the question, mate. Who do you think could have taken Labour to more than 40% in 2017? Comparing Corbyn to Blair, three leaders previous, doesn't really tell us anything. However, Corbyn's vote wasn't far behind Blair's. In the two general elections before Corbyn, two Labour leaders had managed about 31%, and they were up against an unpopular Conservative Party too.

Corbyn also had the media against him and the vast majority of Labour MPs, who feared the media reports of wipeout were true and tried to oust him. They've been very quiet since the general election.

[Mibbes Aye]

You haven't answered the question, mate. Who do you think could have taken Labour to more than 40% in 2017? Comparing Corbyn to Blair, three leaders previous, doesn't really tell us anything. However, Corbyn's vote wasn't far behind Blair's. In the two general elections before Corbyn, two Labour leaders had managed about 31%, and they were up against an unpopular Conservative Party too.

Corbyn also had the media against him and the vast majority of Labour MPs, who feared the media reports of wipeout were true and tried to oust him. They've been very quiet since the general election.

Corbyn and Blair tells us everything.

One took the swing and turned it into massive majorities and a mandate to rule.

One took the swing and turned it into a Con/DUP alliance.

One was a leader, likeable or not.

One is not a leader, likeable or not.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Corbyn and Blair tells us everything.

One took the swing and turned it into massive majorities and a mandate to rule.

One took the swing and turned it into a Con/DUP alliance.

One was a leader, likeable or not.

One is not a leader, likeable or not.

Fair enough, we agree to differ. It could be that Corbyn has reached the peak of his popularity and can't improve on the last election - only time will tell. I do think it would be a mistake for Labour to revert to Tory-lite, regardless of who the leader might be.

[Fife-Hibee]

Labour's manifesto pledges work on the understanding that their back benchers will ensure that they never actually have to be implemented.

[Glory Lurker]

Sorry, not having that.

Health Boards are directed by government and are funded by them and answer to them. It wasn't health boards who set legally-binding targets, they don't have that power, it was the SNP government. They have failed to meet those targets and broken their own law.

It was 120,000 times around May this year. Given the problem is getting worse, quicker, I would say that it's likely by the end of the calendar year that the law has been broken 150,000 times at least.

So when I challenged the use of the word 'competent', I think I was right. A government that breaks its own law 150,000 times in something as crucial as health care cannot be considered to be competent.

What makes things worse is that what should have been a good thing has turned out to be a massive failure. Unlike many administrations, the SNP had consistency of leadership in health care - Sturgeon held the ministerial role for five years, Robison held the role for four years. Despite (or maybe actually because) of that consistency we have a health service that isn't fit for purpose, requires millions upon millions of government bailouts every year for health boards to balance their books and can't get on the front foot to tackle the real challenges.

And at the same time it breaks its own law 150,000 times.

You asked how I would address the problems I perceive.

They are not the problems I perceive, they are real, tangible and are harmful to the health and wellbeing of Scottish people

I've posted many, many times on this subject on here and suggested many, many things that should or could be done differently.

Nonsense on the legal front, MA. Health boards are separate legal entities. If you're owed money by a health board but you sue the Scottish government your case would be flung out by the court. What you're saying is a soundbite that fails any scrutiny.

However, let's take it we agree that these are challenging times for public services. I only dip in and out of holy ground, so amn't up to speed on your suggested remedies. Given the need for extensive action, I presume they involve devolution of all taxation (including evasion enforcement) and welfare to Holyrood, with across-the-board tax increases, including scrapping the council tax cap?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

You haven't answered the question, mate. Who do you think could have taken Labour to more than 40% in 2017? Comparing Corbyn to Blair, three leaders previous, doesn't really tell us anything. However, Corbyn's vote wasn't far behind Blair's. In the two general elections before Corbyn, two Labour leaders had managed about 31%, and they were up against an unpopular Conservative Party too.

Corbyn also had the media against him and the vast majority of Labour MPs, who feared the media reports of wipeout were true and tried to oust him. They've been very quiet since the general election.

Tony Blair?

Anyone else seen as credible as a PM to middle of the road swing voters?

I think the point being made is that strengthening the resolve and activism of those who aleeady vote for you doesnt win elections.

You have to be able to appeap to people who woupd not normally vote for you - something corbyn is unlikely to achieve.

[JeMeSouviens]

It won't surprise you to learn that I disagree :greengrin

I'll put aside that the piece was penned by Martin Kettle, for whom I have little or no respect as a journalist and writer, at least on politics (he writes passably on classical music)

More importantly, it feels like a false argument. Kettle has identified two cohorts and attempted to describe them but I question a couple of things. Firstly the cohorts he is describing reflect his age - he is talking about mindsets that were a lot more common thirty or forty years ago when he was cutting his teeth in journalism. He mus be pushing on for seventy now and I don't think he has kept track with how people's engagement with politics has become more dynamic and complex, especially in the last ten-fifteen years.

Critically, you say your case is you don't want to be ruled by 'these people'. But I don't think you are.

If you look at who 'rules' us from a 'face value' perspective, then you are talking about people who exercise executive power within government. And while they won't win any popularity contests with me or you, the truth is that the holders of the great offices of state (Hammond, Hunt, Javid) don't really fit into either of the categories Kettle talks about. We might dislike or despise them for various reasons but they are not nostalgic for the days of Empire, nor are they UKIP-flirters.

If you look at who 'rules' us from a power perspective, I would argue that there is far more vested interest in favour of 'Remain' than 'Leave'. Unfortunately 'Leave' wasn't considered a serious threat at the time of the referendum and this allowed reactionary populism to win the day. Nevertheless, the trouble the government has in stumbling towards a Brexit deal very much reflects the fact that business on the whole doesn't want it, organised labour (though the unions are a shadow of their previous selves) doesn't want it and to be honest, much of the established media and commentariat don't want it.

When you talk about a modern European social democracy I would invite you to compare and contrast the political landscape here in the UK with that on the continent. We don't have the spectre of far-right parties winning power or becoming power-brokers. We have decades of examples of progressive legislation however (and in fairness, some of that has been from Holyrood and some of that from the SNP administration).

I don't buy Kettle's case in itself and I certainly don't buy it as an argument for independence - Kettle's imagery of retired colonels in the Home Counties bemoaning the loss of Empire, and Apprentice-style wide boys who would shirk a profit if it meant dealing with Europe simply doesn't ring true.

Thanks for the reply - thought it might tempt you back to the HG. :wink:

Kettle - I pretty much agree with your summary. His tone deafness when he deigns to comment on Scottish politics is quite the thing to behold. I think that's why I was particularly struck to find something I agreed with.

Hammond, Javid, Hunt - I agree (mostly, not completely convinced about Hunt, although he's such a shape shifter, who knows?). But although they may not in their heart of hearts agree with the ex-Imperial nervous breakdown mindset, they are in thrall to those who do. The ERG wing of the Tory party has every ambitious ruthless ******* (that's all of them :wink:) over a barrel because they know the path to the Tory leadership runs through the membership, and they are in large part as nationalist as it comes.

The lack of an extreme far-right influence is more to do with our weird electoral system than anything else I'd have thought? Plus the Tory party, now that it has reabsorbed its UKIP deserters, is well towards the rightmost end of what would be considered mainstream European parties.

We do have decades of progressive legislation and of course a considerable quantity at the EU level. It surely can't be denied that for the likes of Gove, Patel, Raab etc, one of the primary motivations to Brexit is the chance to roll as much of that back as they can?

[Hibernia&Alba]

Tony Blair?

Anyone else seen as credible as a PM to middle of the road swing voters?

I think the point being made is that strengthening the resolve and activism of those who aleeady vote for you doesnt win elections.

You have to be able to appeap to people who woupd not normally vote for you - something corbyn is unlikely to achieve.

But the Labour vote went up from 31.5% to 40%. Corbyn added several million votes to Labour in 2017, in addition to a couple of hundred thousand new party members.

I think the propaganda from the right wing press that Corbyn is an unelectable extremist is very dubious, given the evidence so far. If they say it often enough, a lot of people buy into the idea, however.

[cabbageandribs1875]

back to this being a thread about Scottish Independence, instead of about some bearded terrorist-loving tw@t in westminster :agree:


21478



it's coming Gunther mate, it's coming :cb

[Hibernia&Alba]

back to this being a thread about Scottish Independence instead of about some bearded terrorist-loving tw@t in westminster :agree:


21478



it's coming Gunther mate, it's coming :cb

What?

[Tornadoes70]

Genuinely beginning to come round to the idea that maybe independence might just be a good notion after all.

Mon the Cabbage!!!

:flag:

[jonty]

Genuinely beginning to come round to the idea that maybe independence might just be a good notion after all.

Mon the Cabbage!!!

:flag:

have you been on the xmas eggnog? :greengrin

Merry Christmas!

[Smartie]

Genuinely beginning to come round to the idea that maybe independence might just be a good notion after all.

Mon the Cabbage!!!

:flag:

Anyone else heard about a batch of viciously strong chocolate liqueurs on the loose?

Merry Christmas.

[Tornadoes70]

Anyone else heard about a batch of viciously strong chocolate liqueurs on the loose?

Merry Christmas.

Merry Christmas to you too mate and to those all aboard the humanist journey of travel.

Mon the Cabbage!!!

:flag:

[Bangkok Hibby]

Genuinely beginning to come round to the idea that maybe independence might just be a good notion after all.

Mon the Cabbage!!!

:flag:

Of course it is. I dont live here although I work in UK and pay UK taxes so I feel I can voice an opinion. For me, regardless of your politics, in this ever changing world, its a chance to start afresh. Figure out whats really important and bring it about. Nothing negative or scary about Independence for me.

[Jack]

Of course it is. I dont live here although I work in UK and pay UK taxes so I feel I can voice an opinion. For me, regardless of your politics, in this ever changing world, its a chance to start afresh. Figure out whats really important and bring it about. Nothing negative or scary about Independence for me.

The chance to start afresh is a good one.

I visited Costa Rica a while ago. After forever being in turmoil with neighbours and stuff they decided to do away with the armed forces. Folk thought they were nuts but the reasoning was basically they'd be left alone under international conventions and if it kicked off big time we'd all be goosed anyway!

They spent the saved money on infrastructure, health and education. Everyone is a winner.

Obviously it's much more complicated than that but that's how it was explained by a very happy Costa Rican.

[Bangkok Hibby]

The chance to start afresh is a good one.

I visited Costa Rica a while ago. After forever being in turmoil with neighbours and stuff they decided to do away with the armed forces. Folk thought they were nuts but the reasoning was basically they'd be left alone under international conventions and if it kicked off big time we'd all be goosed anyway!

They spent the saved money on infrastructure, health and education. Everyone is a winner.

Obviously it's much more complicated than that but that's how it was explained by a very happy Costa Rican.

Thats how I feel about our "Independent" nuclear capability. Just get rid!
Utterly useless if it all kicks off, no deterrent whatsoever and a drain on our finances much better spent elsewhere. Our Tory friends will point to job losses but conveniently ignore the millions Thatcher threw on the scrapheap.

[Smartie]

Of course it is. I dont live here although I work in UK and pay UK taxes so I feel I can voice an opinion. For me, regardless of your politics, in this ever changing world, its a chance to start afresh. Figure out whats really important and bring it about. Nothing negative or scary about Independence for me.

Even as a supporter of independence I think it is a bit naive to state that there is nothing negative or scary about it. The Brexit negotiations have shown us how tough it can be to leave a union - anyone who thinks it would be any simpler to leave the UK (or that the rUK would be a pushover to deal with) are living in cloud cuckoo land.

The only question is, is it worth the risk?

In my opinion it is. Doing nothing, accepting the status quo and a future being part of the U.K but not the EU is riskier, so I'd rather take my chances on the challenges of Scottish independence.

I'd be going into it having taken a deep breath, having braced myself and readied my self for some pretty big challenges however....,

[James310]

Even as a supporter of independence I think it is a bit naive to state that there is nothing negative or scary about it. The Brexit negotiations have shown us how tough it can be to leave a union - anyone who thinks it would be any simpler to leave the UK (or that the rUK would be a pushover to deal with) are living in cloud cuckoo land.

The only question is, is it worth the risk?

In my opinion it is. Doing nothing, accepting the status quo and a future being part of the U.K but not the EU is riskier, so I'd rather take my chances on the challenges of Scottish independence.

I'd be going into it having taken a deep breath, having braced myself and readied my self for some pretty big challenges however....,

I think the Brexit negotiations have shown how tricky and complex a separation from the UK will be. Last time the SNP said it could be done in 2 year's, I hope if there is a next time they put a more realistic timescale on any departure timetable. The EU has only been around for 40 odd years, the Union is 300+ years.

Plus now I would assume we will be offered a further vote on the terms of the deal, unless the terms are crystal clear at the point of the vote.

[Bangkok Hibby]

I hear and understand everyone's points about difficulty etc. However I'll stick by my assertion that its a wonderful, exciting opportunity for a fresh start. I'm sure it won't be "easy" but that's a challenge worth taking head on 🙂

[Bristolhibby]

I think the Brexit negotiations have shown how tricky and complex a separation from the UK will be. Last time the SNP said it could be done in 2 year's, I hope if there is a next time they put a more realistic timescale on any departure timetable. The EU has only been around for 40 odd years, the Union is 300+ years.

Plus now I would assume we will be offered a further vote on the terms of the deal, unless the terms are crystal clear at the point of the vote.

TBF though, the Tories haven’t really done any negotiating until the tail end of the year.

There was a pretty comprehensive timetable in 2014, I don’t think any Scottish transition Government would piss around so much. I’m also sure they would have an idea what they would want out of the negotiations.

J

[James310]

TBF though, the Tories haven’t really done any negotiating until the tail end of the year.

There was a pretty comprehensive timetable in 2014, I don’t think any Scottish transition Government would piss around so much. I’m also sure they would have an idea what they would want out of the negotiations.

J

The Scottish Government might well have an idea what they want but who is to say they will get what they want. Similarly to the UK leaving the EU why would the UK government want to do us any favours, they will put England, Wales and Northern Ireland first and we will either take what we get or be in a similar no deal position.

[Jack]

The Scottish Government might well have an idea what they want but who is to say they will get what they want. Similarly to the UK leaving the EU why would the UK government want to do us any favours, they will put England, Wales and Northern Ireland first and we will either take what we get or be in a similar no deal position.

I think Scotland leaving the UK would be considerably simpler than the UK leaving the EU.

Territorial negotiations would start with the international conventions and laws around who is entitled to what. I don't think there would be much room for dispute. Finance, debts and assets already have a starting point for negotiations, the Barnet and other Formulea. So add up the UKs worth and Scotland ends up with between 8.5% and 10%. Job done!

On the other hand when the Brexit negotiations started the UK had no idea what it wanted from them ... and still doesn't!

[James310]

I think Scotland leaving the UK would be considerably simpler than the UK leaving the EU.

Territorial negotiations would start with the international conventions and laws around who is entitled to what. I don't think there would be much room for dispute. Finance, debts and assets already have a starting point for negotiations, the Barnet and other Formulea. So add up the UKs worth and Scotland ends up with between 8.5% and 10%. Job done!

On the other hand when the Brexit negotiations started the UK had no idea what it wanted from them ... and still doesn't!

Yes I am sure it will all be as simple as you suggest.

[heretoday]

Yes I am sure it will all be as simple as you suggest.

:greengrin

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Even as a supporter of independence I think it is a bit naive to state that there is nothing negative or scary about it. The Brexit negotiations have shown us how tough it can be to leave a union - anyone who thinks it would be any simpler to leave the UK (or that the rUK would be a pushover to deal with) are living in cloud cuckoo land.

The only question is, is it worth the risk?

In my opinion it is. Doing nothing, accepting the status quo and a future being part of the U.K but not the EU is riskier, so I'd rather take my chances on the challenges of Scottish independence.

I'd be going into it having taken a deep breath, having braced myself and readied my self for some pretty big challenges however....,

I think you are bang on the money.

Something being difficult doesnt mean its not worth doing of course, but people who dismiss those fears rather than engage them are doing their side a disservice imo.

[Bristolhibby]

The Scottish Government might well have an idea what they want but who is to say they will get what they want. Similarly to the UK leaving the EU why would the UK government want to do us any favours, they will put England, Wales and Northern Ireland first and we will either take what we get or be in a similar no deal position.

I think you miss my point. The U.K. Gov had no idea what they wanted from Brexit. They have spend nearly two years arguing with themselves (badly) about what Brexit is. My point was, Yes had a pretty good and well documented idea of what Independence should look like.

Brexit doesn’t even have that.

J

[IGRIGI]

I don't think you would have the level of disagreement or division in the SNP compared to what you have in the UK government just now.

Also, looking at how May has negotiated with the EU I'd love nothing better than seeing Team Scotland taking her on at the negotiating table.

[IGRIGI]

we will either take what we get or be in a similar no deal position.

How? Goods, people, services, they all flow both ways across the border.

They would need a clean break just like us.

[CropleyWasGod]

The Scottish Government might well have an idea what they want but who is to say they will get what they want. Similarly to the UK leaving the EU why would the UK government want to do us any favours, they will put England, Wales and Northern Ireland first and we will either take what we get or be in a similar no deal position.

With no deal, rUK would be left with all of the UK National Debt. I'd doubt that they would want that.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[PeeJay]

With no deal, rUK would be left with all of the UK National Debt. I'd doubt that they would want that.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

An interesting point - I seem to recall reading that the UK Treasury would ultimately opt for the lesser of two evils - i.e. restructuring debt into Scottish and rUK liabilities would give way to the UK preferring to honour its total liabilities for the UK (Scotland, England, Wales and NI) ignoring an iScotland's willingness to honour its perceived share of debt. Apparently the UK Treasury would not want UK government borrowing to be impaired through any perceived lending risk with unsettled markets/investors.

An iScotland may well however wish to be held liable for its share of the debt - a whitepaper suggested this would be the case for obvious reasons.

"Simple" doesn't come into it when one considers possible future negotiations between an iScotand and rUK - best put that one to bed now. :greengrin

[James310]

I think Scotland leaving the UK would be considerably simpler than the UK leaving the EU.

Territorial negotiations would start with the international conventions and laws around who is entitled to what. I don't think there would be much room for dispute. Finance, debts and assets already have a starting point for negotiations, the Barnet and other Formulea. So add up the UKs worth and Scotland ends up with between 8.5% and 10%. Job done!

On the other hand when the Brexit negotiations started the UK had no idea what it wanted from them ... and still doesn't!

"BREXIT has shattered a key part of the SNP’s plan for leaving the UK, Alex Salmond’s former spindoctor has admitted.

Kevin Pringle, who was a senior special adviser to the former First Minister, said the promise to deliver independence just 18 months after a Yes vote was no longer credible.

It “doesn’t measure up” and a far longer transition period would be required, he said, suggesting this would need to be agreed “jointly” with Westminster.

Negotiating independence in 18 months was a key plank of the SNP Government’s White Paper on independence, launched by Mr Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon in 2013"

[Tornadoes70]

"BREXIT has shattered a key part of the SNP’s plan for leaving the UK, Alex Salmond’s former spindoctor has admitted.

Kevin Pringle, who was a senior special adviser to the former First Minister, said the promise to deliver independence just 18 months after a Yes vote was no longer credible.

It “doesn’t measure up” and a far longer transition period would be required, he said, suggesting this would need to be agreed “jointly” with Westminster.

Negotiating independence in 18 months was a key plank of the SNP Government’s White Paper on independence, launched by Mr Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon in 2013"

Nothing's ever hard wired. if the good Scottish folk voted for independence it would happen irrespective of so called bits and pieces.

[James310]

Nothing's ever hard wired. if the good Scottish folk voted for independence it would happen irrespective of so called bits and pieces.

I am sure it would happen, just don't believe it will be a walk in the park as some seem to believe.

[Tornadoes70]

I am sure it would happen, just don't believe it will be a walk in the park as some seem to believe.

Nothings a walk in the park James. Hard times ahead definitely but got to weigh up whats for the greater good.

[McD]

Nothings a walk in the park James. Hard times ahead definitely but got to weigh up whats for the greater good.


Weren’t you as anti-independence as possible a short time ago? You were telling everyone that would listen, and everyone that wouldn’t, that Scottish labour and Corbyn’s labour in general were the greatest political movement in history.

if you’ve changed your position, that is absolutely fine btw

[NAE NOOKIE]

Weren’t you as anti-independence as possible a short time ago? You were telling everyone that would listen, and everyone that wouldn’t, that Scottish labour and Corbyn’s labour in general were the greatest political movement in history.

if you’ve changed your position, that is absolutely fine btw

Not replying for him. But I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few folk begin to think differently about the idea over the next few months. Being semi retired I was able to avidly watch the various political programmes and the BBC Parliament channel in the weeks leading up to Christmas and in all honesty you have never seen such a car crash in all of your life … you seriously wouldn't have trusted any of them to run a corner shop, never mind a country after watching it.

I have always supported independence, but I'm not blind or deaf and its something I would reconsider if at any time I could have been persuaded that staying in the UK was preferable to independence, though I admit that would be letting my head rule my heart. But in truth everything I have seen since the 2014 vote has if anything made me far more convinced that Scotland would be far better served standing on its own two feet … how in all honesty we could possibly make a bigger **** up is beyond me.

[McD]

Not replying for him. But I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few folk begin to think differently about the idea over the next few months. Being semi retired I was able to avidly watch the various political programmes and the BBC Parliament channel in the weeks leading up to Christmas and in all honesty you have never seen such a car crash in all of your life … you seriously wouldn't have trusted any of them to run a corner shop, never mind a country after watching it.

I have always supported independence, but I'm not blind or deaf and its something I would reconsider if at any time I could have been persuaded that staying in the UK was preferable to independence, though I admit that would be letting my head rule my heart. But in truth everything I have seen since the 2014 vote has if anything made me far more convinced that Scotland would be far better served standing on its own two feet … how in all honesty we could possibly make a bigger **** up is beyond me.


I totally agree there will be many people reconsidering, particularly in light of the shambles that is Westminster at the moment.

in this poster’s case, I was just curious as he was so vehemently pro union and pro labour and Corbyn, I thought it would be interesting to hear his thought process through that change, particularly given corbyn doesn’t appear to have done much to support either another independence referendum or a second referendum on brexit (that I’ve noticed anyway :greengrin)

[JeMeSouviens]

I think the Brexit negotiations have shown how tricky and complex a separation from the UK will be. Last time the SNP said it could be done in 2 year's, I hope if there is a next time they put a more realistic timescale on any departure timetable. The EU has only been around for 40 odd years, the Union is 300+ years.

Plus now I would assume we will be offered a further vote on the terms of the deal, unless the terms are crystal clear at the point of the vote.

Interesting, this "EU is 40 years, UK is 300 years" meme, attempting to imply it's just all going to be too hard so why bother? is perhaps even more popular with Unionism now than the equally facile "UK single market is 4 times larger" one. Do you all get propaganda direction emails telling you to put out the same thing en masse? :greengrin

Anyway, to the substance, I don't actually think the withdrawal negotiation has been overly complex. It's been deeply unpalatable for the UK but that's because they had a weak hand going in and played it with all the finesse of a stroppy toddler. Finding a common position in the Tory party has proved to be a hell of a lot harder than agreeing a WA with the EU.

They didn't start negotiating until summer 2017 and it was practically done and dusted by December. The Tories have then spent a further year attempting to worm out of what they signed up to re Ireland and failing to establish a common position on the future relationship (which has been reduced to just 20 pages of aspirational waffle).

I don't doubt for a second that the negotiation on Scottish independence has the capacity to go extremely badly but Scotland is not in such a bad position. We have a couple of good cards: the strategic position of Scotland in the North Atlantic, our oil and gas reserves (not the short term fiscal boost they once looked like, but a long term strategic asset for sure). And we have one trump card: rUK has nowhere else to put Trident for several years to come.

If you want to spread FUD (and I'm sure that's what you're here for :wink:) then if I were you, I'd concentrate on the future trading relationship. Your "poor wee Scotland will be shut out of the EU card" will be a much shakier play next time, but if Brexit has gone ahead then the drag on trade between UK and EU instantly applies, rUK to iScotland. We will face a choice between long term managed decline (the backwater of the backwater) and a risky leap out of the frying pan with considerable fire risk. I believe it's a leap we'll make but I'd be much happier with us and rUK both inside the EU's SM/CU.

[JeMeSouviens]

I totally agree there will be many people reconsidering, particularly in light of the shambles that is Westminster at the moment.

in this poster’s case, I was just curious as he was so vehemently pro union and pro labour and Corbyn, I thought it would be interesting to hear his thought process through that change, particularly given corbyn doesn’t appear to have done much to support either another independence referendum or a second referendum on brexit (that I’ve noticed anyway :greengrin)

Somebody's nicked his phone, nap.

[Jack]

I am sure it would happen, just don't believe it will be a walk in the park as some seem to believe.

It might not be a walk in the park. On the other hand, in the most unlikely scenario, Scotland could declare UDI and it could be done overnight. Others countries have done it.

With the state the UK is in, and it's going to get much worse, it would certainly sharpen Westminster's desire to get a resolution.

[James310]

It might not be a walk in the park. On the other hand, in the most unlikely scenario, Scotland could declare UDI and it could be done overnight. Others countries have done it.

With the state the UK is in, and it's going to get much worse, it would certainly sharpen Westminster's desire to get a resolution.

Under what mandate and power could the SNP ever declare UDI? It would be the worst thing they could ever do, would lead to years and years of division and fighting. If independence is to come it has to be from a legal and democratic way, otherwise your looking at disaster. Just my opinion of course.

[JeMeSouviens]

Under what mandate and power could the SNP ever declare UDI? It would be the worst thing they could ever do, would lead to years and years of division and fighting. If independence is to come it has to be from a legal and democratic way, otherwise your looking at disaster. Just my opinion of course.

Westminster refuses referendum, Holyrood is dissolved and fresh election won by party with mandate for UDI. Under those circumstances it might stick, eventually. But I agree, it would be an utterly mad route to go down.

[Jack]

Under what mandate and power could the SNP ever declare UDI? It would be the worst thing they could ever do, would lead to years and years of division and fighting. If independence is to come it has to be from a legal and democratic way, otherwise your looking at disaster. Just my opinion of course.

I did say it was most unlikely and you might be right it could be the worst thing. But it's not an impossible scenario.

Edit: probably no worse than a no deal Brexit ;-)

[James310]

Westminster refuses referendum, Holyrood is dissolved and fresh election won by party with mandate for UDI. Under those circumstances it might stick, eventually. But I agree, it would be an utterly mad route to go down.

An election is to elect a government to run the country, not a referendum on Independence. To do such a thing would put our country in even more **** than it is at the moment. Thankfully I can't see anyone in the SNP leadership who would consider this.

[JeMeSouviens]

An election is to elect a government to run the country, not a referendum on Independence. To do such a thing would put our country in even more **** than it is at the moment. Thankfully I can't see anyone in the SNP leadership who would consider this.

I think we agree on this ... but as an aside, prior to Holyrood it was accepted that an SNP majority of Westminster seats was a mandate for independence, even the witch Thatcher said so.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Under what mandate and power could the SNP ever declare UDI? It would be the worst thing they could ever do, would lead to years and years of division and fighting. If independence is to come it has to be from a legal and democratic way, otherwise your looking at disaster. Just my opinion of course.

UDI has been declared many times ….. but with the exception of Rhodesia always with the reluctant agreement of the parent state. Like you I believe it would be a disastrous decision and would be used as an excuse by certain factions ( we all know who they are ) to turn Scotland into 1970s Northern Ireland …. I'm convinced there are elements in our so called 'Loyalist' communities who live for the day.

Where the independence movement was broadsided was the establishment of the Scottish parliament. If we had held on we could have declared the election of so many SNP candidates to the UK parliament in the last election but one as a mandate to declare independence, hell back in the day even Thatcher stated that such an event would have to be accepted as such.

As it is the current UK government and the UK political establishment in general are making a far better case for Scottish independence than the SNP or wider independence movement could have done. If we leave the EU with no deal especially after the omnishambles we have all witnessed at Westminster over the last year a lot of people are going to start asking if independence is such a bad thing.

Chuck in the EU nationals living in Scotland who were without a doubt scared into voting no the last time who would to a man and woman vote yes after Brexit and things are definitely looking up if you believe Scotland should be an independent country as I do. In the end I doubt a UDI will be required :greengrin

Edit: Of course knowing what a bunch of sneaky *******s our unionist protagonists are I can pretty well guarantee the first thing they will think of is a way to exclude EU nationals living in Scotland from voting next time.

[Bristolhibby]

UDI has been declared many times ….. but with the exception of Rhodesia always with the reluctant agreement of the parent state. Like you I believe it would be a disastrous decision and would be used as an excuse by certain factions ( we all know who they are ) to turn Scotland into 1970s Northern Ireland …. I'm convinced there are elements in our so called 'Loyalist' communities who live for the day.

Where the independence movement was broadsided was the establishment of the Scottish parliament. If we had held on we could have declared the election of so many SNP candidates to the UK parliament in the last election but one as a mandate to declare independence, hell back in the day even Thatcher stated that such an event would have to be accepted as such.

As it is the current UK government and the UK political establishment in general are making a far better case for Scottish independence than the SNP or wider independence movement could have done. If we leave the EU with no deal especially after the omnishambles we have all witnessed at Westminster over the last year a lot of people are going to start asking if independence is such a bad thing.

Chuck in the EU nationals living in Scotland who were without a doubt scared into voting no the last time who would to a man and woman vote yes after Brexit and things are definitely looking up if you believe Scotland should be an independent country as I do. In the end I doubt a UDI will be required :greengrin

Edit: Of course knowing what a bunch of sneaky *******s our unionist protagonists are I can pretty well guarantee the first thing they will think of is a way to exclude EU nationals living in Scotland from voting next time.

Pretty sure we have the blueprint for voting from 2014. No way that they would be disinfranchised.

J

[Mibbes Aye]

Interesting, this "EU is 40 years, UK is 300 years" meme, attempting to imply it's just all going to be too hard so why bother? is perhaps even more popular with Unionism now than the equally facile "UK single market is 4 times larger" one. Do you all get propaganda direction emails telling you to put out the same thing en masse? :greengrin

Anyway, to the substance, I don't actually think the withdrawal negotiation has been overly complex. It's been deeply unpalatable for the UK but that's because they had a weak hand going in and played it with all the finesse of a stroppy toddler. Finding a common position in the Tory party has proved to be a hell of a lot harder than agreeing a WA with the EU.

They didn't start negotiating until summer 2017 and it was practically done and dusted by December. The Tories have then spent a further year attempting to worm out of what they signed up to re Ireland and failing to establish a common position on the future relationship (which has been reduced to just 20 pages of aspirational waffle).

I don't doubt for a second that the negotiation on Scottish independence has the capacity to go extremely badly but Scotland is not in such a bad position. We have a couple of good cards: the strategic position of Scotland in the North Atlantic, our oil and gas reserves (not the short term fiscal boost they once looked like, but a long term strategic asset for sure). And we have one trump card: rUK has nowhere else to put Trident for several years to come.

If you want to spread FUD (and I'm sure that's what you're here for :wink:) then if I were you, I'd concentrate on the future trading relationship. Your "poor wee Scotland will be shut out of the EU card" will be a much shakier play next time, but if Brexit has gone ahead then the drag on trade between UK and EU instantly applies, rUK to iScotland. We will face a choice between long term managed decline (the backwater of the backwater) and a risky leap out of the frying pan with considerable fire risk. I believe it's a leap we'll make but I'd be much happier with us and rUK both inside the EU's SM/CU.

The elephant in the room here is the nationalist description of oil reserves as a strategic asset.

Under the Paris climate agreement the majority of the world's nations signalled an intent to move towards decarbonization and the cessation of the use of fossil fuels.

It's no exaggeration to say the future of our planet depends on it and depends on it happening now and continuing.

Those pushing independence as something that will lead to a wealth dividend due to oil revenues is pretty twisted. I don't want my children and grandchildren, or anybody else's, living in a worse environment or indeed a dying planet so some folk can appease their need to change the colour of a flag.

[Jack]

The elephant in the room here is the nationalist description of oil reserves as a strategic asset.

Under the Paris climate agreement the majority of the world's nations signalled an intent to move towards decarbonization and the cessation of the use of fossil fuels.

It's no exaggeration to say the future of our planet depends on it and depends on it happening now and continuing.

Those pushing independence as something that will lead to a wealth dividend due to oil revenues is pretty twisted. I don't want my children and grandchildren, or anybody else's, living in a worse environment or indeed a dying planet so some folk can appease their need to change the colour of a flag.

So you reckon the Unionist line will change from 'There's hardly any left' to 'Nobody will want it anyway'.

[Mibbes Aye]

So you reckon the Unionist line will change from 'There's hardly any left' to 'Nobody will want it anyway'.

I don't know if there's such a thing. There seems to be conflicting evidence about what reserves there are but also prices seem to fluctuate wildly.

Regardless, it doesn't seem a robust income stream, and in part because Thatcher was happy to exploit the profit potential at the time. It's more complex than that though, because while I'm happy at the concept of nationalisation and state control, it's hard to argue that a lot of public utilities weren't a bit of a a car crash in the seventies and eighties. The reasons for that are debatable and often driven by ideology, the reality is probably quite nuanced.

Either way, the Lima summit prior to Paris got tentative agreement we needed to have stopped use of fossil fuels by 2050 IIRC. Paris watered that down but there's no denying that the planet's future is ****ed if we don't decarbonise.

An argument for independence that we can have jam tomorrow through screwing the planet seems a bit short-sighted to me, especially when the day after tomorrow is rising sea levels in some of the poorest parts of the world. We should be walking away from oil, not towards it.

The biggest hypocrites in all this remain the Scottish Greens though. Harvie backed a Yes vote even though the economic case for independence was based on claims of oil revenues boosting the Scottish economy. I can't quite understand how a Green leader can back policies based on exploiting fossil fuels when practically the whole of the intelligent world recognises it is screwing the planet.

[Just Alf]

The elephant in the room here is the nationalist description of oil reserves as a strategic asset.

Under the Paris climate agreement the majority of the world's nations signalled an intent to move towards decarbonization and the cessation of the use of fossil fuels.

It's no exaggeration to say the future of our planet depends on it and depends on it happening now and continuing.

Those pushing independence as something that will lead to a wealth dividend due to oil revenues is pretty twisted. I don't want my children and grandchildren, or anybody else's, living in a worse environment or indeed a dying planet so some folk can appease their need to change the colour of a flag.

I read the "strategic asset" bit as well, he did carefully point out that didn't mean revenue, like you I totally agree about the reduction in oil use etc.... What I took it to mean, rightly or wrongly, was that for the foreseeable future, maybe the next 100 years or so maybe longer, there will always be a need for some oil in manufacturing or whatever even if we've not got a single petrol/diesel vehicle on the planet.... I think!

[Mibbes Aye]

I read the "strategic asset" bit as well, he did carefully point out that didn't mean revenue, like you I totally agree about the reduction in oil use etc.... What I took it to mean, rightly or wrongly, was that for the foreseeable future, maybe the next 100 years or so, there will always be a need for some oil in manufacturing or whatever even if we've not got a single petrol/diesel vehicle on the planet.... I think!

Hear what you're saying, I guess it's only an asset if it can be used by someone, somewhere.

Which means that we are treating it as a commodity, either to be used to our advantage or sold to someone else to use for their advantage.

All at the expense of the greater good, namely that we have something approaching global consensus that we urgently need to stop using this thing.

The more I think about it, the more immoral it seems. It feels a bit like the way we used to produce and sell landmines, except that brought death and hardship to villages and towns and regions. Fossil fuels threaten the entire existence of the planet.

It's hard to do the right thing and I hope that as a nation (whatever nation that is, and whether in Europe or not) we find the will geopolitically to act in the right way and forego short-term tactical advantages in favour of giving the whole planet a chance.

I'm nearly tempted to join the Greens :greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

Yougov poll yesterday predicted 9 tories 1 Labour and 49 snp at the next Westminster election.

[Smartie]

My biggest problem with the vision outlined in the white paper on independence was the emphasis on oil.

But whichever way you look at it, it is stark raving bonkers to talk down the oil, and it's much better to have it than not have it. It's use is going to change, no doubt about that, and it's important to remember that you can do more with oil than just burn it.

Scotland is fortunate in that we're also well-served to take advantage of renewable energy - wave, wind, sun are all plentiful. I'd like to see us use revenue from oil (whilst we still can, as it is finite in several ways) to help fund our push as a world leader into the renewable energy field.

I don't think we should pretend the oil's going to last forever, but at the same time I think we should use it much more to Scotland's advantage, a bit more like Norway has.

I like the greens. I'd vote for them if more people did and I thought it would make a difference.

[Ozyhibby]

I don't know if there's such a thing. There seems to be conflicting evidence about what reserves there are but also prices seem to fluctuate wildly.

Regardless, it doesn't seem a robust income stream, and in part because Thatcher was happy to exploit the profit potential at the time. It's more complex than that though, because while I'm happy at the concept of nationalisation and state control, it's hard to argue that a lot of public utilities weren't a bit of a a car crash in the seventies and eighties. The reasons for that are debatable and often driven by ideology, the reality is probably quite nuanced.

Either way, the Lima summit prior to Paris got tentative agreement we needed to have stopped use of fossil fuels by 2050 IIRC. Paris watered that down but there's no denying that the planet's future is ****ed if we don't decarbonise.

An argument for independence that we can have jam tomorrow through screwing the planet seems a bit short-sighted to me, especially when the day after tomorrow is rising sea levels in some of the poorest parts of the world. We should be walking away from oil, not towards it.

The biggest hypocrites in all this remain the Scottish Greens though. Harvie backed a Yes vote even though the economic case for independence was based on claims of oil revenues boosting the Scottish economy. I can't quite understand how a Green leader can back policies based on exploiting fossil fuels when practically the whole of the intelligent world recognises it is screwing the planet.

I’m pretty sure we have one of the greenest economies on the planet?
The argument for independence shouldn’t depend on any commodity. Scotland’s wealth is its people. It’s our system of governance, developed over 100’s of years. Our rule of law that protects property rights. That’s where our wealth comes from. It’s not unique, most western democracy’s have it.
The benefit of independence is in keeping democracy close to the people. Small states of around 5m people tend to be a lot richer than Scotland. That’s because they can take decisions that most benefit themselves quicker than bigger states can.
Can anyone explain to me why Ireland has got richer than Scotland over the last 20 years? They don’t have oil so it must be something else? Any ideas?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

The elephant in the room here is the nationalist description of oil reserves as a strategic asset.

Under the Paris climate agreement the majority of the world's nations signalled an intent to move towards decarbonization and the cessation of the use of fossil fuels.

It's no exaggeration to say the future of our planet depends on it and depends on it happening now and continuing.

Those pushing independence as something that will lead to a wealth dividend due to oil revenues is pretty twisted. I don't want my children and grandchildren, or anybody else's, living in a worse environment or indeed a dying planet so some folk can appease their need to change the colour of a flag.

I was specifically talking about independence negotiation between rUK and iScotland. There are a couple of simple facts:

- rUK, us, and all the other developed countries for that matter, depend on oil/gas now and will depend on it for a few decades yet even in the best case climate change mitigation scenarios.
- most supply side countries are on a range of volatile to hostile

Given these facts, one of rUK's negotiating objectives will be security of energy supply.

The potential fiscal benefits of oil are another matter. The balance (personal or national) between our current lifestyle and the danger of climate change are another again (and probably worth a new thread).

Your last sentence is a bit of a low blow and in any case, Scotgov's environmental record, the pivotal position of the Greens at Holyrood and the rapacious ******** faction of the Tory party at Westminster means you'd get much better odds on Scottish control of oil/gas being better for the planet than UK control.

[James310]

Yougov poll yesterday predicted 9 tories 1 Labour and 49 snp at the next Westminster election.

Where did you see this? Can't see it here.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/scotland/all

[JeMeSouviens]

Where did you see this? Can't see it here.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/scotland/all

I can't see one either, but it's not far off what the polling averages would give you:

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/scotland.html

[ronaldo7]

Where did you see this? Can't see it here.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/scotland/all

A UK poll for the times. December 16/17th.

SNP predicted to be up 14 seats.

[JeMeSouviens]

A UK poll for the times. December 16/17th.

SNP predicted to be up 14 seats.

Sample size (in Scotland) 153 == almost completely worthless

:rolleyes:

[ronaldo7]

Sample size (in Scotland) 153 == almost completely worthless

:rolleyes:

That's what happens when they do a UK poll. Just a wee backwater so we ur.

[ronaldo7]

So you reckon the Unionist line will change from 'There's hardly any left' to 'Nobody will want it anyway'.

From the McCrone report, to, it's ok, we'll take care of that black stuff, you're too wee, to, it's running out, honest, to, it's not worth anything, just leave it in the ground, all for the sake of the union.

Flags eh.

[Mibbes Aye]

I’m pretty sure we have one of the greenest economies on the planet?
The argument for independence shouldn’t depend on any commodity. Scotland’s wealth is its people. It’s our system of governance, developed over 100’s of years. Our rule of law that protects property rights. That’s where our wealth comes from. It’s not unique, most western democracy’s have it.
The benefit of independence is in keeping democracy close to the people. Small states of around 5m people tend to be a lot richer than Scotland. That’s because they can take decisions that most benefit themselves quicker than bigger states can.
Can anyone explain to me why Ireland has got richer than Scotland over the last 20 years? They don’t have oil so it must be something else? Any ideas?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree with you about democracy working best when closer to people.

I've said before on here that practically, and pragmatically the best size for governance is probably something akin to what was the old Lothian Region, perhaps including the Borders (or maybe leaving that to team up with Dumfries and galloway, Cumbria and Northumberland), or perhaps including Fife (or maybe leaving that to team up with Stirling, Falkirk Clacks, or even Dundee and Perth and Kinross).

Regardless of the detail, and assuming we go with the Lothians, that's about the right size for something that can be responsive to local need yet still has the critical mass necessary for infrastructure.

Below that, you need something at the size and scale of community councils, probably smaller than what we currently have with local wards but with much more power for particapatory budgeting so areas of 500-600 households for example, can spend amounts on genuinely local need whether that be traffic calming, street lighting or whatever all within a broader framework provided by the Lothian level which ensures essential public services are legislated for and enabled.

Above that, I don't know. Conceivably a region of the scale of the Lothians (somewhere around 700-800,000) fits into some sort of federalised structure whether at a UK or a European level, I'm not ideological about it, but I suspect Europe makes sense in which case you replicate something like the German Confederation but on a much greater scale and hopefully more effective, and that provides overarching legislation and standards around trade, employment and human rights, probably based on some sort of agreed set of values that reflect liberal democratic ideals/

And hopefully more of a social conscience than what we have in the UK at present - rapacious bankers and landlords need particular scrutiny :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

I was specifically talking about independence negotiation between rUK and iScotland. There are a couple of simple facts:

- rUK, us, and all the other developed countries for that matter, depend on oil/gas now and will depend on it for a few decades yet even in the best case climate change mitigation scenarios.
- most supply side countries are on a range of volatile to hostile

Given these facts, one of rUK's negotiating objectives will be security of energy supply.

The potential fiscal benefits of oil are another matter. The balance (personal or national) between our current lifestyle and the danger of climate change are another again (and probably worth a new thread).

Your last sentence is a bit of a low blow and in any case, Scotgov's environmental record, the pivotal position of the Greens at Holyrood and the rapacious ******** faction of the Tory party at Westminster means you'd get much better odds on Scottish control of oil/gas being better for the planet than UK control.

Sorry you feel that way and I've got too much respect for you as a poster to intentionally insult you, so my apologies.

I think it was another nationalist poster on here who used to post at the time of the referendum debates that "Scotland must be the only country in the world for whom oil supplies are a problem".

He was wrong. Every country with oil supplies has a problem, or at least they do if we have any intention of averting global catastrophe through short-sightedness and national self-interest.

Fossil fuels are killing the planet. There's a lot of vested interest in maintaining their extraction and supply but that doesn't change the fact that unless we decarbonise we will wreck the planet. And global warming will affect us all but will hit some of the poorest and most-struggling areas hardest.

Using the promise of the lucre of oil money as an argument for independence is a terrible, terrible option.

Every intelligent and rational commentator says we need to stop using fossil fuels to save the planet. The UN was ready to say we needed to stop by 2050 if we had a realistic chance of making things better.

Those people aren't all wrong. The argument for an independent Scotland based on some windfall from oil revenues is immoral. Said it before, we need to walk away from oil, not towards it. For our children and grandchildren's sake and for the children and grandchildren of everyone else on the planet.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Sorry you feel that way and I've got too much respect for you as a poster to intentionally insult you, so my apologies.

I think it was another nationalist poster on here who used to post at the time of the referendum debates that "Scotland must be the only country in the world for whom oil supplies are a problem".

He was wrong. Every country with oil supplies has a problem, or at least they do if we have any intention of averting global catastrophe through short-sightedness and national self-interest.

Fossil fuels are killing the planet. There's a lot of vested interest in maintaining their extraction and supply but that doesn't change the fact that unless we decarbonise we will wreck the planet. And global warming will affect us all but will hit some of the poorest and most-struggling areas hardest.

Using the promise of the lucre of oil money as an argument for independence is a terrible, terrible option.

Every intelligent and rational commentator says we need to stop using fossil fuels to save the planet. The UN was ready to say we needed to stop by 2050 if we had a realistic chance of making things better.

Those people aren't all wrong. The argument for an independent Scotland based on some windfall from oil revenues is immoral. Said it before, we need to walk away from oil, not towards it. For our children and grandchildren's sake and for the children and grandchildren of everyone else on the planet.

I have a lot of sympathy with your view mate. But not voting for independence because the economic case for it factors in oil revenues wont in any sense make a contribution to saving the planet … its a given that the UK will use the oil revenues to prop up its economy every bit as much as an independent Scotland would, in which case a yes or no vote in a 2nd referendum makes no difference from an ecological point of view.

What will reduce the consumption of oil is advancement in electric car technology and increased use of clean energy resources, or someone finally coming up with cold fusion :greengrin It also has to be said that the current Scottish government has been pretty proactive in pushing the cause of wind and wave energy and I cant see any reason why an independent Scottish government wouldn't push that agenda even further. Even though Scotland isn't exactly the sunniest country on the planet its always surprised me that we haven't come up with a law ( that I'm aware of ) that every new build house has to have solar panels on the roof .. surely in the long run that would make a huge difference to fossil fuel consumption in the generation of electricity.

Of course the big gripe about wind farms is that they spoil the view ( just ask Donald Trump ha ha ) and a lot of folk who subscribe to clean energy would be the same folk signing petitions against them if a proposal was stuck under their nose to build 20 giant turbines in the middle of the view from their front window. But the truth is that folk cant have their cake and eat it and if we do want to save the planet we will have to make unpalatable choices.

[Mibbes Aye]

I have a lot of sympathy with your view mate. But not voting for independence because the economic case for it factors in oil revenues wont in any sense make a contribution to saving the planet … its a given that the UK will use the oil revenues to prop up its economy every bit as much as an independent Scotland would, in which case a yes or no vote in a 2nd referendum makes no difference from an ecological point of view.

What will reduce the consumption of oil is advancement in electric car technology and increased use of clean energy resources, or someone finally coming up with cold fusion :greengrin It also has to be said that the current Scottish government has been pretty proactive in pushing the cause of wind and wave energy and I cant see any reason why an independent Scottish government wouldn't push that agenda even further. Even though Scotland isn't exactly the sunniest country on the planet its always surprised me that we haven't come up with a law ( that I'm aware of ) that every new build house has to have solar panels on the roof .. surely in the long run that would make a huge difference to fossil fuel consumption in the generation of electricity.

Of course the big gripe about wind farms is that they spoil the view ( just ask Donald Trump ha ha ) and a lot of folk who subscribe to clean energy would be the same folk signing petitions against them if a proposal was stuck under their nose to build 20 giant turbines in the middle of the view from their front window. But the truth is that folk cant have their cake and eat it and if we do want to save the planet we will have to make unpalatable choices.

It's up to us mate. It's within the economic, fiscal, environmental and industrial remit of a Scottish or UK government to stop taxing oil or providing subsidies for its production.

We vote for the long-term. That maybe means banning fossil fuels. One policy that almost every sensible UN nation has signed up to, at least two hundred nations I think.

We have to think wider than selfish national self-interest. There are various claims as to what oil revenues could generate for Scotland. All are debatable.

All come at a cost to the planet. The planet is limiited in what it can provide and oil pollutes in its extraction then pollutes in its consumption. It literally chokes the planet. I've seen nationalists on here talk about it as Scotland's gift.

It's no gift, it's the planet's curse. Still, if it makes enough for extra twirly flags then all's good.

Meanwhile climate change and global warming get worse. Poor nations see more flooding. The ice caps melt further.

That's the toll in the long-term from increased nationalism and nationalist energy policies. SNP voters won't necessarily identify with Vitkor Urban or Andrej Babis but to an extent they are part of the same trope.

They might not like it but they are making the same arguments.

[JeMeSouviens]

It's up to us mate. It's within the economic, fiscal, environmental and industrial remit of a Scottish or UK government to stop taxing oil or providing subsidies for its production.

We vote for the long-term. That maybe means banning fossil fuels. One policy that almost every sensible UN nation has signed up to, at least two hundred nations I think.

We have to think wider than selfish national self-interest. There are various claims as to what oil revenues could generate for Scotland. All are debatable.

All come at a cost to the planet. The planet is limiited in what it can provide and oil pollutes in its extraction then pollutes in its consumption. It literally chokes the planet. I've seen nationalists on here talk about it as Scotland's gift.

It's no gift, it's the planet's curse. Still, if it makes enough for extra twirly flags then all's good.

Meanwhile climate change and global warming get worse. Poor nations see more flooding. The ice caps melt further.

That's the toll in the long-term from increased nationalism and nationalist energy policies. SNP voters won't necessarily identify with Vitkor Urban or Andrej Babis but to an extent they are part of the same trope.

They might not like it but they are making the same arguments.


So, on the one hand, you raise an important and necessary point: the developed world's reliance on fossil fuels must end and the sooner the better. As both a producer and consumer we have a special responsibility to address this. I agree, although I am personally conflicted by my own hypocrisy, travel is one of the things that makes life worthwhile for me.

Then, you totally go off on one about "twirly flags" and relating the SNP to Orban. Seriously? And I'd love to see you find the quote about "Scotland's gift".

Can you offer even the tiniest scrap of evidence that the UK keeping control of oil and gas reserves that will be controlled in Scotland post-Indy would lead to a single drop of oil or cc of gas not being extracted? The UK gov vs Scot gov attitudes to renewable energy, fracking, emissions targets, etc would all point in the other direction or at the very worst, no worsening of the situation.

This is the reddest of herrings.

[JeMeSouviens]

In other news, I have a new favourite twitter account:

https://twitter.com/NihilistsForYes

"Campaigning for an independent Scotland whilst we gaze together into the empty meaningless abyss."

:greengrin

[NAE NOOKIE]

It's up to us mate. It's within the economic, fiscal, environmental and industrial remit of a Scottish or UK government to stop taxing oil or providing subsidies for its production.

We vote for the long-term. That maybe means banning fossil fuels. One policy that almost every sensible UN nation has signed up to, at least two hundred nations I think.

We have to think wider than selfish national self-interest. There are various claims as to what oil revenues could generate for Scotland. All are debatable.

All come at a cost to the planet. The planet is limiited in what it can provide and oil pollutes in its extraction then pollutes in its consumption. It literally chokes the planet. I've seen nationalists on here talk about it as Scotland's gift.

It's no gift, it's the planet's curse. Still, if it makes enough for extra twirly flags then all's good.

Meanwhile climate change and global warming get worse. Poor nations see more flooding. The ice caps melt further.

That's the toll in the long-term from increased nationalism and nationalist energy policies. SNP voters won't necessarily identify with Vitkor Urban or Andrej Babis but to an extent they are part of the same trope.

They might not like it but they are making the same arguments.

As far as I'm aware mate the question of oil taxation is firmly under Westminster control, so the only way a Scottish government could influence that in any meaningful way would be if it was an independent one.

I'm sorry, but unless I'm missing some glaring point here I still cant see how you are making any case for an independent Scottish state being any worse for the planet in an ecological sense than the status quo is. The argument could perhaps be made that there would be a possibility to make Scotland 'greener' if it was independent, but I can see no argument which suggests staying in the union would help it achieve that goal in view of the fact that the UK will produce just as much oil as Scotland would, in fact even more when you factor in the Westminster governments enthusiasm for 'fracking' which so far Holyrood has resisted.

So basically "selfish national self interest" in the context of whether or not Scotland should be an independent state and the correlation to the extraction or use of fossil fuels is an absolutely redundant argument in the debate as to whether or not Scottish independence is a good or bad thing for the planet, or the people of Scotland in general for that matter. Quite clearly whether Scotland becomes independent or not oil will continue to be extracted from the North sea until either it runs out entirely or there is some sort of ( highly unlikely ) international agreement to stop oil production globally.

As for your last statement. If you can name me a single oil producing country in the word which is prepared to stop its oil production unilaterally for the good of the planet, regardless of the politics of the folk running it, or has even given the slightest inkling that it would be prepared to do so, I will take you seriously on that one. You seem to be trying to make an argument that Scotland shouldn't be an independent country because it wouldn't be prepared to do something that no other country on the planet in the same situation would be prepared to do, and even more ludicrously suggesting that stance can be blamed on 'nationalism' which is quite clearly ridiculous in the context of whether Scotland should be independent or not because the same accusation could be levelled at EVERY country in the world. It may be useful as an intellectual paper exercise, but in reality such a view is an absurd argument against a country ( any country ) becoming independent.

The two politicians you have cited seem to both be in the Donald Trump populist and protectionist camp, especially on the immigration question. I can see why you have lumped the independence movement in Scotland in with them .. the SNP have time after time banged on about closing our borders to immigrants and said as soon as we are independent massive tariffs will be lumped onto imports ….. haven't they?

Sorry mate, but as an argument against Scottish independence your ecological argument ( though laudable of itself as a goal the whole world should strive towards) is a total nonsense.

[Jack]

I'm sure in the McCrone report it was suggested that speed at which the UK was extracting oil from the North Sea was ridiculously high and that it would be more beneficial to Scotland and the UK if a more conservative strategy was adopted, like Norway. Beneficial in that more infrastructure to support the industry as well as longevity could be gained among other aspects.

Norway has built up huge financial reserves in the back of its oil, despite its conservative strategy, looking to the future.

The UK has gone hell for leather getting as much out the sea as quickly as it possibly can. It's difficult to see where the benefits have been to Aberdeen, football club excepted ;-), Scotland or the UK.

In the debates I've been aware of commentators suggest Scotland would adopt something similar to Norway, or at least it could.

With regards to the discussion above its difficult to imagine an independent Scotland would be as aggressive an oil producer as the UK is now or has been historically.

[Ozyhibby]

As far as I'm aware mate the question of oil taxation is firmly under Westminster control, so the only way a Scottish government could influence that in any meaningful way would be if it was an independent one.

I'm sorry, but unless I'm missing some glaring point here I still cant see how you are making any case for an independent Scottish state being any worse for the planet in an ecological sense than the status quo is. The argument could perhaps be made that there would be a possibility to make Scotland 'greener' if it was independent, but I can see no argument which suggests staying in the union would help it achieve that goal in view of the fact that the UK will produce just as much oil as Scotland would, in fact even more when you factor in the Westminster governments enthusiasm for 'fracking' which so far Holyrood has resisted.

So basically "selfish national self interest" in the context of whether or not Scotland should be an independent state and the correlation to the extraction or use of fossil fuels is an absolutely redundant argument in the debate as to whether or not Scottish independence is a good or bad thing for the planet, or the people of Scotland in general for that matter. Quite clearly whether Scotland becomes independent or not oil will continue to be extracted from the North sea until either it runs out entirely or there is some sort of ( highly unlikely ) international agreement to stop oil production globally.

As for your last statement. If you can name me a single oil producing country in the word which is prepared to stop its oil production unilaterally for the good of the planet, regardless of the politics of the folk running it, or has even given the slightest inkling that it would be prepared to do so, I will take you seriously on that one. You seem to be trying to make an argument that Scotland shouldn't be an independent country because it wouldn't be prepared to do something that no other country on the planet in the same situation would be prepared to do, and even more ludicrously suggesting that stance can be blamed on 'nationalism' which is quite clearly ridiculous in the context of whether Scotland should be independent or not because the same accusation could be levelled at EVERY country in the world. It may be useful as an intellectual paper exercise, but in reality such a view is an absurd argument against a country ( any country ) becoming independent.

The two politicians you have cited seem to both be in the Donald Trump populist and protectionist camp, especially on the immigration question. I can see why you have lumped the independence movement in Scotland in with them .. the SNP have time after time banged on about closing our borders to immigrants and said as soon as we are independent massive tariffs will be lumped onto imports ….. haven't they?

Sorry mate, but as an argument against Scottish independence your ecological argument ( though laudable of itself as a goal the whole world should strive towards) is a total nonsense.

100% correct.
It’s fine to be unionist or favour independence. But neither are more or less good for the environment.
They are systems of governance, not fuel supplies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bristolhibby]

100% correct.
It’s fine to be unionist or favour independence. But neither are more or less good for the environment.
They are systems of governance, not fuel supplies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The question really is should the tax revenue and policy be set by Westminster for the benefit of the U.K. or by Holyrood for the benefit of Scotland?

It’s not a burden by any means. I also know Scotland is one of the world leaders in renewable energy tech.

J

[RyeSloan]

I also know Scotland is one of the world leaders in renewable energy tech.

I see this statement quite a lot on here and I’m curious as to what criteria is being used.

As far as I can see Scotland has very few to none of the worlds biggest renewables firms.

We certainly produce a lot of renewable energy and have some R&D in that area but to be a leader in the tech you need companies that are leaders in their field.

To me these are the likes of First Solar , Canadian Solar, Vestas, Siemens, Gamesa and all manner of Chinese firms etc etc...none of which are Scottish.

[Just Alf]

To be fair to MA I felt he was really talking about the original stance of oil revenue helping mitigate the costs of independence.

I think we've all moved on from that and realise that oil can't be an important/key 'revenue earner' moving forward.

Sorry MA if I've mistaken you.



Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

To be fair to MA I felt he was really talking about the original stance of oil revenue helping mitigate the costs of independence.

I think we've all moved on from that and realise that oil can't be an important/key 'revenue earner' moving forward.

Sorry MA if I've mistaken you.



Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Sort of, thank you.

One of the arguments for independence was a case that we would have increased revenues from oil that would allow us to fund policies that furthered social justice. and the like. Yes, the costs of independence but also the costs to move into a position of greater government intervention through direct funding and policies that ameliorated the outcomes of eight years of Conservative rule.

I won't quote JMS or Nae Nookie (no insult intended) as their posts were lengthy and it will clog up the page but regardless of what the UK government does or doesn't do, using a promise of benefit from more oil revenues as a selling point for independence is simply wrong.

I've stated my case on here before - I'm not a unionist but I'm certainly not a nationalist and I probably reckon something smaller than Scotland (i.e. Lothian or SE Scotland) is a far more effective form of government, with genuine local democracy below that and some overarching structure above (whether UK or European) to provide the legal framework to make it all work.

The extraction of oil is literally going to kill us. The UK should be doing more to move away from it. The SNP shouldn't use the perceived benefits of it to persuade people to change a flag on a building.

[NAE NOOKIE]

To be fair to MA I felt he was really talking about the original stance of oil revenue helping mitigate the costs of independence.

I think we've all moved on from that and realise that oil can't be an important/key 'revenue earner' moving forward.

Sorry MA if I've mistaken you.



Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

No I don't think he was mate, if I had I doubt I would have gotten involved because it would inevitably have lead to an economic discussion which I freely admit I'm not very good at.

What MA was doing was making a moral judgment on the ethics of a country partly basing its economic model on oil revenues and saying he couldn't vote to make such a country ( Scotland ) an independent one if that was what it was going to do. Where that left me and I'm sure a lot of other folk floundering was the obvious paradox that independence or not the oil will continue to be pumped by the UK just as fast if not faster than it would be by an independent Scotland.

In view of which in what universe is Scotland's intention to continue to do exactly what the UK is doing now and will continue to do if there is a second referendum and we vote no again a reason to vote against Scottish independence? As an argument for saving the planet his ecological outlook is only to be admired …. as an argument against the case for Scottish independence or whether or not a person should vote for it, or against it for that matter, its nonsensical.

[Mibbes Aye]

No I don't think he was mate, if I had I doubt I would have gotten involved because it would inevitably have lead to an economic discussion which I freely admit I'm not very good at.

What MA was doing was making a moral judgment on the ethics of a country partly basing its economic model on oil revenues and saying he couldn't vote to make such a country ( Scotland ) an independent one if that was what it was going to do. Where that left me and I'm sure a lot of other folk floundering was the obvious paradox that independence or not the oil will continue to be pumped by the UK just as fast if not faster than it would be by an independent Scotland.

In view of which in what universe is Scotland's intention to continue to do exactly what the UK is doing now and will continue to do if there is a second referendum and we vote no again a reason to vote against Scottish independence? As an argument for saving the planet his ecological outlook is only to be admired …. as an argument against the case for Scottish independence or whether or not a person should vote for it, or against it for that matter, its nonsensical.

It's simple.

I don't agree with the UK thinking it can use oil revenues when it ****s the planet.

I don't agree with nationalists saying things will be rosier in an independent Scotland because we have oil revenues we didn't have to ourselves before.

It's bad enough that the UK uses oil revenues, when they **** the planet.

It's worse that nats try and sell independence on the basis we would be better off if we ****ed the planet some more.

It's not a hard argument to comprehend surely?

[NAE NOOKIE]

Sort of, thank you.

One of the arguments for independence was a case that we would have increased revenues from oil that would allow us to fund policies that furthered social justice. and the like. Yes, the costs of independence but also the costs to move into a position of greater government intervention through direct funding and policies that ameliorated the outcomes of eight years of Conservative rule.

I won't quote JMS or Nae Nookie (no insult intended) as their posts were lengthy and it will clog up the page but regardless of what the UK government does or doesn't do, using a promise of benefit from more oil revenues as a selling point for independence is simply wrong.

I've stated my case on here before - I'm not a unionist but I'm certainly not a nationalist and I probably reckon something smaller than Scotland (i.e. Lothian or SE Scotland) is a far more effective form of government, with genuine local democracy below that and some overarching structure above (whether UK or European) to provide the legal framework to make it all work.

The extraction of oil is literally going to kill us. The UK should be doing more to move away from it. The SNP shouldn't use the perceived benefits of it to persuade people to change a flag on a building.

I would suggest its about far more than that mate …. the intention is to have a country whose social values are far more advanced in practice than the UK can currently manage or has the political will to implement. Scotland decade after decade in UK general elections overwhelmingly votes for political parties who at least state the intention to do that and yet we rarely gets that type of UK government. We now have a situation where the majority of Scots want the country to be part of the European Union and yet we are not going to be because the rest of the UK barring N Ireland voted against it …. Yes there is an emotional element to this, nobody can deny that, but Its far more than about a change of flag on a building and its incredibly dismissive and bordering on arrogant to suggest it is.

To project how Scotland will finance itself using amongst many other revenue streams oil revenues may in your opinion be wrong … but absolutely every country in the world with access to fossil fuels, be that oil, coal or gas … or uranium for that matter ... does and will continue to do exactly the same thing. The absolute hard and inescapable truth is that for any projection of an independent Scotland's possible financial health to exclude oil revenues would be stupidity bordering on rampant incompetence and nobody seeing a political party doing that would take it in the slightest bit seriously, apart from you it would appear.

There is no doubt that Scotland producing oil after independence wont do the planet any favours, nobody is disputing that, including me. But you still haven't addressed the gaping and glaringly obvious hole in your argument, which is how would voting against Scotland becoming an independent country in any future referendum make any difference whatsoever to the amount of oil being extracted from the North sea?

The obvious and utterly inescapable answer is that it will make absolutely no difference, so as I said before using the question of oil production in ecological terms as a reason for Scotland not to be independent is absolutely nonsensical because the outcome will be the same so far as oil production is concerned whether folk vote yes, no, or don't vote at all.

[NAE NOOKIE]

It's simple.

I don't agree with the UK thinking it can use oil revenues when it ****s the planet.

I don't agree with nationalists saying things will be rosier in an independent Scotland because we have oil revenues we didn't have to ourselves before.

It's bad enough that the UK uses oil revenues, when they **** the planet.

It's worse that nats try and sell independence on the basis we would be better off if we ****ed the planet some more.

It's not a hard argument to comprehend surely?

I comprehend your argument totally mate … what's bemusing me is your failure to see that in the context of whether Scotland should be independent or not its a nonsensical argument for all of the reasons I have I think succinctly and accurately expressed in my other posts.

Would Scotland, the UK or any other country ceasing oil production be good for the planet, of course it would. Is saying Scotland shouldn't be an independent country because it wouldn't do that, when every other oil producing country in the world is continuing to pump it out, a reasonable or logical argument for folk to vote against independence? … of course it isn't.

[Bristolhibby]

I see this statement quite a lot on here and I’m curious as to what criteria is being used.

As far as I can see Scotland has very few to none of the worlds biggest renewables firms.

We certainly produce a lot of renewable energy and have some R&D in that area but to be a leader in the tech you need companies that are leaders in their field.

To me these are the likes of First Solar , Canadian Solar, Vestas, Siemens, Gamesa and all manner of Chinese firms etc etc...none of which are Scottish.

These are some good articles that explains where I was coming from.

Exciting times for Scotland.

https://www.itv.com/news/2018-11-22/why-scotland-is-leading-the-way-in-renewable-energy-and-what-we-can-learn-from-it/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/renewable-energy-electricity-wind-wave-scotland-climate-change-oil-gas-a8283166.html

J

[Mibbes Aye]

I comprehend your argument totally mate … what's bemusing me is your failure to see that in the context of whether Scotland should be independent or not its a nonsensical argument for all of the reasons I have I think succinctly and accurately expressed in my other posts.

Would Scotland, the UK or any other country ceasing oil production be good for the planet, of course it would. Is saying Scotland shouldn't be an independent country because it wouldn't do that, when every other oil producing country in the world is continuing to pump it out, a reasonable or logical argument for folk to vote against independence? … of course it isn't.
It is.

I don't believe the UK should continue producing oil.

I got a vote where I was told that Scotland would be better off because of oil revenues if it got a supposedly bigger share of them.

Asides from how dubious those suggestions where, I'm a firm believer in the role of the state and would happily pay more taxes on my income were they for the betterment of the people..

It doesn't matter what other oil-producing countries do, we have to set an ethical standard we believe in and act upon it. And not ignore that the planet is dying because of fossil fuels.

How could you live any other way?

[Mibbes Aye]

I would suggest its about far more than that mate …. the intention is to have a country whose social values are far more advanced in practice than the UK can currently manage or has the political will to implement. Scotland decade after decade in UK general elections overwhelmingly votes for political parties who at least state the intention to do that and yet we rarely gets that type of UK government. We now have a situation where the majority of Scots want the country to be part of the European Union and yet we are not going to be because the rest of the UK barring N Ireland voted against it …. Yes there is an emotional element to this, nobody can deny that, but Its far more than about a change of flag on a building and its incredibly dismissive and bordering on arrogant to suggest it is.

To project how Scotland will finance itself using amongst many other revenue streams oil revenues may in your opinion be wrong … but absolutely every country in the world with access to fossil fuels, be that oil, coal or gas … or uranium for that matter ... does and will continue to do exactly the same thing. The absolute hard and inescapable truth is that for any projection of an independent Scotland's possible financial health to exclude oil revenues would be stupidity bordering on rampant incompetence and nobody seeing a political party doing that would take it in the slightest bit seriously, apart from you it would appear.

There is no doubt that Scotland producing oil after independence wont do the planet any favours, nobody is disputing that, including me. But you still haven't addressed the gaping and glaringly obvious hole in your argument, which is how would voting against Scotland becoming an independent country in any future referendum make any difference whatsoever to the amount of oil being extracted from the North sea?

The obvious and utterly inescapable answer is that it will make absolutely no difference, so as I said before using the question of oil production in ecological terms as a reason for Scotland not to be independent is absolutely nonsensical because the outcome will be the same so far as oil production is concerned whether folk vote yes, no, or don't vote at all.

To say the rest of the UK voted for Brexit against Scotland's wishes is misleading, to say the least.

A huge amount of Scottish voters voted for Brexit, including a big share of SNP voters.

I like and respect your point about values. I have said before that Scotland, since devolution and including under the SNP has introduced good legislation, particularly around mental health. Scotland, in terms of social care and how it is legislated for and regulated is seen as a benchmark globally and that is a good thing.

At the same time, the UK has seen great progressive legislation over the last few decades. Laws about gender equality, racial equality, worker protection, equal pay, the Open University, the minimum wage. credits to lift children and pensioners out of poverty to name but some.

There's been good legislation from Holyrood and there's been good legislation from Westminster.

As for the oil, I've answered that in the previous post.

It is up to us to make the tough decisions.

We aren't responsible for what the rest of the world does, but we are responsible for what we do.

We have a choice.

Walking away from oil probably makes us poorer and probably prolongs human existence.

Tough choice, especially if it's sold on being based on a twirly flag.

[NAE NOOKIE]

It is.

I don't believe the UK should continue producing oil.

I got a vote where I was told that Scotland would be better off because of oil revenues if it got a supposedly bigger share of them.

Asides from how dubious those suggestions where, I'm a firm believer in the role of the state and would happily pay more taxes on my income were they for the betterment of the people..

It doesn't matter what other oil-producing countries do, we have to set an ethical standard we believe in and act upon it. And not ignore that the planet is dying because of fossil fuels.

How could you live any other way?

Yes, but how is this an argument against voting for Scottish independence from the UK when a vote either way yes or no will make absolutely no difference whatsoever to what you would like to see vis a vis saving the planet?

[RyeSloan]

These are some good articles that explains where I was coming from.

Exciting times for Scotland.

https://www.itv.com/news/2018-11-22/why-scotland-is-leading-the-way-in-renewable-energy-and-what-we-can-learn-from-it/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/renewable-energy-electricity-wind-wave-scotland-climate-change-oil-gas-a8283166.html

J

Yeah as I said no doubt Scotland has done rather well in installing renewable sources. That does not however make us a world leader in the technology, there’s a large and fundamental difference between the two.

The concept that somehow Scotland is leading the world in renewable tech is an erroneous one. In fact in terms of total capacity and investment Scotland doesn’t even register despite the large percentage figures quoted in your articles.

That of course doesn’t mean we haven’t done an excellent job of harnessing and exploiting renewables because we have.

[NAE NOOKIE]

To say the rest of the UK voted for Brexit against Scotland's wishes is misleading, to say the least.

A huge amount of Scottish voters voted for Brexit, including a big share of SNP voters.

I like and respect your point about values. I have said before that Scotland, since devolution and including under the SNP has introduced good legislation, particularly around mental health. Scotland, in terms of social care and how it is legislated for and regulated is seen as a benchmark globally and that is a good thing.

At the same time, the UK has seen great progressive legislation over the last few decades. Laws about gender equality, racial equality, worker protection, equal pay, the Open University, the minimum wage. credits to lift children and pensioners out of poverty to name but some.

There's been good legislation from Holyrood and there's been good legislation from Westminster.

As for the oil, I've answered that in the previous post.

It is up to us to make the tough decisions.

We aren't responsible for what the rest of the world does, but we are responsible for what we do.

We have a choice.

Walking away from oil probably makes us poorer and probably prolongs human existence.

Tough choice, especially if it's sold on being based on a twirly flag.

I didn't say that the rest of the UK voted for Brexit against Scotland's wishes. What I said was Scotland's vote was a tiny part of a far larger demographic and as such it was lost in the avalanche from the rest of the UK.

This goes to the heart of the matter when it comes to the question 'what exactly is the UK?' ….. It has been punted more than once as a 'partnership of nations' by unionists, not least of all Theresa May quite recently. For folk like me that is a ridiculous notion, there is no question of something being put to a vote in a room somewhere and England, Scotland, Wales and N Ireland having an equal say in the outcome.

What the UK is is a unitary state where the constituent member with by far the largest population dictates every single decision it makes, be that through votes in parliament or in referenda …. In that situation Scotland cannot be viewed in any sense as a country, what it is in actual fact is a defacto region of England, as are Wales and N Ireland …. this is easily demonstrated by the results of well over two thirds of the UK general elections held since the war where if Scotland had been an independent country it would have had almost exclusively Labour governments and two SNP governments … but as part of the UK was governed by neither for much of that period.

As I've said many times, that's not England's fault its a simple matter of arithmetic. But from my point of view and I would imagine the view of the majority of Scottish nationalists, what country that wants to call itself one would be happy to put itself in that position? … a position where the wants, asperations and political will of its citizens can almost always only ever be realised so long as they are in alignment with the citizens of a far larger nation, and a nation which on a regular basis has a different political outlook to itself. What modern independent nation state would agree to such a state of affairs and sign up to it?

So in my opinion if someone is happy to be British that's fine by me, but that does not make them a citizen ( sorry, I mean subject ) of a country made up of a partnership of nations .. what that makes them is a citizen of a country which in all but name is England … in fact the country is recognised as such by the majority of the words population who when asked what that wee collection of islands off the west coast of Europe is called will point to it and say 'England'

Now, where's that wee twirly flag.

Oh and PS

You haven't answered the question about oil at all in relation to the independence debate. What you have given is your opinion that oil shouldn't be produced anywhere in the world in order to save the planet, including production in Scotland.

But that's not the answer to the question, because the question is in what way does Scotland being independent or not make any difference whatsoever to oil being produced in the North sea from now until it runs out, in the sure and certain scenario that whoever controls it in the future will continue to exploit it. The answer is that it wont make the slightest bit of difference and therefor how does your contention that folk shouldn't vote for independence because Scotland will exploit this natural resource for the economic ( if not ecological ) benefit of its citizens, just as the UK would, make any sense as a reason not to vote for independence?

If you come back on this and don't address that simple question I will have to conclude that you are being deliberately obtuse.

[1875godsgift]

I didn't say that the rest of the UK voted for Brexit against Scotland's wishes. What I said was Scotland's vote was a tiny part of a far larger demographic and as such it was lost in the avalanche from the rest of the UK.

This goes to the heart of the matter when it comes to the question 'what exactly is the UK?' ….. It has been punted more than once as a 'partnership of nations' by unionists, not least of all Theresa May quite recently. For folk like me that is a ridiculous notion, there is no question of something being put to a vote in a room somewhere and England, Scotland, Wales and N Ireland having an equal say in the outcome.

What the UK is is a unitary state where the constituent member with by far the largest population dictates every single decision it makes, be that through votes in parliament or in referenda …. In that situation Scotland cannot be viewed in any sense as a country, what it is in actual fact is a defacto region of England, as are Wales and N Ireland …. this is easily demonstrated by the results of well over two thirds of the UK general elections held since the war where if Scotland had been an independent country it would have had almost exclusively Labour governments and two SNP governments … but as part of the UK was governed by neither for much of that period.

As I've said many times, that's not England's fault its a simple matter of arithmetic. But from my point of view and I would imagine the view of the majority of Scottish nationalists, what country that wants to call itself one would be happy to put itself in that position? … a position where the wants, asperations and political will of its citizens can almost always only ever be realised so long as they are in alignment with the citizens of a far larger nation, and a nation which on a regular basis has a different political outlook to itself. What modern independent nation state would agree to such a state of affairs and sign up to it?

So in my opinion if someone is happy to be British that's fine by me, but that does not make them a citizen ( sorry, I mean subject ) of a country made up of a partnership of nations .. what that makes them is a citizen of a country which in all but name is England … in fact the country is recognised as such by the majority of the words population who when asked what that wee collection of islands off the west coast of Europe is called will point to it and say 'England'

Now, where's that wee twirly flag?

:saltireflag

[Mibbes Aye]

I didn't say that the rest of the UK voted for Brexit against Scotland's wishes. What I said was Scotland's vote was a tiny part of a far larger demographic and as such it was lost in the avalanche from the rest of the UK.

This goes to the heart of the matter when it comes to the question 'what exactly is the UK?' ….. It has been punted more than once as a 'partnership of nations' by unionists, not least of all Theresa May quite recently. For folk like me that is a ridiculous notion, there is no question of something being put to a vote in a room somewhere and England, Scotland, Wales and N Ireland having an equal say in the outcome.

What the UK is is a unitary state where the constituent member with by far the largest population dictates every single decision it makes, be that through votes in parliament or in referenda …. In that situation Scotland cannot be viewed in any sense as a country, what it is in actual fact is a defacto region of England, as are Wales and N Ireland …. this is easily demonstrated by the results of well over two thirds of the UK general elections held since the war where if Scotland had been an independent country it would have had almost exclusively Labour governments and two SNP governments … but as part of the UK was governed by neither for much of that period.

As I've said many times, that's not England's fault its a simple matter of arithmetic. But from my point of view and I would imagine the view of the majority of Scottish nationalists, what country that wants to call itself one would be happy to put itself in that position? … a position where the wants, asperations and political will of its citizens can almost always only ever be realised so long as they are in alignment with the citizens of a far larger nation, and a nation which on a regular basis has a different political outlook to itself. What modern independent nation state would agree to such a state of affairs and sign up to it?

So in my opinion if someone is happy to be British that's fine by me, but that does not make them a citizen ( sorry, I mean subject ) of a country made up of a partnership of nations .. what that makes them is a citizen of a country which in all but name is England … in fact the country is recognised as such by the majority of the words population who when asked what that wee collection of islands off the west coast of Europe is called will point to it and say 'England'

Now, where's that wee twirly flag.


Your argument seems to be that we should have an independent Scotland because it disagrees with the wishes of England.

England is neither an unanimous or harmonious voice.

As a whole and in its distinct regions and cities it voted widely differently on the basis of brexit.

Here's a wild card. Scotland in total voted against and so did London. London is economically sound, if in Europe, and the SNP told us Scotland is rich because of oil. What say a partnership, based on economic benefit?

Perhaps more importantly, you seemed signed up to an idea of 'Scotland' that doesn't really stand up.

The union is a modern invention, dating back a couple of hundred years.

It's based on a distinction between the Highlands and Lowlands that didn't exist until somebody named them.

And those areas and identities stem from lines drawn on a map by regional barons at the time.

I live in the Borders and grew up in Edinburgh. The towns around me are closer to the towns in Northumberland than they are to those in the Lothians

And my identity and career makes me as close to someone in Birmingham or Norwich as it does Aberdeen or Perth, let alone Musselburgh or Bathgate which are closer to where I live.

I don't choose to identify by a twirly flag. Nor should anyone else unless it signifies something other than nationalist tropes, especially the patronising tone when they talk about 'civic natiolnalism'

Regardless, I'm not throwing my toys out the pram by being called British because I want to be called Scottish.

Bigger priorities in life.

[1875godsgift]

Your argument seems to be that we should have an independent Scotland because it disagrees with the wishes of England.

England is neither an unanimous or harmonious voice.

That's their problem.

As a whole and in its distinct regions and cities it voted widely differently on the basis of brexit.

Scotland was 60% remain.

Here's a wild card. Scotland in total voted against and so did London. London is economically sound, if in Europe, and the SNP told us Scotland is rich because of oil. What say a partnership, based on economic benefit?

You arrange that one pal, good luck.

Perhaps more importantly, you seemed signed up to an idea of 'Scotland' that doesn't really stand up.

The union is a modern invention, dating back a couple of hundred years.

It's based on a distinction between the Highlands and Lowlands that didn't exist until somebody named them.

And those areas and identities stem from lines drawn on a map by regional barons at the time.

The Union is over 300 years old, is that modern? Is England still part of the Roman Empire? What about Poland, is that still part of the USSR?


I live in the Borders and grew up in Edinburgh. The towns around me are closer to the towns in Northumberland than they are to those in the Lothians

And my identity and career makes me as close to someone in Birmingham or Norwich as it does Aberdeen or Perth, let alone Musselburgh or Bathgate which are closer to where I live.

I don't choose to identify by a twirly flag. Nor should anyone else unless it signifies something other than nationalist tropes, especially the patronising tone when they talk about 'civic natiolnalism'

But it's not all about you though, is it?

Regardless, I'm not throwing my toys out the pram by being called British because I want to be called Scottish.

Bigger priorities in life.

Do you want to be called Scottish?

and breathe

[Mibbes Aye]

and breathe

Have you got any rational points to any of the points I made?
I will happily entertain you if so.

[GlesgaeHibby]

It is.

I don't believe the UK should continue producing oil.

I got a vote where I was told that Scotland would be better off because of oil revenues if it got a supposedly bigger share of them.

Asides from how dubious those suggestions where, I'm a firm believer in the role of the state and would happily pay more taxes on my income were they for the betterment of the people..

It doesn't matter what other oil-producing countries do, we have to set an ethical standard we believe in and act upon it. And not ignore that the planet is dying because of fossil fuels.

How could you live any other way?

Timescales? Oil is going to be around for a long time yet, especially given that it is used for so many other products (plastics etc.) and not just fuel - including as a lubricant in wind turbines.

Switching transport from ICE engines to EVs is going to take years, especially given demand far outstrips supply at present.

[Bristolhibby]

Yeah as I said no doubt Scotland has done rather well in installing renewable sources. That does not however make us a world leader in the technology, there’s a large and fundamental difference between the two.

The concept that somehow Scotland is leading the world in renewable tech is an erroneous one. In fact in terms of total capacity and investment Scotland doesn’t even register despite the large percentage figures quoted in your articles.

That of course doesn’t mean we haven’t done an excellent job of harnessing and exploiting renewables because we have.

How about, per capita we are one of the world leaders in producing electricity through renewable sources?

If we invent the tech or use the tech effectively, doesn’t really matter to me. There’s a growing industry that will only get bigger as the world switches to renewables.

J

[JeMeSouviens]

Timescales? Oil is going to be around for a long time yet, especially given that it is used for so many other products (plastics etc.) and not just fuel - including as a lubricant in wind turbines.

Switching transport from ICE engines to EVs is going to take years, especially given demand far outstrips supply at present.

Exactly. You can’t wish away the need for at least a couple of decades more oil and a secure supply will be a useful thing to have for a while yet. Which was the point I was trying to make that started this tangent...

[RyeSloan]

How about, per capita we are one of the world leaders in producing electricity through renewable sources?

If we invent the tech or use the tech effectively, doesn’t really matter to me. There’s a growing industry that will only get bigger as the world switches to renewables.

J

I’m labouring the point now but I’m doing so as I think it’s important as your statement and similar has been associated with Indy on here and elsewhere numerous times.

Renewables as an industry is getting bigger all the time, huge investment is being ploughed in and world leaders created. Scotland is NOT one of them.

I’ve already listed some of the worlds leading firms in the area, none of which are Scottish.

Look up renewable investment numbers by country and you won’t see Scotland in any leading position on the list.

Look up installed renewable capacity by country and Scotland is a long way down.

The fact we have a large installed renewable capacity as a percentage of our base load capacity is admirable. It does not however make us world leaders in the industry nor provide the alluded to economic benefits such a position would entail.

Looking at installed capacity the Scot gov states earlier this year that it was 10GW (along with the usual petty unsubstantiated dig at Westminster...changes btw that amongst other things have facilitated the use of grid level renewable storage)

https://news.gov.scot/news/record-year-for-renewables-generation

Yet that is only 25% of the capacity cited for the UK alone of 40GW

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/29/renewables-uk-electricity-generation-tops-30-scotland-increases-by-11/

So as an argument for Indy it’s flawed and meaningless.

In fact now I think of it, it could be argued that we have achieved a large and successful investment in renewables without the need for Indy.

[Ozyhibby]

I’m labouring the point now but I’m doing so as I think it’s important as your statement and similar has been associated with Indy on here and elsewhere numerous times.

Renewables as an industry is getting bigger all the time, huge investment is being ploughed in and world leaders created. Scotland is NOT one of them.

I’ve already listed some of the worlds leading firms in the area, none of which are Scottish.

Look up renewable investment numbers by country and you won’t see Scotland in any leading position on the list.

Look up installed renewable capacity by country and Scotland is a long way down.

The fact we have a large installed renewable capacity as a percentage of our base load capacity is admirable. It does not however make us world leaders in the industry nor provide the alluded to economic benefits such a position would entail.

Looking at installed capacity the Scot gov states earlier this year that it was 10GW (along with the usual petty unsubstantiated dig at Westminster...changes btw that amongst other things have facilitated the use of grid level renewable storage)

https://news.gov.scot/news/record-year-for-renewables-generation

Yet that is only 25% of the capacity cited for the UK alone of 40GW

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/29/renewables-uk-electricity-generation-tops-30-scotland-increases-by-11/

So as an argument for Indy it’s flawed and meaningless.

In fact now I think of it, it could be argued that we have achieved a large and successful investment in renewables without the need for Indy.

The best way to increase our use of renewables is to only buy your energy from renewable providers. It encourages investment in renewable energy at the expense of fossil fuels. The market is your friend here. I actually saved money when I switched and if you are with one of the big 6 energy supplier then it’s likely that anyone will save money.
None of this has anything to do with independence though. As an independent country we are likely to make terrible decisions as well as good decisions. Nothing will change in that respect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pollution]

<br><br>What a boring out of date topic.<br><br>There is no chance of independence any time soon. More than 1000000 voters would need to change their mind to make it so.<br><br>The economy is good, unemployment is as low as I can remember so let's get on with the shameful Brexit and try to make something of it.<br><br>Shameful - yes - not my choice but that is the wish of the UK electorate. We must accept it, that is democracy. Like it or not. A referendum is precisely that.<br><br>Independence is dead. Forget it.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Your argument seems to be that we should have an independent Scotland because it disagrees with the wishes of England.

England is neither an unanimous or harmonious voice.

As a whole and in its distinct regions and cities it voted widely differently on the basis of brexit.

Here's a wild card. Scotland in total voted against and so did London. London is economically sound, if in Europe, and the SNP told us Scotland is rich because of oil. What say a partnership, based on economic benefit?

Perhaps more importantly, you seemed signed up to an idea of 'Scotland' that doesn't really stand up.

The union is a modern invention, dating back a couple of hundred years.

It's based on a distinction between the Highlands and Lowlands that didn't exist until somebody named them.

And those areas and identities stem from lines drawn on a map by regional barons at the time.

I live in the Borders and grew up in Edinburgh. The towns around me are closer to the towns in Northumberland than they are to those in the Lothians

And my identity and career makes me as close to someone in Birmingham or Norwich as it does Aberdeen or Perth, let alone Musselburgh or Bathgate which are closer to where I live.

I don't choose to identify by a twirly flag. Nor should anyone else unless it signifies something other than nationalist tropes, especially the patronising tone when they talk about 'civic natiolnalism'

Regardless, I'm not throwing my toys out the pram by being called British because I want to be called Scottish.

Bigger priorities in life.

No I believe Scotland should be an independent nation because if it has any pretensions to be a real country in the true sense of a nation state it has to be independent.

The fact that England has many political and social divisions is immaterial. In fact throwing that into the mix exactly reinforces my point, because if that's a reason for Scotland not to be an independent country what you are in effect doing is saying its just like any region of the UK … whereas I in my simple minded little way am daft enough to think of it as a country and want it to be a proper one.

I'm 58 and have lived in the Borders since I was 9 …. I cant say I've ever come across any sense that the border towns are closer to those in Northumberland than the Lothians .. perhaps if you live in Coldstream and pop into Berwick every now and again, but here in the central Borders all roads lead to Edinburgh mate.

As for the rest of it …… Loads of people can make a connection with folk all over the UK based on the nature of their work, why that should be relevant to their notion of whether or not Scotland should be an independent country is beyond me, those connections will still exist after independence. And as for my notion of Scotland, I know just fine how it became a country, which is far from unique in Europe, but for centuries before the union its people recognised it as a country, to the extent where they were prepared to fight to keep it one …. and certainly to the extent that the ordinary folk rioted in the streets when the union was foisted upon them, ironically in Edinburgh more than anywhere.

As for patronising nationalism and twirly flags …….. Most people in the world identify themselves as being from a country and seem happy and proud to do so. If anything can be described as 'patronising' its this barely disguised air of intellectual superiority folk like you display when looking down your noses at those of us who buy into our national identity.

[weecounty hibby]

<br><br>What a boring out of date topic.<br><br>There is no chance of independence any time soon. More than 1000000 voters would need to change their mind to make it so.<br><br>The economy is good, unemployment is as low as I can remember so let's get on with the shameful Brexit and try to make something of it.<br><br>Shameful - yes - not my choice but that is the wish of the UK electorate. We must accept it, that is democracy. Like it or not. A referendum is precisely that.<br><br>Independence is dead. Forget it.
Loads of gobbledegook in that post. Most of all the 1 million voters who need to change their minds. The rough count was approx 2 million no and 1.6 million yes. So really all that is required is about 200,000 or so voters to change their minds.

[hhibs]

To say the rest of the UK voted for Brexit against Scotland's wishes is misleading, to say the least.

A huge amount of Scottish voters voted for Brexit, including a big share of SNP voters.

I like and respect your point about values. I have said before that Scotland, since devolution and including under the SNP has introduced good legislation, particularly around mental health. Scotland, in terms of social care and how it is legislated for and regulated is seen as a benchmark globally and that is a good thing.

At the same time, the UK has seen great progressive legislation over the last few decades. Laws about gender equality, racial equality, worker protection, equal pay, the Open University, the minimum wage. credits to lift children and pensioners out of poverty to name but some.

There's been good legislation from Holyrood and there's been good legislation from Westminster.

As for the oil, I've answered that in the previous post.

It is up to us to make the tough decisions.

We aren't responsible for what the rest of the world does, but we are responsible for what we do.

We have a choice.

Walking away from oil probably makes us poorer and probably prolongs human existence.

Tough choice, especially if it's sold on being based on a twirly flag.






Seems to me you are a lost cause,facts and information just make you dig into your rather strange world view even more.

So lets not waste our time on this guy

[ronaldo7]

[QUOTE=Mibbes Aye;5654473]Have you got any rational points to any of the points I made?
I will happily entertain you if so.[/QUOTE

He's only asked you 5 questions that I've counted. Maybe a flag got in your way whilst you were reading his post, and you missed them.

You've taken this thread on a bit of a journey in the last couple of days, and seem all over the place.

You ok hun?

[ronaldo7]

Loads of gobbledegook in that post. Most of all the 1 million voters who need to change their minds. The rough count was approx 2 million no and 1.6 million yes. So really all that is required is about 200,000 or so voters to change their minds.

I wonder if that 200k equates to any grouping who probably voted no the last time.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Your argument seems to be that we should have an independent Scotland because it disagrees with the wishes of England.

England is neither an unanimous or harmonious voice.

As a whole and in its distinct regions and cities it voted widely differently on the basis of brexit.

Here's a wild card. Scotland in total voted against and so did London. London is economically sound, if in Europe, and the SNP told us Scotland is rich because of oil. What say a partnership, based on economic benefit?

Perhaps more importantly, you seemed signed up to an idea of 'Scotland' that doesn't really stand up.

The union is a modern invention, dating back a couple of hundred years.

It's based on a distinction between the Highlands and Lowlands that didn't exist until somebody named them.

And those areas and identities stem from lines drawn on a map by regional barons at the time.

I live in the Borders and grew up in Edinburgh. The towns around me are closer to the towns in Northumberland than they are to those in the Lothians

And my identity and career makes me as close to someone in Birmingham or Norwich as it does Aberdeen or Perth, let alone Musselburgh or Bathgate which are closer to where I live.

I don't choose to identify by a twirly flag. Nor should anyone else unless it signifies something other than nationalist tropes, especially the patronising tone when they talk about 'civic natiolnalism'

Regardless, I'm not throwing my toys out the pram by being called British because I want to be called Scottish.

Bigger priorities in life.

Sorry to quote the same post twice, but I felt I had to address the highlighted bit more thoroughly.

In what way does what you said there correlate to 'my idea of Scotland' based on what I have said in my posts on this thread? And more pertinently what does what you have said make Scotland in your view then?

You tell me that the union is a modern invention dating back a couple of hundred years, well three if you want to be pedantic. But how does that knowledge relate to Scotland's status as a country since it first identified as one and in relation to this debate? ... I fail to see the relevance.

"Its ( I presume you mean the union ) based on a distinction between the highlands and the lowlands that didn't exist until somebody named them" "And those areas and identities stem from lines on a map drawn by regional barons at the time"

This part of your post could be applied to every square inch of the surface of planet earth … if its an attempt to make the case that countries and regions as identified on the map are artificial constructs brought about by circumstances such as a common language, cultural common ground, conquest, social change and politics you will get no argument from me … that's is after all how countries come about.

But how that equates to a case against an independent Scotland is beyond me …. what that looks like is making a case for a world with no countries run by some sort of benevolent global government. Its a lovely idea mate and who wouldn't want to live in that utopia .. its never going to happen, barring the science fiction scenario where all of a sudden earth is faced with a common enemy and is forced to band together to fight it off.

In short, as with much of your musings on this subject its all very interesting as an intellectual paper exercise, but as to its relevance to where Scotland stands at this moment in time and the pros and cons of independence versus staying in the union I cant see where it advances your argument, or the debate in general, at all.

If my wish to see Scotland independent makes me a Scottish nationalist … which it certainly does … then I'm at a loss to see why folk who wish to maintain the union aren't described as British nationalists, that after all is exactly what they are.

[NAE NOOKIE]

I wonder if that 200k equates to any grouping who probably voted no the last time.

Like EU nationals scared into thinking a yes vote would be detrimental to their lives by a load of lies for example :agree:

[Jack]

Like EU nationals scared into thinking a yes vote would be detrimental to their lives by a load of lies for example :agree:

It people that have died!

[Ozyhibby]

Independence needs uk to stay in the single market and Customs union. If we leave either than independence has no chance because there is no way people will vote for a hard border.
The next few months is very important.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GlesgaeHibby]

I’m labouring the point now but I’m doing so as I think it’s important as your statement and similar has been associated with Indy on here and elsewhere numerous times.

Renewables as an industry is getting bigger all the time, huge investment is being ploughed in and world leaders created. Scotland is NOT one of them.

I’ve already listed some of the worlds leading firms in the area, none of which are Scottish.

Look up renewable investment numbers by country and you won’t see Scotland in any leading position on the list.

Look up installed renewable capacity by country and Scotland is a long way down.

The fact we have a large installed renewable capacity as a percentage of our base load capacity is admirable. It does not however make us world leaders in the industry nor provide the alluded to economic benefits such a position would entail.

Looking at installed capacity the Scot gov states earlier this year that it was 10GW (along with the usual petty unsubstantiated dig at Westminster...changes btw that amongst other things have facilitated the use of grid level renewable storage)

https://news.gov.scot/news/record-year-for-renewables-generation (https://news.gov.scot/news/record-year-for-renewables-generation)

Yet that is only 25% of the capacity cited for the UK alone of 40GW

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/29/renewables-uk-electricity-generation-tops-30-scotland-increases-by-11/ (https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/29/renewables-uk-electricity-generation-tops-30-scotland-increases-by-11/)

So as an argument for Indy it’s flawed and meaningless.

In fact now I think of it, it could be argued that we have achieved a large and successful investment in renewables without the need for Indy.

Renewable capacity per capita is probably a more realistic number. Trying to compare Scotland with large country's like Germany or USA is unfair - of course they've got more installed capacity. For a small nation we're punching above our weight.

There are very few (new) storage projects in the UK. Plenty of developers looking at them, and have submitted planning applications for large stand alone battery projects, or co-located with renewable generation. The costs involved in the technology are prohibitive, with most developers sitting tight for the time being until the market moves.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Independence needs uk to stay in the single market and Customs union. If we leave either than independence has no chance because there is no way people will vote for a hard border.
The next few months is very important.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't get this argument. An independent Scotland would almost certainly become part of the EU so we would be replacing what are about to become 27 hard borders with one. Now I don't deny for a second that our border with England would be our most important one with regards to travel and commerce, but to maximise the flow of goods into as painless a process as possible would be mutually beneficial to both countries and I'm reasonably sure that even under EU rules a way would be found to do that. Just as they will between Northern Ireland and the Republic if it comes to it.

After all, the flow of commercial traffic between Scotland and England is miniscule compared to the same flow between the UK and the EU …. I doubt the logistical problems a hard border between Scotland and England would present would be anything like as nightmarish as the UK / EU borders in the south of England will.

[Ozyhibby]

I don't get this argument. An independent Scotland would almost certainly become part of the EU so we would be replacing what are about to become 27 hard borders with one. Now I don't deny for a second that our border with England would be our most important one with regards to travel and commerce, but to maximise the flow of goods into as painless a process as possible would be mutually beneficial to both countries and I'm reasonably sure that even under EU rules a way would be found to do that. Just as they will between Northern Ireland and the Republic if it comes to it.

After all, the flow of commercial traffic between Scotland and England is miniscule compared to the same flow between the UK and the EU …. I doubt the logistical problems a hard border between Scotland and England would present would be anything like as nightmarish as the UK / EU borders in the south of England will.

There is plenty of logic in what you say but this is about winning a popular vote. There is no chance of winning a popular vote while the threat of border posts is there. People will just not vote for a hard border.
Whatever happens with Brexit, staying in the single market is key.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NAE NOOKIE]

There is plenty of logic in what you say but this is about winning a popular vote. There is no chance of winning a popular vote while the threat of border posts is there. People will just not vote for a hard border.
Whatever happens with Brexit, staying in the single market is key.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wont deny that its a factor mate …. but at the end of the day I find it rather depressing that a persons view on independence would be swayed by the thought of having to stop at a border post for a wee while in order to present their passport.

Its a bit like those folk who moan about 'oh no not another general election' when in reality what that means for them is a few more political programmes on the telly and having to take a few moments out of their busy day in the period of at worse two years in order to go and vote. Meanwhile in what a lot of them would regard as 'underdeveloped countries far less sophisticated than we are' folk queue for hours and hours just to cast their vote, sometimes under the threat of violence. Some folk dinnae bloody well deserve democracy.

[Ozyhibby]

I wont deny that its a factor mate …. but at the end of the day I find it rather depressing that a persons view on independence would be swayed by the thought of having to stop at a border post for a wee while in order to present their passport.

Its a bit like those folk who moan about 'oh no not another general election' when in reality what that means for them is a few more political programmes on the telly and having to take a few moments out of their busy day in the period of at worse two years in order to go and vote. Meanwhile in what a lot of them would regard as 'underdeveloped countries far less sophisticated than we are' folk queue for hours and hours just to cast their vote, sometimes under the threat of violence. Some folk dinnae bloody well deserve democracy.

That’s the world we live in though. We have to persuade the electorate as it is now not how we wish it would be. Border and currency are two areas that need to be neutralised by any future Yes campaign.
Border issue will be settled one way or another very soon, currency needs much more work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NAE NOOKIE]

That’s the world we live in though. We have to persuade the electorate as it is now not how we wish it would be. Border and currency are two areas that need to be neutralised by any future Yes campaign.
Border issue will be settled one way or another very soon, currency needs much more work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Deh ken aboot that …. we could join the Euro, by the time this mess is done with it will probably be a stronger currency than the pound for all of its historical birth pains :greengrin

For all of my flippancy I agree with you mate …. the pro independence side will indeed have to come up with a reasonable counter argument to both issues, because we know from bitter experience that the unionists will do everything they can to paint as nightmarish a scenario as they can around both of them.

[MrSmith]

That’s the world we live in though. We have to persuade the electorate as it is now not how we wish it would be. Border and currency are two areas that need to be neutralised by any future Yes campaign.
Border issue will be settled one way or another very soon, currency needs much more work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hey Ozy, the currency issue does not need resolved. We (Scotland) have as much right to use the pound as our currency as the English do. Th English have copyright on the £ character only. We have a choice of currency re Euro, Pound or our own so, no issue.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Hey Ozy, the currency issue does not need resolved. We (Scotland) have as much right to use the pound as our currency as the English do. Th English have copyright on the £ character only. We have a choice of currency re Euro, Pound or our own so, no issue.

Ah, now yer talking :aok:

The Poond :greengrin

[Ozyhibby]

Hey Ozy, the currency issue does not need resolved. We (Scotland) have as much right to use the pound as our currency as the English do. Th English have copyright on the £ character only. We have a choice of currency re Euro, Pound or our own so, no issue.

I agree but that is not referendum winning stance. We need to be able to offer complete stability to people. We can’t offer to use the pound again and have the uk chancellor saying we can’t no matter the rights and wrongs of that, people will believe that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

Hey Ozy, the currency issue does not need resolved. We (Scotland) have as much right to use the pound as our currency as the English do. Th English have copyright on the £ character only. We have a choice of currency re Euro, Pound or our own so, no issue.

If you learnt anything from the 1st referendum it was a plausible and iron clad case for a currency is needed.

The Euro is a risk and people will be unsure of moving to a brand new currency, and it does not have a great history. Same issues with the pound as last time will surface so how is that countered? A new currency is a possibility, would need more information on that if true.

Can I ask why you refer to the 'English' its the rest of the UK that use the £, that's Wales and NI and not just England that will decide.

[MrSmith]

If you learnt anything from the 1st referendum it was a plausible and iron clad case for a currency is needed.

The Euro is a risk and people will be unsure of moving to a brand new currency, and it does not have a great history. Same issues with the pound as last time will surface so how is that countered? A new currency is a possibility, would need more information on that if true.

Can I ask why you refer to the 'English' its the rest of the UK that use the £, that's Wales and NI and not just England that will decide.

It's specifically a Scotland/England thing. Go research the pound and you'll find out why.

[Mibbes Aye]

Sorry to quote the same post twice, but I felt I had to address the highlighted bit more thoroughly.

In what way does what you said there correlate to 'my idea of Scotland' based on what I have said in my posts on this thread? And more pertinently what does what you have said make Scotland in your view then?

You tell me that the union is a modern invention dating back a couple of hundred years, well three if you want to be pedantic. But how does that knowledge relate to Scotland's status as a country since it first identified as one and in relation to this debate? ... I fail to see the relevance.

"Its ( I presume you mean the union ) based on a distinction between the highlands and the lowlands that didn't exist until somebody named them" "And those areas and identities stem from lines on a map drawn by regional barons at the time"

This part of your post could be applied to every square inch of the surface of planet earth … if its an attempt to make the case that countries and regions as identified on the map are artificial constructs brought about by circumstances such as a common language, cultural common ground, conquest, social change and politics you will get no argument from me … that's is after all how countries come about.

But how that equates to a case against an independent Scotland is beyond me …. what that looks like is making a case for a world with no countries run by some sort of benevolent global government. Its a lovely idea mate and who wouldn't want to live in that utopia .. its never going to happen, barring the science fiction scenario where all of a sudden earth is faced with a common enemy and is forced to band together to fight it off.

In short, as with much of your musings on this subject its all very interesting as an intellectual paper exercise, but as to its relevance to where Scotland stands at this moment in time and the pros and cons of independence versus staying in the union I cant see where it advances your argument, or the debate in general, at all.

If my wish to see Scotland independent makes me a Scottish nationalist … which it certainly does … then I'm at a loss to see why folk who wish to maintain the union aren't described as British nationalists, that after all is exactly what they are.

I suppose my point would be that if in a hole, then one shouldn't dig deeper. Going down the path of further splintering and disintegrating can't be a positive, especially when it is based on artificial constructs that you've described perfectly yourself.

If we step back and take a wide view, our trajectory has been away from crude and arbitrary divisions. Villages and towns became united through the desire for peace and prosperity. That led to the development, in the West, of the nation states, first through allegiance to kings and then through the rise of liberal democracies.

It didn't stop those nations warring with each other and it took a few hundred years and finally two cataclysmic wars to develop the principle of the European Union and the UN. Europe was plagued by war for hundreds of years with millions killed and displaced- the EU has managed to keep things relatively stable since the 1940s through a shared mindset that selflessness rather than selfishness yields greater dividends.

The UN is nowhere near having that impact but in the grand scheme of things it is at an early stage. I don't think we need some form of global government, but we do need agreement about ideas, big ideas. And sometimes that happens - the climate change agreements, agreement on landmines etc etc are proof that people can talk to each other and put self-interest aside in the pursuit of the greater good.

It doesn't happen enough and it doesn't happen without flaws but our history and our future must be about breaking down differences, not creating them.

[NAE NOOKIE]

I suppose my point would be that if in a hole, then one shouldn't dig deeper. Going down the path of further splintering and disintegrating can't be a positive, especially when it is based on artificial constructs that you've described perfectly yourself.

If we step back and take a wide view, our trajectory has been away from crude and arbitrary divisions. Villages and towns became united through the desire for peace and prosperity. That led to the development, in the West, of the nation states, first through allegiance to kings and then through the rise of liberal democracies.

It didn't stop those nations warring with each other and it took a few hundred years and finally two cataclysmic wars to develop the principle of the European Union and the UN. Europe was plagued by war for hundreds of years with millions killed and displaced- the EU has managed to keep things relatively stable since the 1940s through a shared mindset that selflessness rather than selfishness yields greater dividends.

The UN is nowhere near having that impact but in the grand scheme of things it is at an early stage. I don't think we need some form of global government, but we do need agreement about ideas, big ideas. And sometimes that happens - the climate change agreements, agreement on landmines etc etc are proof that people can talk to each other and put self-interest aside in the pursuit of the greater good.

It doesn't happen enough and it doesn't happen without flaws but our history and our future must be about breaking down differences, not creating them.

Absolutely .. but as you will have noticed the UN and the EU are both examples of nation states agreeing to cooperate with each other while still retaining their individual sovereignty, including the right and ability to withdraw from either organisation at the stroke of a pen.

Scotland cannot withdraw from the union without the UK government giving its permission to hold a referendum on the matter or Scotland declaring a UDI which can never happen for all the reasons given further back in this thread.

I very much sympathise with your world view mate. I'm all for cooperation between states, but not when it involves giving up your status as an independent nation to do it. I'm all for peace and agreement between states for the greater good of the planet and all of its people … but seeing the sense in that and wanting that still isn't making a case for Scotland not being an independent nation, because we could work towards that goal just as effectively as an independent country … in fact probably more effectively, the independence movement is very much on the side of nuclear disarmament and sure as hell would never produce a Scottish government looking to spend billions on a couple of vanity project aircraft carriers to spread our imagined military might around the world.

[Mibbes Aye]

Absolutely .. but as you will have noticed the UN and the EU are both examples of nation states agreeing to cooperate with each other while still retaining their individual sovereignty, including the right and ability to withdraw from either organisation at the stroke of a pen.

Scotland cannot withdraw from the union without the UK government giving its permission to hold a referendum on the matter or Scotland declaring a UDI which can never happen for all the reasons given further back in this thread.

I very much sympathise with your world view mate. I'm all for cooperation between states, but not when it involves giving up your status as an independent nation to do it. I'm all for peace and agreement between states for the greater good of the planet and all of its people … but seeing the sense in that and wanting that still isn't making a case for Scotland not being an independent nation, because we could work towards that goal just as effectively as an independent country … in fact probably more effectively, the independence movement is very much on the side of nuclear disarmament and sure as hell would never produce a Scottish government looking to spend billions on a couple of vanity project aircraft carriers to spread our imagined military might around the world.

Except we don't retain individual sovereignty.

As part of the EU we are signed up to implementing EU-wide directives and legislation. I have no real issue with that as they have generally been progressive.

The point is we can't go into these things thinking we accept decisions on a case-by-case basis.

We compromise and accept that the pooled good means some things might go 'our' way and other things aren't what we would decide upon.

Incidentally, that's no different from what an independent Scotland would mean. What's right for Cambuslang might not be right for Caithness, what's wrong for Wick might be okay for Walkerburn.

Overall however, we produce a better common good by moving away from artificial or socially-constructed barriers and narratives. The greater the scale we can do that on, the better for the world.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Except we don't retain individual sovereignty.

As part of the EU we are signed up to implementing EU-wide directives and legislation. I have no real issue with that as they have generally been progressive.

The point is we can't go into these things thinking we accept decisions on a case-by-case basis.

We compromise and accept that the pooled good means some things might go 'our' way and other things aren't what we would decide upon.

Incidentally, that's no different from what an independent Scotland would mean. What's right for Cambuslang might not be right for Caithness, what's wrong for Wick might be okay for Walkerburn.

Overall however, we produce a better common good by moving away from artificial or socially-constructed barriers and narratives. The greater the scale we can do that on, the better for the world.

Yeh ok … noted. We are clearly going round in circles now just saying the same things in different ways and cluttering up the thread. I wont end by saying we will just have to agree to disagree because I actually am not against a lot of your views, just how they can or should be implemented, especially in the context of Scottish independence.

I would suggest though that you really need to hold off a bit on the 'wee twirly flag' stuff. Its unlikely you will win many converts to your argument or even get folk to listen at all by making comments which just come across as intellectual snobbery when you belittle their beliefs in such a way.

[Mibbes Aye]

Yeh ok … noted. We are clearly going round in circles now just saying the same things in different ways and cluttering up the thread. I wont end by saying we will just have to agree to disagree because I actually am not against a lot of your views, just how they can or should be implemented, especially in the context of Scottish independence.

I would suggest though that you really need to hold off a bit on the 'wee twirly flag' stuff. Its unlikely you will win many converts to your argument or even get folk to listen at all by making comments which just come across as intellectual snobbery when you belittle their beliefs in such a way

Fair point, you've put it across reasonably and I will take that on board.

I do have a problem with what I see as belief in the 'twirly flag' but I can accept it doesn't help my argument to push that and that it can insult people or push them away. By the same token it doesn't help when people are belligerently tied into belief systems that are not rational (not you, I hasten to add, but many of our nationalist fellow citizens).

I don't want to be perceived as a snob though I do want to elevate the argument. I firmly believe we are better than being tied into tropes that we have bought into for years, whether nationalism or otherwise. I am far from having the answers and will take criticism happily.

Happy to debate and I have the utmost respect for mannered and informed opinion and as far as it goes, I've read nothing but that from you.

[Smartie]

I agree but that is not referendum winning stance. We need to be able to offer complete stability to people. We can’t offer to use the pound again and have the uk chancellor saying we can’t no matter the rights and wrongs of that, people will believe that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We can't offer stability, and there is no risk-free option.

How "strong and stable" and "risk-free" does no-deal Brexit (increasingly looking like the alternative) look right now?

[Bristolhibby]

I’m labouring the point now but I’m doing so as I think it’s important as your statement and similar has been associated with Indy on here and elsewhere numerous times.

Renewables as an industry is getting bigger all the time, huge investment is being ploughed in and world leaders created. Scotland is NOT one of them.

I’ve already listed some of the worlds leading firms in the area, none of which are Scottish.

Look up renewable investment numbers by country and you won’t see Scotland in any leading position on the list.

Look up installed renewable capacity by country and Scotland is a long way down.

The fact we have a large installed renewable capacity as a percentage of our base load capacity is admirable. It does not however make us world leaders in the industry nor provide the alluded to economic benefits such a position would entail.

Looking at installed capacity the Scot gov states earlier this year that it was 10GW (along with the usual petty unsubstantiated dig at Westminster...changes btw that amongst other things have facilitated the use of grid level renewable storage)

https://news.gov.scot/news/record-year-for-renewables-generation

Yet that is only 25% of the capacity cited for the UK alone of 40GW

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/29/renewables-uk-electricity-generation-tops-30-scotland-increases-by-11/

So as an argument for Indy it’s flawed and meaningless.

In fact now I think of it, it could be argued that we have achieved a large and successful investment in renewables without the need for Indy.

I think you missed my “per capita” point. Of course China will generate more electricity and use more have renewables than Scotland, there’s 1.4 billion of them.

Reading through the stats in your post. A population of a 10th of the U.K. (Scotland’s) produces a quarter of ithe UK’s renewable energy. I’ll call that a per capita world leader.

J

[RyeSloan]

I think you missed my “per capita” point. Of course China will generate more electricity and use more have renewables than Scotland, there’s 1.4 billion of them.

Reading through the stats in your post. A population of a 10th of the U.K. (Scotland’s) produces a quarter of ithe UK’s renewable energy. I’ll call that a per capita world leader.

J

You original point was that Scotland was a world leader in renewable tech.

I’ve already agreed that we have done a good job in installing a large renewable base but really beyond a per capita number it’s nothing more than that. It’s certainly no basis for promotion of Indy nor does it mean we are world leaders in the industry (I.e. the corporations that develop the technology and manufacture the panels, turbines etc.).

And using per capita puts us behind the likes of Angola who have 100% renewable generation...are we to assume they are world leaders in renewables as well?

And one final point on that type of metric the per head of population that watch football on a Saturday is pretty high in Scotland, certainly doesn’t make us a world leader in the game.

[Bristolhibby]

You original point was that Scotland was a world leader in renewable tech.

I’ve already agreed that we have done a good job in installing a large renewable base but really beyond a per capita number it’s nothing more than that. It’s certainly no basis for promotion of Indy nor does it mean we are world leaders in the industry (I.e. the corporations that develop the technology and manufacture the panels, turbines etc.).

And using per capita puts us behind the likes of Angola who have 100% renewable generation...are we to assume they are world leaders in renewables as well?

And one final point on that type of metric the per head of population that watch football on a Saturday is pretty high in Scotland, certainly doesn’t make us a world leader in the game.

So what you are saying, that we could intice more foreign companies to Scotland to help develop more renewables.

So, not world leaders but pretty damn good. That’s a good foundation to build on. Supplemented with the oil in the North Sea (as a cherry on top), I’d say an Independent Scotland would thrive in energy production and be a net exporter.

I would say Angola are world leaders. If all there energy is delivered by renewable sources. They are world leaders.

Scotland is definately world leaders in watching live football at a football ground. (Not saying the game on the park is the best, but the numbers watching it must be applauded).

J

[James310]

https://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/scottish-wind-farm-paid-96m-to-switch-off-1-4846602/amp?__twitter_impression=true

So we are paying hundreds of millions of pounds to switch off renewable energy sources. We keep approving more so will end up paying more to switch them off? Something not right!

[jonty]

https://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/scottish-wind-farm-paid-96m-to-switch-off-1-4846602/amp?__twitter_impression=true

So we are paying hundreds of millions of pounds to switch off renewable energy sources. We keep approving more so will end up paying more to switch them off? Something not right!

I read that too and laughed. Its almost beyond belief - we've come on leaps and bounds in renewable energy but cant export it because the national grid cant take it.
A simplistic solution would be to get some of the tesla batteries to hold the surplus and feed back into the grid when its required. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-42190358

[Ozyhibby]

There are a few pump storage hydro schemes currently getting built to solve the problem of over capacity in wind.
https://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/3035897/new-pump-storage-hydro-project-could-power-400-000-scottish-houses-for-an-hour




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jack Hackett]

There are a few pump storage hydro schemes currently getting built to solve the problem of over capacity in wind.
https://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/3035897/new-pump-storage-hydro-project-could-power-400-000-scottish-houses-for-an-hour




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow! You've actually found a use for Boris J. :greengrin

[Fife-Hibee]

Wonder how many people will buy this, or read it in the shop and will believe it without question. :rolleyes:

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/49804312_2158221064427218_3970844668429598720_n.jp g?_nc_cat=106&_nc_ht=scontent-lhr3-1.xx&oh=fb1edfed7ec44db9d23b1f757b3fb8fd&oe=5CC21228

[Peevemor]

Wonder how many people will buy this, or read it in the shop and will believe it without question. :rolleyes:

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/49804312_2158221064427218_3970844668429598720_n.jp g?_nc_cat=106&_nc_ht=scontent-lhr3-1.xx&oh=fb1edfed7ec44db9d23b1f757b3fb8fd&oe=5CC21228

FFS! :rolleyes:

[RyeSloan]

Maybe not a war but boy what a mess...Nicola has went from being absolutely certain on the SG’s processes to having to give a full out apology on the fact that the government’s enquiry was so flawed it folded on its defence before the case was even started.

[Jack]

Maybe not a war but boy what a mess...Nicola has went from being absolutely certain on the SG’s processes to having to give a full out apology on the fact that the government’s enquiry was so flawed it folded on its defence before the case was even started.

Was she absolutely certain?

Even googling the best I found was that

Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon called for an internal review to be carried out of the Scottish government's procedures for handling complaints in the workplace.

As part of that review, a new procedure on handling harassment complaints involving current or former ministers was introduced.

In this particular case

Ms Sturgeon said she had taken "no role in the process" and not spoken about it publicly because she did not want to compromise the internal investigation.

[James310]

Did it not cost the taxpayer £500K?

I noticed Joanna Cherry liked a tweet saying AS should come back and lead Scotland to Independence. Suggests maybe not all well for Sturgeon?

[RyeSloan]

Was she absolutely certain?

Even googling the best I found was that

Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon called for an internal review to be carried out of the Scottish government's procedures for handling complaints in the workplace.

As part of that review, a new procedure on handling harassment complaints involving current or former ministers was introduced.

In this particular case

Ms Sturgeon said she had taken "no role in the process" and not spoken about it publicly because she did not want to compromise the internal investigation.

How about:

“The Scottish Government refutes his criticisms of its process and will defend its position vigorously”

[RyeSloan]

How about:

“The Scottish Government refutes his criticisms of its process and will defend its position vigorously”

Vigorously appears now to mean furiously back pedalling while still backing the senior civil servant that oversaw the now discredited investigation.

[marinello59]

Was she absolutely certain?

Even googling the best I found was that

Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon called for an internal review to be carried out of the Scottish government's procedures for handling complaints in the workplace.

As part of that review, a new procedure on handling harassment complaints involving current or former ministers was introduced.

In this particular case

Ms Sturgeon said she had taken "no role in the process" and not spoken about it publicly because she did not want to compromise the internal investigation.

I don’t think Sturgeon has done anything wrong here. Salmond and his allies certainly aren’t helping her though.

[JeMeSouviens]

Vigorously appears now to mean furiously back pedalling while still backing the senior civil servant that oversaw the now discredited investigation.

The alternative is the press painting them as scapegoating a civil servant to protect their man.

Rock and hard place.

[JeMeSouviens]

I don’t think Sturgeon has done anything wrong here. Salmond and his allies certainly aren’t helping her though.

:agree:

There are an awful lot of people desperate for Salmond to be innocent (and of course he must be presumed so until proved otherwise). A botched investigation process tells us nothing about this.

[Jack]

How about:

“The Scottish Government refutes his criticisms of its process and will defend its position vigorously”

Fair enough. I suspect she's been assured it was sound, as it should have been.

For the first case, that we know of, blowing it out the water is ridiculous. Whoever drew it up needs a stern talking to.

[RyeSloan]

The alternative is the press painting them as scapegoating a civil servant to protect their man.

Rock and hard place.

Ha yeah there’s always a spin that can be put on anything I suppose.

Fact is this was always going to be a high profile issue. So to make such a fundamental mistake in the handling of the investigation by not putting someone in charge who could clearly be demonstrated as not having prior involvement is pretty indefensible.

Surely there has to be some accountability beyond some apologies for that?

[RyeSloan]

I don’t think Sturgeon has done anything wrong here. Salmond and his allies certainly aren’t helping her though.

Plenty of front page news today suggesting otherwise.

It appears Sturgeon had FIVE meetings with Salmond about the inquiry. The first meeting was immediately after she found out about it, a meeting she declined to tell the permanent secretary about for two months.

On top of that it appears a senior SG official was present but not it appears in a capacity that covered her SG role, handy that.

So we have multiple meetings with Salmond to discuss the matter with Sturgeon that included a SG official, none of which were minuted which occurred at the same time as the SG inquiry was ongoing.

[Jack]

Plenty of front page news today suggesting otherwise.

It appears Sturgeon had FIVE meetings with Salmond about the inquiry. The first meeting was immediately after she found out about it, a meeting she declined to tell the permanent secretary about for two months.

On top of that it appears a senior SG official was present but not it appears in a capacity that covered her SG role, handy that.

So we have multiple meetings with Salmond to discuss the matter with Sturgeon that included a SG official, none of which were minuted which occurred at the same time as the SG inquiry was ongoing.

To be fair the SG official was a Special Adviser. These are political posts and although employed by the SG they are selected by the party in power to provide political advice. They're sacked just before an election.

[James310]

Plenty of front page news today suggesting otherwise.

It appears Sturgeon had FIVE meetings with Salmond about the inquiry. The first meeting was immediately after she found out about it, a meeting she declined to tell the permanent secretary about for two months.

On top of that it appears a senior SG official was present but not it appears in a capacity that covered her SG role, handy that.

So we have multiple meetings with Salmond to discuss the matter with Sturgeon that included a SG official, none of which were minuted which occurred at the same time as the SG inquiry was ongoing.

I do sense there seems to be a growing presence within the SNP that want rid of Sturgeon. She has been in an impossible position regards Brexit and Independence. The SNP masses see Brexit as the opportunity to grab Independance but she has so far not delivered that or really indicated how she will deliver that, and it does not look like it will happen soon despite her saying otherwise.

If we have another EU referendum which is looking more likely every day and if we vote remain what does she do? There will be little appetite for another big political battle and if we are still in the EU then what has really changed since 2014? Yes some may argue it has shown that Scotlands place in the Union is not that of an equal partner, but all the polls still have No in the majority (based on same question we had in 2014) so if Yes cannot be ahead now in this total shambles when will they ever?

Does she twist and go for it or stick and see what happens.

[JeMeSouviens]

I do sense there seems to be a growing presence within the SNP that want rid of Sturgeon. She has been in an impossible position regards Brexit and Independence. The SNP masses see Brexit as the opportunity to grab Independance but she has so far not delivered that or really indicated how she will deliver that, and it does not look like it will happen soon despite her saying otherwise.

If we have another EU referendum which is looking more likely every day and if we vote remain what does she do? There will be little appetite for another big political battle and if we are still in the EU then what has really changed since 2014? Yes some may argue it has shown that Scotlands place in the Union is not that of an equal partner, but all the polls still have No in the majority (based on same question we had in 2014) so if Yes cannot be ahead now in this total shambles when will they ever?

Does she twist and go for it or stick and see what happens.

There is a very strong tendency that wants indyref2 yesterday but to say they want rid of Sturgeon is wildly overstating things. Wishful thinking perchance?

[Smartie]

I do sense there seems to be a growing presence within the SNP that want rid of Sturgeon. She has been in an impossible position regards Brexit and Independence. The SNP masses see Brexit as the opportunity to grab Independance but she has so far not delivered that or really indicated how she will deliver that, and it does not look like it will happen soon despite her saying otherwise.

If we have another EU referendum which is looking more likely every day and if we vote remain what does she do? There will be little appetite for another big political battle and if we are still in the EU then what has really changed since 2014? Yes some may argue it has shown that Scotlands place in the Union is not that of an equal partner, but all the polls still have No in the majority (based on same question we had in 2014) so if Yes cannot be ahead now in this total shambles when will they ever?

Does she twist and go for it or stick and see what happens.

I don't think anyone's standard of living will have deteriorated since the vote in 2014. The "No" voters of the time will probably have seen their houses increase in value and the main negative impact they'll have felt since that vote will have been having to endure endless hours of squabbling about Brexit on Question Time.

Wait until the Brexit brown stuff hits the fan, and then those same people will (hopefully) be questioning the wisdom of continuing to have their fortunes dictated by sepia tinged and gammon flavoured British Nationalist guff from the English Home Counties when there is a credible alternative, unpalatable as it may seem to them right now.

[James310]

There is a very strong tendency that wants indyref2 yesterday but to say they want rid of Sturgeon is wildly overstating things. Wishful thinking perchance?

Joanna Cherry who seems to becoming more prominent has recently 'liked' a tweet saying Alex Salmond should come back as leader. Now if a footballer for example liked something on social media about their manager being replaced then I am sure the media would pick up on it as some kind of message they were sending. Kenny MaCaskill has been quite critical lately as well. I am sure she will be around for a while but in some respects she seems to be at her weakest within the party, but nationally and Internationally at her strongest due to her performances in the Brexit shambles. Interesting few months ahead that will shape things for many years to come.

[James310]

I don't think anyone's standard of living will have deteriorated since the vote in 2014. The "No" voters of the time will probably have seen their houses increase in value and the main negative impact they'll have felt since that vote will have been having to endure endless hours of squabbling about Brexit on Question Time.

Wait until the Brexit brown stuff hits the fan, and then those same people will (hopefully) be questioning the wisdom of continuing to have their fortunes dictated by sepia tinged and gammon flavoured British Nationalist guff from the English Home Counties when there is a credible alternative, unpalatable as it may seem to them right now.
What if Brexit never happens? The PM is losing the vote next week, of that there is little doubt.

[JeMeSouviens]

Joanna Cherry who seems to becoming more prominent has recently 'liked' a tweet saying Alex Salmond should come back as leader. Now if a footballer for example liked something on social media about their manager being replaced then I am sure the media would pick up on it as some kind of message they were sending. Kenny MaCaskill has been quite critical lately as well. I am sure she will be around for a while but in some respects she seems to be at her weakest within the party, but nationally and Internationally at her strongest due to her performances in the Brexit shambles. Interesting few months ahead that will shape things for many years to come.

These are micro rumblings compared to what May and Corbyn have faced over the last couple of years and they're both still in office. There is practically zero appetite to replace NS and no credible challenger.

[Smartie]

What if Brexit never happens? The PM is losing the vote next week, of that there is little doubt.

I'm sure we discussed that a few pages back.

My opinion was that without Brexit the case for independence is much weaker.

The point was made though that the whole process up to now demonstrates the lack of respect towards Scotland from the rUK and strengthens the case for independence.

I'd cooled on it a bit following the referendum, I don't believe that you should have a referendum every 5 minutes until you get the answer you're looking for. Sometimes you have to lie in the bed you've made.

Then Brexit happened and I'm back on it again.

People will make their own minds up, but I suspect that either way there will be less than a 60/40 split.

Is that a case for such drastic decisions being made? As it stands yes, I don't know if I agree that that should necessarily be the case.

[JeMeSouviens]

What if Brexit never happens? The PM is losing the vote next week, of that there is little doubt.

Then independence becomes a much less scary prospect economically speaking and all the weakening of the UK/Scot relationship that has occurred throughout Brexit is still there with little to no prospect of a UK politician arriving who has the faintest idea how to rebuild it. The small Yes/Leave faction that have moved away from the SNP might come back.

My guess would be there will be another indyref in one of the next 2 Holyrood terms, prob. post 2026 and we will scoosh it next time. :wink:

Although I'm losing hope about stopping Brexit tbh, I think EEA might be the best we can hope for.

[stoneyburn hibs]

Then independence becomes a much less scary prospect economically speaking and all the weakening of the UK/Scot relationship that has occurred throughout Brexit is still there with little to no prospect of a UK politician arriving who has the faintest idea how to rebuild it. The small Yes/Leave faction that have moved away from the SNP might come back.

My guess would be there will be another indyref in one of the next 2 Holyrood terms, prob. post 2026 and we will scoosh it next time. :wink:

Although I'm losing hope about stopping Brexit tbh, I think EEA might be the best we can hope for.

2026 ffs 😀

[JeMeSouviens]

2026 ffs 😀

Yeah, I know. They might go for a new mandate in 2021 if NS feels her shelf life is expiring. I think 2026 is more realistic.

Actually been thinking about reversing Brexit vs EEA. If it was EEA plus CU for the UK, then that might actually be better for the prospects of Indy. The economic situation is much the same but we become a more attractive prospect for the EU to welcome in due to fish and them having no obligation to the non-EU member UK.

I think the UK would be daft to trade their EU membership terms for EEA but who knows? Frankly the whole Brexit ****show is the stupidest, most pointless thing ever imo.

[H18 SFR]

Nicola Sturgeon resigning over breach of ministerial code?????

[Moulin Yarns]

Nicola Sturgeon resigning over breach of ministerial code?????

Not what I saw.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-46856934

[ronaldo7]

Vigorously appears now to mean furiously back pedalling while still backing the senior civil servant that oversaw the now discredited investigation.

Evans will be gone, along with MacKinnon. It was their mess after all, wasn't it?

[ronaldo7]

Nicola Sturgeon resigning over breach of ministerial code?????

Fake news.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Nicola Sturgeon resigning over breach of ministerial code?????

Don't think so mate. No doubt this has been a mess though and handled pretty badly, it cant be good news for any party when the government they are running is taken to court by one of their leading lights. As is to be expected Labour and the Tories will make as much as they can of this chance to damage Sturgeon and the SNP in general. Of course historically these parties haven't exactly been shining examples of how to be supportive of folk in their own organisations who have made sexual abuse allegations against MPs and councillors.

That aside, I'm pretty sure Nicola Sturgeon wouldn't be daft enough to refer herself to the standards folk if she thought there was any chance of more than a slap on the wrist.

[Smartie]

Evans will be gone, along with MacKinnon. It was their mess after all, wasn't it?

Salmond's mess surely?

[NAE NOOKIE]

Salmond's mess surely?

Allegedly :tsk tsk:

[Tornadoes70]

Allegedly :tsk tsk:

Not allegedly at all.

Its the complaints of 'alleged' sexual depravity that set it all off.

Its a complete mess and Holyrood should have passed the complaints on to the Police in the first instance to investigate whereby avoiding the shambles that's since arose.


No party bias involved here by my comments whatsoever merely fact led opinion.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Not allegedly at all.

Its the complaints of 'alleged' sexual depravity that set it all off.

Its a complete mess and Holyrood should have passed the complaints on to the Police in the first instance to investigate whereby avoiding the shambles that's since arose.


No party bias involved here by my comments whatsoever merely fact led opinion.

Ah … sorry, misread you. I thought you were talking about the actual allegations of assault.

[ronaldo7]

Salmond's mess surely?

The process was Evans', baby. Salmond had nothing to do with that.

[ronaldo7]

Ah … sorry, misread you. I thought you were talking about the actual allegations of assault.

Have there been allegations of, assault?

I thought it was allegations of sexual harassment?

[RyeSloan]

The process was Evans', baby. Salmond had nothing to do with that.

A process none the less agreed by Nicola personally.

"It is essential that organisations have processes in place to enable investigation of such complaints and, although I have no role in it, the procedure that has been used to investigate these complaints was agreed by me."

[ronaldo7]

A process none the less agreed by Nicola personally.

"It is essential that organisations have processes in place to enable investigation of such complaints and, although I have no role in it, the procedure that has been used to investigate these complaints was agreed by me."

Agreed, however, who led the investigation under the process, and who appointed the investigation officers. Back to Evans, I'm afraid.

[ronaldo7]

https://ianssmart.blogspot.com/2019/01/in-defence-of-alex-salmond.html?m=1

Don't know if that link will work, but an interesting piece by one of salmonds fiercest foes.

[RyeSloan]

Agreed, however, who led the investigation under the process, and who appointed the investigation officers. Back to Evans, I'm afraid.

So we have confirmed that Evans was appointed by Nicola, followed a process personally approved by Nicola and that Evans has Nicola’s ‘full confidence’ even after the latest debacle.

So back to Evans indeed but there is no denying that Nicola is intrinsically linked to Evans.

[ronaldo7]

So we have confirmed that Evans was appointed by Nicola, followed a process personally approved by Nicola and that Evans has Nicola’s ‘full confidence’ even after the latest debacle.

So back to Evans indeed but there is no denying that Nicola is intrinsically linked to Evans.

I don't think anyone has denied anything you've said. The investigation is led by Evans though, and it was that which was found to be flawed.

Nicola getting to choose, one of three people put before her, by London's senior civil servant of not really a choice though is it.

[James310]

I don't think anyone has denied anything you've said. The investigation is led by Evans though, and it was that which was found to be flawed.

Nicola getting to choose, one of three people put before her, by London's senior civil servant of not really a choice though is it.

Do you believe anyone in the SNP or Scottish Government is at fault in this sorry affair?

Also if you are presented with 3 (if it was indeed 3) and have to pick 1 that's commonly known as a choice!

[ronaldo7]

Do you believe anyone in the SNP or Scottish Government is at fault in this sorry affair?

No idea, the facts have not been released yet.

Also if you are presented with 3 (if it was indeed 3) and have to pick 1 that's commonly known as a choice!

What if she wanted someone from outwith the three, but was told, sorry that's it.

Hobsons choice.

[James310]

What if she wanted someone from outwith the three, but was told, sorry that's it.

Hobsons choice.

It's common practice for an executive appointment for an agency to look at the wider market and select the top 3 that have performed the best at interview and testing stage. The top candidates are then put forward for further interviews with the person who has the final say. The list could have been 100 to start with. I am sure if she wanted someone that bad it would have happened.

[ronaldo7]

It's common practice for an executive appointment for an agency to look at the wider market and select the top 3 that have performed the best at interview and testing stage. The top candidates are then put forward for further interviews with the person who has the final say. The list could have been 100 to start with. I am sure if she wanted someone that bad it would have happened.

That's the whole point, if she wanted someone that bad, she'd still have to choose one of three put in front of her.

That's the UK civil service process though, so she'll just have to suck it up.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Have there been allegations of, assault?

I thought it was allegations of sexual harassment?

Jeezo …. ok, sexual harassment. Anyway, dinnae huv a go at me mate, somebody else on here in relation to this subject referred to 'Salmond's sexual depravity' :greengrin

[ronaldo7]

Jeezo …. ok, sexual harassment. Anyway, dinnae huv a go at me mate, somebody else on here in relation to this subject referred to 'Salmond's sexual depravity' :greengrin

I noticed that, depravity comment. No need to respond to him, but your standards are much higher, hence the reason I thought it best to clarify. 🏆😂

[Moulin Yarns]

Get ready for independence in Europe



https://www.new-direction.scot/european-parliament-finally-opens-petition-calling-on-a-vote-of-eu-parliament-to-support-scotlands-independent-membership-of-the-eu-to-online-signatures/

[Mibbes Aye]

Get ready for independence in Europe



https://www.new-direction.scot/european-parliament-finally-opens-petition-calling-on-a-vote-of-eu-parliament-to-support-scotlands-independent-membership-of-the-eu-to-online-signatures/


Out of curiosity, you identified as a Green but also backed independence.

How did you balance an economic case for independence, based on supposed oil wealth, with exploiting fossil fuels?

[ronaldo7]

Get ready for independence in Europe



https://www.new-direction.scot/european-parliament-finally-opens-petition-calling-on-a-vote-of-eu-parliament-to-support-scotlands-independent-membership-of-the-eu-to-online-signatures/

Done.:aok:

[Moulin Yarns]

Out of curiosity, you identified as a Green but also backed independence.

How did you balance an economic case for independence, based on supposed oil wealth, with exploiting fossil fuels?

Oil and gas is not the only revenue stream for an independent Scotland. Also the Scottish Green Party has always supported independence.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-scotland-economy-analysis-idUSKBN16S1ZL

[pacoluna]

A process none the less agreed by Nicola personally.

"It is essential that organisations have processes in place to enable investigation of such complaints and, although I have no role in it, the procedure that has been used to investigate these complaints was agreed by me."

Let's be honest you don't give a flying **** about the political procedure when dealing with such complaints either in the past or in the future, it is simply Being used as political weapon which is just as disgraceful as the whole sorry episode. It's the level of opposition we have in Scotland in people like jackson carlaw, absolute charlatans, nothing but opportunists. But unionists will be all over it, particularly rangers fan's when it comes to social media.

Ps hopefully salmond uses the money from justgiven to take those opportunist slanderous arsewipes like massie, marra and co to court.

[James310]

Let's be honest you don't give a flying **** about the political procedure when dealing with such complaints either in the past or in the future, it is simply Being used as political weapon which is just as disgraceful as the whole sorry episode. It's the level of opposition we have in Scotland in people like jackson carlaw, absolute charlatans, nothing but opportunists. But unionists will be all over it, particularly rangers fan's when it comes to social media.

Ps hopefully salmond uses the money from justgiven to take those opportunist slanderous arsewipes like massie, marra and co to court.

Yes because if this was a Labour or Tory leader in same situation you would remain quiet and not use the sorry affair for any political point scoring at all? Is that right?

[Tornadoes70]

Yes because if this was a Labour or Tory leader in same situation you would remain quiet and not use the sorry affair for any political point scoring at all? Is that right?

For most folk it isn't about that. We've just seen potentially half a million pounds of public funds flushed down the toilet fighting a judicial review that collapsed when the Scottish Government failed to make a case and admitted their complaints procedure against alleged sex pest Salmond was not fit for purpose.

Any normal person would call for an inquiry not just political opponents. Its appears a murky occurence and the public have a right to answers no matter the politicians involved.

[RyeSloan]

Let's be honest you don't give a flying **** about the political procedure when dealing with such complaints either in the past or in the future, it is simply Being used as political weapon which is just as disgraceful as the whole sorry episode. It's the level of opposition we have in Scotland in people like jackson carlaw, absolute charlatans, nothing but opportunists. But unionists will be all over it, particularly rangers fan's when it comes to social media.

Ps hopefully salmond uses the money from justgiven to take those opportunist slanderous arsewipes like massie, marra and co to court.

Aha calm doon [emoji23]

It seems there is two inquiries to be had, a ministerial one and now one by an MSP committee...all at the behest of closet hun / unionist sympathisers I suppose.

[Future17]

Ps hopefully salmond uses the money from justgiven to take those opportunist slanderous arsewipes like massie, marra and co to court.

Is that not an animal reserve in Africa? ;-)

[cabbageandribs1875]

Is that not an animal reserve in Africa? ;-)




lol very close

[pacoluna]

For most folk it isn't about that. We've just seen potentially half a million pounds of public funds flushed down the toilet fighting a judicial review that collapsed when the Scottish Government failed to make a case and admitted their complaints procedure against alleged sex pest Salmond was not fit for purpose.

Any normal person would call for an inquiry not just political opponents. Its appears a murky occurence and the public have a right to answers no matter the politicians involved.

Was not fit for purpose due to an apparent taint of bias, disgraceful. But out of everyone let's try and defame NS because she had 4/5 meetings with him it's utterly ridiculous, the unionist propaganda machines haven't a clue. Are they insinuating NS helped salmond or is there a massive rift between them as "supposedly" salmonds aides are furious with the FM. I suspect neither it's simply just to perceive that there is in house break up of the SNP which is absolute bollocks. They've been trying to bring salmond down for years.

[Bristolhibby]

Anyway, back on topic, has this Brexit nonsense not pushed you all into hard Yessers yet?

Extraordinary to see this all unfolding and not be for Independence.

J

[pacoluna]

Aha calm doon [emoji23]

It seems there is two inquiries to be had, a ministerial one and now one by an MSP committee...all at the behest of closet hun / unionist sympathisers I suppose.

Murdo Fraser = hun sympathiser. Never actually won sweat FA like the club he supports.

[makaveli1875]

Anyway, back on topic, has this Brexit nonsense not pushed you all into hard Yessers yet?

Extraordinary to see this all unfolding and not be for Independence.

J

What makes you think independence will be any easier or less disasterous ?

[Moulin Yarns]

Because the Westminster government will have enough on its plate with trying to fix everything that broke last night.

[pacoluna]

What makes you think independence will be any easier or less disasterous ?

Only hardcore unionists can use this ****storm of a mess which is BREXIT as an example of why not to go for independence, it's now become laughable the twisted logic that they are using.

[makaveli1875]

Only hardcore unionists can use this ****storm of a mess which is BREXIT as an example of why not to go for independence, it's now become laughable the twisted logic that they are using.

Its straight up logic . Britain is struggling to leave a union its been in a few decades . What is going to make it so easy for Scotland to leave a union its been in for 3 centuries ?

[heretoday]

Only hardcore unionists can use this ****storm of a mess which is BREXIT as an example of why not to go for independence, it's now become laughable the twisted logic that they are using.

You think it would be a smooth process leaving the UK? Scotland would be tied up in the courts for years and years getting everything sorted.

You must be a lawyer! Good thinking!

[RyeSloan]

Murdo Fraser = hun sympathiser. Never actually won sweat FA like the club he supports.

Apart from the fact that Murdo doesn’t sit on the committee that agreed to the inquiry you are 100% correct [emoji23]

A committee that is cross party including representatives from those famous unionist parties of the SNP and the Greens.

[pacoluna]

Apart from the fact that Murdo doesn’t sit on the committee that agreed to the inquiry you are 100% correct [emoji23]

A committee that is cross party including representatives from those famous unionist parties of the SNP and the Greens.


What's your point caller?

Labour and Tories backed the holyrood inquiry. The government were happy to cooperate.