Scottish Independence

[Moulin Yarns]

It’s up to the unionist who now advocate not allowing a 2nd indyref to explain what the democratic pathway to independence is?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A majority of pro independence seats at the next election, Westminster or holyrood, would be the mandate. SNP and greens.

[Hibrandenburg]

A majority of pro independence seats at the next election, Westminster or holyrood, would be the mandate. SNP and greens.

We've got that already, why wait?

[Fife-Hibee]

A majority of pro independence seats at the next election, Westminster or holyrood, would be the mandate. SNP and greens.

We already have that. Or are they just going to keep on telling us to "do it again next time" until eventually we fail to do so?

[Mibbes Aye]

Bit of an echo chamber in here, which is sad in terms of this forum supposedly being about debate.

Just in case you guys didn’t get the email, the Scottish people expressed something, I think Salmond or Sturgeon were calling it the sovereign will, just a wee while ago and comfortably voted against separation.

Chances are the vote would be the same tomorrow, despite all the upheaval with Brexit, as the polls don’t show a clear winner despite the appalling state of things in UK Labour and UK Conservatives. But the argument by Nats on here is similar to the losing gambler, “...one more roll of the dice, please”.

You are speaking for a resentful minority guys. While you are convinced of the righteousness of your argument, it was defeated because people didn’t buy it. The quicker you come to terms with that, the quicker you might find a way of convincingly winning a majority for your cause.

And please don’t fall into old tropes about Scottish people being stupid or craven or old, and that’s why they voted against you - or actually, carry on, if that’s all you have got because if that’s what you really think then it exposes your arguments for what they are.

As neither a unionist nor a nationalist, it’s a fascinating if somewhat depressing debate for me. There are bigger priorities in life than what our twirly civic flags look like.

Finding the best, most pragmatic solutions to existential threats like climate change for example, I would rather we spent time, resource and energy on that and how we need to set ourselves up to achieve that, for example. Going down the route of splintering and fracturing isn’t pragmatic.

[Smartie]

Bit of an echo chamber in here, which is sad in terms of this forum supposedly being about debate.

Just in case you guys didn’t get the email, the Scottish people expressed something, I think Salmond or Sturgeon were calling it the sovereign will, just a wee while ago and comfortably voted against separation.

Chances are the vote would be the same tomorrow, despite all the upheaval with Brexit, as the polls don’t show a clear winner despite the appalling state of things in UK Labour and UK Conservatives. But the argument by Nats on here is similar to the losing gambler, “...one more roll of the dice, please”.

You are speaking for a resentful minority guys. While you are convinced of the righteousness of your argument, it was defeated because people didn’t buy it. The quicker you come to terms with that, the quicker you might find a way of convincingly winning a majority for your cause.

And please don’t fall into old tropes about Scottish people being stupid or craven or old, and that’s why they voted against you - or actually, carry on, if that’s all you have got because if that’s what you really think then it exposes your arguments for what they are.

As neither a unionist nor a nationalist, it’s a fascinating if somewhat depressing debate for me. There are bigger priorities in life than what our twirly civic flags look like.

Finding the best, most pragmatic solutions to existential threats like climate change for example, I would rather we spent time, resource and energy on that and how we need to set ourselves up to achieve that, for example. Going down the route of splintering and fracturing isn’t pragmatic.

There is much that I agree with in this post, but I also disagree with other parts.

I accepted the result of the referendum, and if the UK was not soon to be leaving the EU then I'd be a lot less keen on the idea of independence.

The choice we made in 2014 was to remain attached to a body who now wants to "splinter and fracture" from a different union, one that many Scots value. Whether we like it or not we are going to "splinter and fracture" from something, and it is reasonable to debate who and what we splinter from and who we remain attached to.

I don't think you should continue to ask the same question until you get the answer you want, but rather than some mythical time bar, I believe that the question should be raised whenever a fundamental change has occurred. Brexit IS a game changer and I'll be surprised if you disagree.

The case for Scottish independence is, in my opinion, very strong indeed. The case for a second referendum at this point is, in my opinion, much weaker. The main reason for that is that I agree with you regarding the result - I think it would be exactly the same as the last time and that would kill the independence movement stone dead. The independence movement gives many people hope, and having the threat of independence in the background staves off some of the nastier aspects of what we can expect when we have Tory rule in this country (I think the case for independence is always weaker when we have a Labour UK government). Burying the chance of Scottish independence for a generation would bring in a particularly bleak era that many of us would struggle to tolerate.

[Mibbes Aye]

There is much that I agree with in this post, but I also disagree with other parts.

I accepted the result of the referendum, and if the UK was not soon to be leaving the EU then I'd be a lot less keen on the idea of independence.

The choice we made in 2014 was to remain attached to a body who now wants to "splinter and fracture" from a different union, one that many Scots value. Whether we like it or not we are going to "splinter and fracture" from something, and it is reasonable to debate who and what we splinter from and who we remain attached to.

I don't think you should continue to ask the same question until you get the answer you want, but rather than some mythical time bar, I believe that the question should be raised whenever a fundamental change has occurred. Brexit IS a game changer and I'll be surprised if you disagree.

The case for Scottish independence is, in my opinion, very strong indeed. The case for a second referendum at this point is, in my opinion, much weaker. The main reason for that is that I agree with you regarding the result - I think it would be exactly the same as the last time and that would kill the independence movement stone dead. The independence movement gives many people hope, and having the threat of independence in the background staves off some of the nastier aspects of what we can expect when we have Tory rule in this country (I think the case for independence is always weaker when we have a Labour UK government). Burying the chance of Scottish independence for a generation would bring in a particularly bleak era that many of us would struggle to tolerate.

I like your point about the difference between pro-Indy and pro-ref.

I disagree to an extent with the premise about Tory rule. All the critical decision-making about what affects our lives on a day to day basis already sits with Holyrood or even more local.

The nurseries, schools, colleges our children go to. The hospitals, clinics, GPs and dentists we attend. The social services that support the marginalised and vulnerable in our society. The social care that looks after our parents, grandparents, or siblings, children, spouses, partners. Our police, our fire service, our ambulance service. Our street lighting, our bin collections, where we can park, whether one can build an extension on the house, whether one can challenge a dodgy landlord.

All that and more sits with Scottish Government, local authorities and Scottish health boards. Along with a power to raise more in taxation than the UK rate, if so chosen. Except it never has been chosen, while a council tax freeze AKA middle-class bribe was maintained for many years resulting in local authorities closing libraries and lunch clubs for the elderly, amongst many other things.

In case this feels anti-SNP, it is not. Some of the legislation they have introduced has been progressive, positive and firmly based in an ethos of a human rights-based approach, which is welcome. Sadly, implementation hasn’t always lived up to the intention.

When it comes to the problems and challenges for Leith, Edinburgh, the Central Belt, Scotland, the Tories are a handy blame but there are many levers and solutions available.

[Smartie]

I like your point about the difference between pro-Indy and pro-ref.

I disagree to an extent with the premise about Tory rule. All the critical decision-making about what affects our lives on a day to day basis already sits with Holyrood or even more local.

The nurseries, schools, colleges our children go to. The hospitals, clinics, GPs and dentists we attend. The social services that support the marginalised and vulnerable in our society. The social care that looks after our parents, grandparents, or siblings, children, spouses, partners. Our police, our fire service, our ambulance service. Our street lighting, our bin collections, where we can park, whether one can build an extension on the house, whether one can challenge a dodgy landlord.

All that and more sits with Scottish Government, local authorities and Scottish health boards. Along with a power to raise more in taxation than the UK rate, if so chosen. Except it never has been chosen, while a council tax freeze AKA middle-class bribe was maintained for many years resulting in local authorities closing libraries and lunch clubs for the elderly, amongst many other things.

In case this feels anti-SNP, it is not. Some of the legislation they have introduced has been progressive, positive and firmly based in an ethos of a human rights-based approach, which is welcome. Sadly, implementation hasn’t always lived up to the intention.

When it comes to the problems and challenges for Leith, Edinburgh, the Central Belt, Scotland, the Tories are a handy blame but there are many levers and solutions available.

I agree with all of this, and I accept that the constant constitutional wrangling does distract us from doing the day job and assessing adequately those who are doing the day job.

In my opinion Scotland has done very well with the powers that have been devolved, and it gives me confidence that we would do equally well if given further powers.

What about the powers that are not devolved?

As far as I am aware, those powers are fiscal autonomy, immigration and defence.

These all have an effect on the amount of money that Scotland has to spend on all of the above, obviously the more money we have the easier it is to make good decisions. We can argue all day long about whether or not we'd have more or less money in the case of independence, but going forward, post-Brexit, I am very concerned about the effect that having an immigration policy to suit a certain part of the English electorate will have on the amount of money we have to spend on all of the above. Scotland's problems mainly revolve around our dwindling population, our difficulty to look after our ageing population and I have grave reservations as to how Scotland will manage this in the post-Brexit era.

TBH fiscal autonomy and defence are of far less concern to me.

[Fife-Hibee]

Bit of an echo chamber in here, which is sad in terms of this forum supposedly being about debate.

Just in case you guys didn’t get the email, the Scottish people expressed something, I think Salmond or Sturgeon were calling it the sovereign will, just a wee while ago and comfortably voted against separation.

Chances are the vote would be the same tomorrow, despite all the upheaval with Brexit, as the polls don’t show a clear winner despite the appalling state of things in UK Labour and UK Conservatives. But the argument by Nats on here is similar to the losing gambler, “...one more roll of the dice, please”.

You are speaking for a resentful minority guys. While you are convinced of the righteousness of your argument, it was defeated because people didn’t buy it. The quicker you come to terms with that, the quicker you might find a way of convincingly winning a majority for your cause.

And please don’t fall into old tropes about Scottish people being stupid or craven or old, and that’s why they voted against you - or actually, carry on, if that’s all you have got because if that’s what you really think then it exposes your arguments for what they are.

As neither a unionist nor a nationalist, it’s a fascinating if somewhat depressing debate for me. There are bigger priorities in life than what our twirly civic flags look like.

Finding the best, most pragmatic solutions to existential threats like climate change for example, I would rather we spent time, resource and energy on that and how we need to set ourselves up to achieve that, for example. Going down the route of splintering and fracturing isn’t pragmatic.

and just like that, you keep echoing the same boring sentiments. Echo chamber indeed.

Still using terms like "nats". Because it sounds like Nazi right? Lying about the polls. Failing to mention the ones that both Westminster and the Scottish Tories refuse to release to the public. Referring to us as a "resentful minority" with virtually no evidence to back that up.

If anybody is failing to take this debate forward, it's people like yourself who live in one hell of a bubble, refusing to face up to the reality of the situation.

[Fife-Hibee]

I disagree to an extent with the premise about Tory rule. All the critical decision-making about what affects our lives on a day to day basis already sits with Holyrood or even more local.

The nurseries, schools, colleges our children go to. The hospitals, clinics, GPs and dentists we attend. The social services that support the marginalised and vulnerable in our society. The social care that looks after our parents, grandparents, or siblings, children, spouses, partners. Our police, our fire service, our ambulance service. Our street lighting, our bin collections, where we can park, whether one can build an extension on the house, whether one can challenge a dodgy landlord.

Again, echoing old arguments that have already been shown up for how flawed they are. Being in control of decisions is utterly meaningless when you don't have the means to make the decisions you want to make. How do we protect the NHS when the funding availability is directly linked to the English NHS which has Trumps grubby paws all over it? How do we protect schools, clinics, dentists, care homes, the police force, fire services and ambulance services when the funding available to do so relies on english tory privateers protecting their public services south of the border?

These are questions that people like yourself don't want to answer. You know the game is a bogey. But you continue to make the same old tired points which never seek to address the elephant in the room.

Scotland raises about 60 billion a year in tax revenue. The Scottish Government recieved approximately 40 billion of it back. The UK Government then spends another 40 billion (in Scotlands name), then claims we have a massive deficit due to overspending. It's quite incredible how they get away with this, yet time and time again, we allow them to.

[Hibbyradge]

and just like that, you keep echoing the same boring sentiments. Echo chamber indeed.

Still using terms like "nats". Because it sounds like Nazi right? Lying about the polls. Failing to mention the ones that both Westminster and the Scottish Tories refuse to release to the public. Referring to us as a "resentful minority" with virtually no evidence to back that up.

If anybody is failing to take this debate forward, it's people like yourself who live in one hell of a bubble, refusing to face up to the reality of the situation.

"Taking the debate forward" doesn't necessarily mean agreeing with independence.

How is it possible to mention a poll which hasn't been released? Does it exist?

I'm pro-independence, but your post adds nothing to the debate. It's entirely negative, not to mention fanciful. Nats = Nazis. Give me peace. :faf:

[Moulin Yarns]

I saw an interesting tweet today.

In an independent Scotland those who wish to be British can self declare and will be allowed to pay for eye tests, prescriptions, tuition fees, and everything else that the Scottish government has already paid for. This will also help to make up for any shortfall in taxation.

[Hibbyradge]

I saw an interesting tweet today.

In an independent Scotland those who wish to be British can self declare and will be allowed to pay for eye tests, prescriptions, tuition fees, and everything else that the Scottish government has already paid for. This will also help to make up for any shortfall in taxation.

Why wait for independence?

[Moulin Yarns]

Why wait for independence?

Good point.

[makaveli1875]

I saw an interesting tweet today.

In an independent Scotland those who wish to be British can self declare and will be allowed to pay for eye tests, prescriptions, tuition fees, and everything else that the Scottish government has already paid for. This will also help to make up for any shortfall in taxation.

Cant see that working , what will they do if a good chunk of the working population self decare as British .

[Ozyhibby]

The Scottish people expressed their preference to remain in the union in 2014. Nobody disputes this and the result has been and will be honoured.
The Scottish people have also re-elected the SNP and given them a mandate for another Indy ref. That’s our democratic right and the Scottish public can do this as many times as it likes. If the SNP puts in it manifesto that it wants weekly referendums and they are voted back into govt then that is what the Scottish people want. As it is, they were returned with a mandate for another indyref if brexit came about. That’s what is happening now.
This is a democracy. What happened in 2014 is now history. The result has been honoured. Every new election changes what happened in the last. If Scots really are opposed to independence then they better start voting in Unionist governments. Otherwise there is no point whining and complaining about 2014 and ‘once in a generation’ etc. It’s meaningless. If the SNP keep winning elections then independence will remain on the table.

[Ozyhibby]

and just like that, you keep echoing the same boring sentiments. Echo chamber indeed.

Still using terms like "nats". Because it sounds like Nazi right? Lying about the polls. Failing to mention the ones that both Westminster and the Scottish Tories refuse to release to the public. Referring to us as a "resentful minority" with virtually no evidence to back that up.

If anybody is failing to take this debate forward, it's people like yourself who live in one hell of a bubble, refusing to face up to the reality of the situation.

You forgot ‘separatists’. [emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

Cant see that working , what will they do if a good chunk of the working population self decare as British .

More money for the Scottish treasury.

[RyeSloan]

Again, echoing old arguments that have already been shown up for how flawed they are. Being in control of decisions is utterly meaningless when you don't have the means to make the decisions you want to make. How do we protect the NHS when the funding availability is directly linked to the English NHS which has Trumps grubby paws all over it? How do we protect schools, clinics, dentists, care homes, the police force, fire services and ambulance services when the funding available to do so relies on english tory privateers protecting their public services south of the border?

These are questions that people like yourself don't want to answer. You know the game is a bogey. But you continue to make the same old tired points which never seek to address the elephant in the room.

Scotland raises about 60 billion a year in tax revenue. The Scottish Government recieved approximately 40 billion of it back. The UK Government then spends another 40 billion (in Scotlands name), then claims we have a massive deficit due to overspending. It's quite incredible how they get away with this, yet time and time again, we allow them to.

UK government spending in Scotland is still public spending...that need and spend won’t just go away.

The figures for 17/18 are approx £60bn in taxes and £73.5bn in public spending.

That’s the crux of it and no amount of pointing at Westminster changes the fact that public spending in Scotland is significantly higher than the value of taxes raised.

Unless of course you are proposing billions of pounds worth of public spending cuts in an Indy Scotland?

[StevieC]

UK government spending in Scotland is still public spending...that need and spend won’t just go away.

The figures for 17/18 are approx £60bn in taxes and £73.5bn in public spending.

That’s the crux of it and no amount of pointing at Westminster changes the fact that public spending in Scotland is significantly higher than the value of taxes raised.

Unless of course you are proposing billions of pounds worth of public spending cuts in an Indy Scotland?

So, if those figures are correct, the UK Government is running Scotland at a deficit? I assume that’s because they are also running England/Wales at a similar deficit percentage?

Could the figures be any worse in an Independent Scotland? Maybe it’s possible if Scotland had full control they could do a better job? They are already able to provide free prescriptions and education (as well as counteracting some additional Tory taxes) within their diminished budget, so who’s to say they couldn’t do a better job?

[Ozyhibby]

UK government spending in Scotland is still public spending...that need and spend won’t just go away.

The figures for 17/18 are approx £60bn in taxes and £73.5bn in public spending.

That’s the crux of it and no amount of pointing at Westminster changes the fact that public spending in Scotland is significantly higher than the value of taxes raised.

Unless of course you are proposing billions of pounds worth of public spending cuts in an Indy Scotland?

It’s true that as part of the union Scotland’s finances could be better. Have the UK govt got a plan to improve this or do they see it as permanent?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

So, if those figures are correct, the UK Government is running Scotland at a deficit? I assume that’s because they are also running England/Wales at a similar deficit percentage?

Could the figures be any worse in an Independent Scotland? Maybe it’s possible if Scotland had full control they could do a better job? They are already able to provide free prescriptions and education (as well as counteracting some additional Tory taxes) within their diminished budget, so who’s to say they couldn’t do a better job?

Those figures suggest Scotland’s deficit is substantially larger than the UK as a whole.

And maybe the free prescriptions etc. Is because we are not solely liable for the rather large gap not despite of?

As for ‘doing a better job’ well I’m not one for subscribing to the fact that governments control economies (apart from maybe the Chinese!) but they do at least nominally control what they tax and what they spend. It’s pretty clear from those figures that the only answer would be up for the first and down for the second.

The fact remains though that despite the growth commission (or maybe including the GC) there is no clear or credible plan as to how that gap would be closed.

[Ozyhibby]

Those figures suggest Scotland’s deficit is substantially larger than the UK as a whole.

And maybe the free prescriptions etc. Is because we are not solely liable for the rather large gap not despite of?

As for ‘doing a better job’ well I’m not one for subscribing to the fact that governments control economies (apart from maybe the Chinese!) but they do at least nominally control what they tax and what they spend. It’s pretty clear from those figures that the only answer would be up for the first and down for the second.

The fact remains though that despite the growth commission (or maybe including the GC) there is no clear or credible plan as to how that gap would be closed.

Have the UK govt a plan for how that gap will be closed, seen as they are in charge just now? How long do they expect Scotland to perform so poorly?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

It’s true that as part of the union Scotland’s finances could be better. Have the UK govt got a plan to improve this or do they see it as permanent?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Does it overly matter when being in the Union allows fiscal transfers to cover it?

What does matter is do the proponents of Indy have a plan to improve it?

[Mibbes Aye]

The Scottish people expressed their preference to remain in the union in 2014. Nobody disputes this and the result has been and will be honoured.
The Scottish people have also re-elected the SNP and given them a mandate for another Indy ref. That’s our democratic right and the Scottish public can do this as many times as it likes. If the SNP puts in it manifesto that it wants weekly referendums and they are voted back into govt then that is what the Scottish people want. As it is, they were returned with a mandate for another indyref if brexit came about. That’s what is happening now.
This is a democracy. What happened in 2014 is now history. The result has been honoured. Every new election changes what happened in the last. If Scots really are opposed to independence then they better start voting in Unionist governments. Otherwise there is no point whining and complaining about 2014 and ‘once in a generation’ etc. It’s meaningless. If the SNP keep winning elections then independence will remain on the table.

My word.

The results was acknowledged by many of the embittered on the losing side, but even just taking this forum as an example there were a good few who did not accept it, let alone honour it.

There was however lots of accusations about Scots voters being too stupid or too cowardly to vote Yes. Which is funny, because a lot of the time Nats are talking up this fanciful notion of civic nationalism. I’m not sure how civic nationalism is meant to work if the citizenry are stupid and cowardly??

And you will love this but you can’t claim the Scottish people entirely wanted what the SNP was voted in on. They won a mandate to govern at Holyrood but it soon became clear that the ‘Scottish people’ said “No, thanks” to their keystone policy, their raison d’etre.

As started in the earlier post, there are a lot of posters on this forum who vehemently want separation from the Union, fair enough, but fail spectacularly to make positive arguments (as opposed to negative or grievance arguments) that can stand up to rational critique. Or indeed answer very basic questions about fundamental issues such as those relating to the economy.

[Mibbes Aye]

and just like that, you keep echoing the same boring sentiments. Echo chamber indeed.

Still using terms like "nats". Because it sounds like Nazi right? Lying about the polls. Failing to mention the ones that both Westminster and the Scottish Tories refuse to release to the public. Referring to us as a "resentful minority" with virtually no evidence to back that up.

If anybody is failing to take this debate forward, it's people like yourself who live in one hell of a bubble, refusing to face up to the reality of the situation.

HR has already picked apart most of this post but I would like to touch on one thing.

You say my reference to a ‘resentful minority’ has virtually no evidence.

That means you are saying you think there is at least some evidence - what do you think it is? :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

Again, echoing old arguments that have already been shown up for how flawed they are. Being in control of decisions is utterly meaningless when you don't have the means to make the decisions you want to make. How do we protect the NHS when the funding availability is directly linked to the English NHS which has Trumps grubby paws all over it? How do we protect schools, clinics, dentists, care homes, the police force, fire services and ambulance services when the funding available to do so relies on english tory privateers protecting their public services south of the border?

These are questions that people like yourself don't want to answer. You know the game is a bogey. But you continue to make the same old tired points which never seek to address the elephant in the room.

Scotland raises about 60 billion a year in tax revenue. The Scottish Government recieved approximately 40 billion of it back. The UK Government then spends another 40 billion (in Scotlands name), then claims we have a massive deficit due to overspending. It's quite incredible how they get away with this, yet time and time again, we allow them to.

By the judgement of anyone with understanding of local government, England is two or three years ahead of Scotland in the full impact of austerity and financial constraints.

English councils have been making the kind of existential decisions that are starting to become necessities for Scottish councils, and that’s notwithstanding Scottish councils having gone through several years of pain already. Public services haven’t been protected down there and you don’t make sense when you say privateers are protecting them - surely they would relish the current situation?

Interestingly, Tory councils are struggling too and I think that of the local authorities that were closest to failing to meet their statutory duties and thus require central government to essentially take over, many, if not most were Con, Con-Ind, or coalition with a strong Con presence. I would also acknowledge that in relative terms, the more affluent counties suffer less and benefit more due to various inequities but at the end of the day, local government is universally struggling.

Tory councillors in England are generally not fanboys and girls for the cuts in local government funding, not just for their own survival but to an extent because they are closer to the reality of the impact of cuts.

[JeMeSouviens]

By the judgement of anyone with understanding of local government, England is two or three years ahead of Scotland in the full impact of austerity and financial constraints.

English councils have been making the kind of existential decisions that are starting to become necessities for Scottish councils, and that’s notwithstanding Scottish councils having gone through several years of pain already. Public services haven’t been protected down there and you don’t make sense when you say privateers are protecting them - surely they would relish the current situation?

Interestingly, Tory councils are struggling too and I think that of the local authorities that were closest to failing to meet their statutory duties and thus require central government to essentially take over, many, if not most were Con, Con-Ind, or coalition with a strong Con presence. I would also acknowledge that in relative terms, the more affluent counties suffer less and benefit more due to various inequities but at the end of the day, local government is universally struggling.

Tory councillors in England are generally not fanboys and girls for the cuts in local government funding, not just for their own survival but to an extent because they are closer to the reality of the impact of cuts.

Enough of this idle constitutional banter, get yourself over to the cricket thread and tell me who’s winning the semis!

[JeMeSouviens]

Does it overly matter when being in the Union allows fiscal transfers to cover it?

What does matter is do the proponents of Indy have a plan to improve it?

So is that the plan? Keep the Scottish fiscal position bad enough to scare the proles out of change?

[Hibrandenburg]

English councils have been making the kind of existential decisions that are starting to become necessities for Scottish councils, and that’s notwithstanding Scottish councils having gone through several years of pain already. Public services haven’t been protected down there and you don’t make sense when you say privateers are protecting them - surely they would relish the current situation?

Sounds like a great argument for independence sooner rather than later. :wink:

[Jack]

UK government spending in Scotland is still public spending...that need and spend won’t just go away.

The figures for 17/18 are approx £60bn in taxes and £73.5bn in public spending.

That’s the crux of it and no amount of pointing at Westminster changes the fact that public spending in Scotland is significantly higher than the value of taxes raised.

Unless of course you are proposing billions of pounds worth of public spending cuts in an Indy Scotland?

If Scotland was running at that sort of deficit the mercenary Tory *******s would jettison us without a second thought. These are, after all, the people who sold the Queens head on a plate!

[Mibbes Aye]

Enough of this idle constitutional banter, get yourself over to the cricket thread and tell me who’s winning the semis!

You’re right, I’ve lost all sense of my priorities :greengrin

Normal CWC service will be resumed shortly!

[RyeSloan]

So is that the plan? Keep the Scottish fiscal position bad enough to scare the proles out of change?

There’s a plan? Well that would be a first [emoji2957]

No I’m simply saying it’s not anywhere near the same scale of problem if there are fiscal transfers to accommodate it.

And to be clear I’m not presenting it as pro or anti anything. I’m just trying to highlight that you can’t simply ignore it or just point a finger of blame.

There appears (and again I accept the figures are based on imperfect data) to be a substantial deficit and that is something that should be fully considered and appropriately addressed in the conversation.

Yet most responses again seem to immediately look to veer towards Westminster bad rather than consider the implications and understand the potential problems and consequences that it presents.

[RyeSloan]

If Scotland was running at that sort of deficit the mercenary Tory *******s would jettison us without a second thought. These are, after all, the people who sold the Queens head on a plate!

Yet that’s what the official estimates suggest re the deficit...not sure what they are around the price for the queens head on a plate tho! [emoji2957]

[Mibbes Aye]

Sounds like a great argument for independence sooner rather than later. :wink:

I see where you are coming from. I think the pain is irrevocable however, whether Scotland is part of the U.K. or not.

The only potential benefit is that of hindsight, so there may be some learning from how different English councils have responded to their pressures. It is far from uncommon for local government and non-departmental public bodies across the four constituent nations to share learning. There will be some differences however, if nothing else because of different legal systems and different legislation since devolution.

Ultimately however, councils are in an impossible bind. By far and away the biggest proportion of their budget goes on education and social care, it simply dwarfs everything else.

Education costs are pretty much outwith their direct control as the biggest share is staffing costs. Salaries are settled nationally I believe and providing education is a statutory duty so the requisite number of teachers need to be employed. Cuts to classroom assistants and music tuition will have a big impact on pupil outcomes but far less on balancing budgets.

Social care, likewise, is a critical service. If it fails, then the already-struggling NHS is screwed completely. But people are living for longer with higher care needs, so demand is increasing while supply cannot.

Essentially anything else that is in the local authority’s remit and isn’t a statutory duty is in the firing line and many of these services and provisions have already been lost.

As it stands, education, health and social care are all managed by Scottish Government, Scottish NHS Boards and Scottish local authorities but it wouldn’t make any difference if it was the old Scottish Office pre-devolution, all councils are facing similar predicaments.

[JeMeSouviens]

There’s a plan? Well that would be a first [emoji2957]

No I’m simply saying it’s not anywhere near the same scale of problem if there are fiscal transfers to accommodate it.

And to be clear I’m not presenting it as pro or anti anything. I’m just trying to highlight that you can’t simply ignore it or just point a finger of blame.

There appears (and again I accept the figures are based on imperfect data) to be a substantial deficit and that is something that should be fully considered and appropriately addressed in the conversation.

Yet most responses again seem to immediately look to veer towards Westminster bad rather than consider the implications and understand the potential problems and consequences that it presents.

Mostly agreed except that I think relying on UK subvention is only a bit less shaky than relying on oil money. As soon as the threat of indy recedes, the Barnett tap will be swiftly turned off, imo.

Whatever the constitutional position, the gap needs plugged.

[Jack]

Yet that’s what the official estimates suggest re the deficit...not sure what they are around the price for the queens head on a plate tho! [emoji2957]

It was with reference to selling off the Post Office.

[RyeSloan]

It was with reference to selling off the Post Office.

Aha got ya.

Interesting that the main sale was done at 330p. A further sale done at 455p

Share price today..209p.

[ronaldo7]

Bit of an echo chamber in here, which is sad in terms of this forum supposedly being about debate.

Just in case you guys didn’t get the email, the Scottish people expressed something, I think Salmond or Sturgeon were calling it the sovereign will, just a wee while ago and comfortably voted against separation.

Chances are the vote would be the same tomorrow, despite all the upheaval with Brexit, as the polls don’t show a clear winner despite the appalling state of things in UK Labour and UK Conservatives. But the argument by Nats on here is similar to the losing gambler, “...one more roll of the dice, please”.

You are speaking for a resentful minority guys. While you are convinced of the righteousness of your argument, it was defeated because people didn’t buy it. The quicker you come to terms with that, the quicker you might find a way of convincingly winning a majority for your cause.

And please don’t fall into old tropes about Scottish people being stupid or craven or old, and that’s why they voted against you - or actually, carry on, if that’s all you have got because if that’s what you really think then it exposes your arguments for what they are.

As neither a unionist nor a nationalist, it’s a fascinating if somewhat depressing debate for me. There are bigger priorities in life than what our twirly civic flags look like.

Finding the best, most pragmatic solutions to existential threats like climate change for example, I would rather we spent time, resource and energy on that and how we need to set ourselves up to achieve that, for example. Going down the route of splintering and fracturing isn’t pragmatic.

You don't have much respect for democracy, if you think a vote nearly five years ago, can't be challenged/ changed with another vote.

Mandates are in place having been won in more recent elections than 2014, and you still hark back to 2014.

Is this "your" kind of democracy?

[Fife-Hibee]

UK government spending in Scotland is still public spending...that need and spend won’t just go away.

The figures for 17/18 are approx £60bn in taxes and £73.5bn in public spending.

That’s the crux of it and no amount of pointing at Westminster changes the fact that public spending in Scotland is significantly higher than the value of taxes raised.

Unless of course you are proposing billions of pounds worth of public spending cuts in an Indy Scotland?

How can we trust that the UK government doesn't intentionally inflate spending figures in Scotland to create the impression that we have this huge deficit?

Just because the UK Governments additional spending in Scotland takes the total public spend up to that level, doesn't mean that they are spending that money efficiently.

Billions upon billions could be going to waste for all we know and if that is the case, then those "billions of pounds worth of public spending cuts in an Indy Scotland" may have no noticeable impact whatsoever.

[Fife-Hibee]

You don't have much respect for democracy, if you think a vote nearly five years ago, can't be challenged/ changed with another vote.

Mandates are in place having been won in more recent elections than 2014, and you still hark back to 2014.

Is this "your" kind of democracy?

:agree:

He won't be keen on the idea of their being a 2nd UK referendum vote on the EU either then. Seeing as everything is set in stone.

[JeMeSouviens]

How can we trust that the UK government doesn't intentionally inflate spending figures in Scotland to create the impression that we have this huge deficit?

Just because the UK Governments additional spending in Scotland takes the total public spend up to that level, doesn't mean that they are spending that money efficiently.

Billions upon billions could be going to waste for all we know and if that is the case, then those "billions of pounds worth of public spending cuts in an Indy Scotland" may have no noticeable impact whatsoever.

Because the Scottish Goverment compiles the figures?

Note - it's not just UK gov spending in Scotland, it's UK gov spending attributed to Scotland, ie. a population share of running foreign affairs, defence etc.

It's not really a deficit anyway, because the ScotGov doesn't decide how much it spends. It just gets given an allocated amount based on what rUK chooses to spend. If ScotGov didn't spend all that money it couldn't do anything else with it, it would just return to London.

[ronaldo7]

How can we trust that the UK government doesn't intentionally inflate spending figures in Scotland to create the impression that we have this huge deficit?

Just because the UK Governments additional spending in Scotland takes the total public spend up to that level, doesn't mean that they are spending that money efficiently.

Billions upon billions could be going to waste for all we know and if that is the case, then those "billions of pounds worth of public spending cuts in an Indy Scotland" may have no noticeable impact whatsoever.

New Scottish office buildings, where the budget for the Scottish office has increased dramatically, and mundell and co, get carte Blanche, to do what they want, without a peep from those who support the union, and are happy for the spending to continue in this area.

But, schools and hospitals though.

[Fife-Hibee]

Because the Scottish Goverment compiles the figures?

Note - it's not just UK gov spending in Scotland, it's UK gov spending attributed to Scotland, ie. a population share of running foreign affairs, defence etc.

It's not really a deficit anyway, because the ScotGov doesn't decide how much it spends. It just gets given an allocated amount based on what rUK chooses to spend. If ScotGov didn't spend all that money it couldn't do anything else with it, it would just return to London.

Which raises the question. Why not just allow the Scottish Parliament to retain 100% of what Scotland generates in revenue? If the UK Government wants to spend additional billions in Scotlands name on things where there is no political will for it in Scotland, then they can feel free to bash on with it if they so do desire.

[Bristolhibby]

If Scotland was running at that sort of deficit the mercenary Tory *******s would jettison us without a second thought. These are, after all, the people who sold the Queens head on a plate!

Amy Macdonald hit the nail on the head with this tweet.

“If Scotland is this ****ing ***** then why do these folk want us to stay so much? 🤷🏼*♀️This government won’t subsidise an extra bedroom for those in need but it’s happy to subsidise an entire country? 🤔👍🏻 Absolutely sick of this patronising crap.”

https://twitter.com/amy__macdonald/status/1143608512586702848?s=21

J

[Mibbes Aye]

:agree:

He won't be keen on the idea of their being a 2nd UK referendum vote on the EU either then. Seeing as everything is set in stone.

You don’t seem to read my posts or at least understand them. Or perhaps it is easier to ‘misunderstand’ in order to make the point you just want to make regardless.

If you read my last post it wasn’t about the rights or wrongs of another referendum, it was the response of some of the Nats on here, creating an echo chamber and a narrative that is so often simply unsubstantiated.

In fact I went as far as to talk about how this contributed to you struggling to win a majority for your cause, which is hardly the language of resisting a referendum.

There were enough threads on here back at the time and I was never against the concept of the referendum but strongly against one of the outcomes and a lot of the arguments for it.

You will need to try again I’m afraid.

[Mibbes Aye]

You don't have much respect for democracy, if you think a vote nearly five years ago, can't be challenged/ changed with another vote.

Mandates are in place having been won in more recent elections than 2014, and you still hark back to 2014.

Is this "your" kind of democracy?

I don’t think you read and understand my posts either.

You lost the last referendum because you couldn’t make convincing arguments that were positive, rather than negative or grievance-based and your lot couldn’t answer some fundamental questions, especially about economics.

Thats correct isn’t it? Or are you one of the Nats who thinks us Scottish voters are stupid and/or cowards?

Instead of tackling the issues in the first paragraph you simply bang on about grievances and how you are entitled to as many referenda as it takes. I would have a lot more sympathy and respect for your cause if you addressed the issues in the first paragraph.

[Fife-Hibee]

You don’t seem to read my posts or at least understand them. Or perhaps it is easier to ‘misunderstand’ in order to make the point you just want to make regardless.

If you read my last post it wasn’t about the rights or wrongs of another referendum, it was the response of some of the Nats on here, creating an echo chamber and a narrative that is so often simply unsubstantiated.

In fact I went as far as to talk about how this contributed to you struggling to win a majority for your cause, which is hardly the language of resisting a referendum.

There were enough threads on here back at the time and I was never against the concept of the referendum but strongly against one of the outcomes and a lot of the arguments for it.

You will need to try again I’m afraid.

There you are with the "nats" again. Perhaps it's just easier for you too keep muddying your stance everytime the flaws are called out. You keep using the term "echo chamber" to denounce what others say, while being the very definition of it yourself. In fact, I would hazard a bet that at least 90% of your posts on this thread could have been shortened down to just one single post.

You also persist with the idea that we still need to win over a majority. That may have been the case several months ago. But if that was still the case now, neither the tories or Westminster would have any issue going public with their own internal polls. Something they're keeping very quiet about.

But if you want to keep repeating the same tired and outdated points over and over and over again, then i'm fine with that. In fact, i'm quite fine with all pro British unionists/nationalists making the same old tired debunked points over and over again, it only helps us.

[JeMeSouviens]

Amy Macdonald hit the nail on the head with this tweet.

“If Scotland is this ****ing ***** then why do these folk want us to stay so much? 🤷🏼*♀️This government won’t subsidise an extra bedroom for those in need but it’s happy to subsidise an entire country? 🤔👍🏻 Absolutely sick of this patronising crap.”

https://twitter.com/amy__macdonald/status/1143608512586702848?s=21

J

Loss of face internationally, both in terms of "losing" territory and potentially having to give up Trident (it would take years to develop a replacement for Faslane if it's even feasible in rUK). These things might lead to pressure on the UN to remove the UK's permanent veto on the Security Council.

Also the strategic long term interests of Scottish oil, Scottish fresh water, Scottish renewable energy, the geopolitically strategic control of the GIUK gap, etc.

The above are all reasons the UK is content to not reform the accidental subsidy of the Barnett formula.

[Fife-Hibee]

I don’t think you read and understand my posts either.

You lost the last referendum because you couldn’t make convincing arguments that were positive, rather than negative or grievance-based and your lot couldn’t answer some fundamental questions, especially about economics.

Thats correct isn’t it? Or are you one of the Nats who thinks us Scottish voters are stupid and/or cowards?

Instead of tackling the issues in the first paragraph you simply bang on about grievances and how you are entitled to as many referenda as it takes. I would have a lot more sympathy and respect for your cause if you addressed the issues in the first paragraph.

Are you really suggesting that the campaign for independence was based on negativity and grievance? Presumably you believe that the campaign to remain in the UK was positive and full of informative optimism?

[Mibbes Aye]

There you are with the "nats" again. Perhaps it's just easier for you too keep muddying your stance everytime the flaws are called out. You keep using the term "echo chamber" to denounce what others say, while being the very definition of it yourself. In fact, I would hazard a bet that at least 90% of your posts on this thread could have been shortened down to just one single post.

You also persist with the idea that we still need to win over a majority. That may have been the case several months ago. But if that was still the case now, neither the tories of Westminster would have any issue going public with their own internal polls. Something they're keeping very quiet about.

But if you want to keep repeating the same tired and outdated points over and over and over again, then i'm fine with that. In fact, i'm quite fine with all pro British unionists/nationalists making the same old tired debunked points over and over again, it only helps us.

If you think I’m pro-unionist then I think that sums you up I’m afraid. Having a healthy scepticism for nationalism does not equate to pro-unionism, at least for most rational people.

You didn’t answer my question about the resentful minority. It’s only a few posts back and I would genuinely be interested in an answer to that specific question.

[JeMeSouviens]

There you are with the "nats" again. Perhaps it's just easier for you too keep muddying your stance everytime the flaws are called out. You keep using the term "echo chamber" to denounce what others say, while being the very definition of it yourself. In fact, I would hazard a bet that at least 90% of your posts on this thread could have been shortened down to just one single post.

You also persist with the idea that we still need to win over a majority. That may have been the case several months ago. But if that was still the case now, neither the tories of Westminster would have any issue going public with their own internal polls. Something they're keeping very quiet about.

But if you want to keep repeating the same tired and outdated points over and over and over again, then i'm fine with that. In fact, i'm quite fine with all pro British unionists/nationalists making the same old tired debunked points over and over again, it only helps us.

Public polling from Panelbase and Yougov this year puts Yes on 48-49% but even if it were 51-52%, I'd be happy but wishing it was pushing on towards 60. I think MA is correct that the "one more heave" school of thought is dangerous.

Where I disagree is that we have to be entirely positive. The Brexit "experience" has cast an extremely negative light on the UK and the self serving clique of posh boys who for some inexplicable reason the UK electorate seem to prefer running the place. I hope Brexit is reversed for the whole UK but how anyone can consider the constitutional arrangements of Ireland in the EU vs Scotland in the UK and not conclude that the former is infinitely preferable is beyond me.

[Mibbes Aye]

Are you really suggesting that the campaign for independence was based on negativity and grievance? Presumably you believe that the campaign to remain in the UK was positive and full of informative optimism?

Again, you really have to read posts then stop twisting them in your reply to suit the point you want to make. It isn’t debate and it isn’t even effective!

Failure to make a positive case is not the same as making a negative one. But yes, there was no shortage of grievance from many quarters, before, during and after.

[ronaldo7]

I don’t think you read and understand my posts either.

You lost the last referendum because you couldn’t make convincing arguments that were positive, rather than negative or grievance-based and your lot couldn’t answer some fundamental questions, especially about economics.

Thats correct isn’t it? Or are you one of the Nats who thinks us Scottish voters are stupid and/or cowards?

Instead of tackling the issues in the first paragraph you simply bang on about grievances and how you are entitled to as many referenda as it takes. I would have a lot more sympathy and respect for your cause if you addressed the issues in the first paragraph.

And once again you avoid the issue of democracy.

Not once have I said that no voters were stupid. You're just making things up to suit your agenda.

Getting personal with people who voted yes, by calling them, nats, as you perceive it to be a pejorative suits your agenda.

I thought you were up for debate, instead, you play the unionist tune, and try to denegrate people who have a different view from you.

What about democracy?

Ach we've had that, just move on, or get back in your box, Scotland

[Fife-Hibee]

Again, you really have to read posts then stop twisting them in your reply to suit the point you want to make. It isn’t debate and it isn’t even effective!

Failure to make a positive case is not the same as making a negative one. But yes, there was no shortage of grievance from many quarters, before, during and after.

We never made a positive case (in your opinion). Stop stating it as an absolute fact. For many, being in complete control of our own finances and our future direction was very much a positive case, whether you personally agree with that or not.

[Fife-Hibee]

If you think I’m pro-unionist then I think that sums you up I’m afraid. Having a healthy scepticism for nationalism does not equate to pro-unionism, at least for most rational people.

You didn’t answer my question about the resentful minority. It’s only a few posts back and I would genuinely be interested in an answer to that specific question.

Having a healthly scepticism for the UK does not equate to pro-nationalism (or "nat" as you keep embarrassingly putting it).

I didn't answer your question about the "resentful minority", because the question is based on your own fabrication with no substantiated fact.

[Bristolhibby]

Loss of face internationally, both in terms of "losing" territory and potentially having to give up Trident (it would take years to develop a replacement for Faslane if it's even feasible in rUK). These things might lead to pressure on the UN to remove the UK's permanent veto on the Security Council.

Also the strategic long term interests of Scottish oil, Scottish fresh water, Scottish renewable energy, the geopolitically strategic control of the GIUK gap, etc.

The above are all reasons the UK is content to not reform the accidental subsidy of the Barnett formula.

So all things that Scotland “brings” to the Union. So in no way a subsidy.

All things that Scotland can control. Might not be bothered about a Security Council Seat, but Trident I’m sure can be negotiated some sort of lease in Faslane. Water, Oil, Wave, Tidal power, all big pluses in Scotland’s Credit column.

Territory, it’s not theirs to lose if the people of that country deem it.

J

[Mibbes Aye]

Public polling from Panelbase and Yougov this year puts Yes on 48-49% but even if it were 51-52%, I'd be happy but wishing it was pushing on towards 60. I think MA is correct that the "one more heave" school of thought is dangerous.

Where I disagree is that we have to be entirely positive. The Brexit "experience" has cast an extremely negative light on the UK and the self serving clique of posh boys who for some inexplicable reason the UK electorate seem to prefer running the place. I hope Brexit is reversed for the whole UK but how anyone can consider the constitutional arrangements of Ireland in the EU vs Scotland in the UK and not conclude that the former is infinitely preferable is beyond me.

I think you are right that recent times have seen the emergence of a particularly distasteful strain of entitled Establishment politics, though I guess it was the same in MacMillan’s time but not reported or reportable. I recently read a comment attributed to him where he had dismissed Thatcher’s cabinet as more ‘Old Estonian’ than ‘Old Etonian’.

I take your point about not needing to be universally positive but to build the appetite for change one has to have a compelling message. And compelling messages are more likely to succeed if they contain hope.

I think one area where Nats shoot themselves in the foot re Indy is in relation to the rhetoric, especially at grassroots level in relation to Tories.

I grew up under Thatcher, reached the age of majority under Major, so I recall all too vividly the scars they inflicted on a country. I also remember the formation of the Brugges Group, the genesis of the current Tory hard brexit cohort. No love from me.

But the vitriol, name calling and general abuse backfires IMO. I think it is clear there is a fluid vote in Scotland that like Ruth Davidson but maybe not Boris. Similarly there are Tories in Scotland who were probably soft No and could be won over. The rancour that gets directed at them isn’t really necessary, but regardless it is bad politics and petty politics.

The other element to that is there is a degree of innate small-c conservatism in Scottish politics, spread across all parties. It puts off voters if they see vitriol and diatribes, even when it’s directed at something they don’t support themselves.

[RyeSloan]

So all things that Scotland “brings” to the Union. So in no way a subsidy.

All things that Scotland can control. Might not be bothered about a Security Council Seat, but Trident I’m sure can be negotiated some sort of lease in Faslane. Water, Oil, Wave, Tidal power, all big pluses in Scotland’s Credit column.

Territory, it’s not theirs to lose if the people of that country deem it.

J

Scotland doesn’t export any water to England. Nor is it ever likely to be economically viable to do so.

As for wave and tidal power. Not very likely and in fact the SG has lost many millions backing that lame duck.

Oil is of course valid, if a rather old story and one with many contradictory elements.

Renewable energy as a whole though is definitely something that would be a rather large export.

[Fife-Hibee]

Scotland doesn’t export any water to England.

We don't "export" it there in the market sense. Plenty of it gets sent there though as British water.

[JeMeSouviens]

So all things that Scotland “brings” to the Union. So in no way a subsidy.

All things that Scotland can control. Might not be bothered about a Security Council Seat, but Trident I’m sure can be negotiated some sort of lease in Faslane. Water, Oil, Wave, Tidal power, all big pluses in Scotland’s Credit column.

Territory, it’s not theirs to lose if the people of that country deem it.

J

I'm not really sure if you're arguing with me or not? Whether you call it a subsidy or whatever, these are the facts:

- The UK spends more per head of population in Scotland than in rUK.
- But not by design, by accident, due to using out of date population figures (England's population has grown faster than Scotland's since Barnett fixed his formula.)

These are consequentials (geddit?):

- Most Tories would like to recalculate Barnett but dare not because they know it would probably tip Scotland to Yes.
- if the threat of independence recedes they will cut public spending in Scotland and tell Scotgov to raise tax if they want to maintain spending levels.

[Ozyhibby]

Public polling from Panelbase and Yougov this year puts Yes on 48-49% but even if it were 51-52%, I'd be happy but wishing it was pushing on towards 60. I think MA is correct that the "one more heave" school of thought is dangerous.

Where I disagree is that we have to be entirely positive. The Brexit "experience" has cast an extremely negative light on the UK and the self serving clique of posh boys who for some inexplicable reason the UK electorate seem to prefer running the place. I hope Brexit is reversed for the whole UK but how anyone can consider the constitutional arrangements of Ireland in the EU vs Scotland in the UK and not conclude that the former is infinitely preferable is beyond me.

I agree there is now scope to fight a little dirtier now that better together 2 won’t have a status quo to defend. Brexit means that things are changing no matter what.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

I'm not really sure if you're arguing with me or not? Whether you call it a subsidy or whatever, these are the facts:

- The UK spends more per head of population in Scotland than in rUK.
- But not by design, by accident, due to using out of date population figures (England's population has grown faster than Scotland's since Barnett fixed his formula.)

These are consequentials (geddit?):

- Most Tories would like to recalculate Barnett but dare not because they know it would probably tip Scotland to Yes.
- if the threat of independence recedes they will cut public spending in Scotland and tell Scotgov to raise tax if they want to maintain spending levels.

The UK spends more per head of population on behalf of Scotland than the rest of UK. A lot of the money is spent in the rest of the UK and Abroad on our behalf. A lot of it, an independent Scotland would probably stop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

Scotland doesn’t export any water to England. Nor is it ever likely to be economically viable to do so.

As for wave and tidal power. Not very likely and in fact the SG has lost many millions backing that lame duck.

Oil is of course valid, if a rather old story and one with many contradictory elements.

Renewable energy as a whole though is definitely something that would be a rather large export.

I know next to nothing about renewables but my impression was wave didn't do well but tidal has potential?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-45246445

[Smartie]

I think you are right that recent times have seen the emergence of a particularly distasteful strain of entitled Establishment politics, though I guess it was the same in MacMillan’s time but not reported or reportable. I recently read a comment attributed to him where he had dismissed Thatcher’s cabinet as more ‘Old Estonian’ than ‘Old Etonian’.

I take your point about not needing to be universally positive but to build the appetite for change one has to have a compelling message. And compelling messages are more likely to succeed if they contain hope.

I think one area where Nats shoot themselves in the foot re Indy is in relation to the rhetoric, especially at grassroots level in relation to Tories.

I grew up under Thatcher, reached the age of majority under Major, so I recall all too vividly the scars they inflicted on a country. I also remember the formation of the Brugges Group, the genesis of the current Tory hard brexit cohort. No love from me.

But the vitriol, name calling and general abuse backfires IMO. I think it is clear there is a fluid vote in Scotland that like Ruth Davidson but maybe not Boris. Similarly there are Tories in Scotland who were probably soft No and could be won over. The rancour that gets directed at them isn’t really necessary, but regardless it is bad politics and petty politics.

The other element to that is there is a degree of innate small-c conservatism in Scottish politics, spread across all parties. It puts off voters if they see vitriol and diatribes, even when it’s directed at something they don’t support themselves.

I totally agree with a lot of this.

In all likelihood I'll never vote Tory in my life, but that's not to say I don't have sympathies for certain centre-right policies and think that as a nation (Scotland) we should be a bit more open to debate about the merits of such politics.

I've defended Ruth Davidson on here in the past, I quite like her and I'm not nearly as offended by her "small c conservatism" as many Scots seem to be. Sadly, she seems to have been swallowed up by the constitutional British nationalist bandwagon and instead of discussing policies and positive change has veered off down the "no more referendums, protect our place in the Union" route over discussions of greater merit. I actually think she's better than that, but it seems to have a decent amount of political capital these days so there you go. Poor Ruth has been badly undermined by her leaders and colleagues down South though, so it will be interesting to see where she goes from here.

The Damage done to the conservative brand in Scotland during the 80s remains harmful for our nation. Because they were so bloody awful, any association with them is harmful, so we end up with the pretty undignified spectacle of the Tories, the red Tories and the tartan Tories scrapping and yapping it out over who are actually the biggest Tories.

[JeMeSouviens]

The UK spends more per head of population on behalf of Scotland than the rest of UK. A lot of the money is spent in the rest of the UK and Abroad on our behalf. A lot of it, an independent Scotland would probably stop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed. "Defence" is one obvious area. UK spending is wildly disproportionate compared to comparable European countries and Trident is just ridiculous.

[JeMeSouviens]

I think you are right that recent times have seen the emergence of a particularly distasteful strain of entitled Establishment politics, though I guess it was the same in MacMillan’s time but not reported or reportable. I recently read a comment attributed to him where he had dismissed Thatcher’s cabinet as more ‘Old Estonian’ than ‘Old Etonian’.

I take your point about not needing to be universally positive but to build the appetite for change one has to have a compelling message. And compelling messages are more likely to succeed if they contain hope.

I think one area where Nats shoot themselves in the foot re Indy is in relation to the rhetoric, especially at grassroots level in relation to Tories.

I grew up under Thatcher, reached the age of majority under Major, so I recall all too vividly the scars they inflicted on a country. I also remember the formation of the Brugges Group, the genesis of the current Tory hard brexit cohort. No love from me.

But the vitriol, name calling and general abuse backfires IMO. I think it is clear there is a fluid vote in Scotland that like Ruth Davidson but maybe not Boris. Similarly there are Tories in Scotland who were probably soft No and could be won over. The rancour that gets directed at them isn’t really necessary, but regardless it is bad politics and petty politics.

The other element to that is there is a degree of innate small-c conservatism in Scottish politics, spread across all parties. It puts off voters if they see vitriol and diatribes, even when it’s directed at something they don’t support themselves.

Again, mostly agreed. I think negative pro-Yes campaigning should focus on Tory policies rather than name calling (however tempting it is to indulge in same). The driver for Brexit among the Tories active in policy (Raab, Truss, etc) is small state, low regulation, de'il tak the hindmost politics.

Not sure about soft-no Tories though. If there were any, will they still be around after the last couple of years of relentless single issue Unionism?

[Hibbyradge]

Since when was "Nats" an insult? :confused:

Isn't "Yoon" an insult too? I see that term used a lot.

This thread is a car crash.

[ronaldo7]

Since when was "Nats" an insult? :confused:

Isn't "Yoon" an insult too? I see that term used a lot.

This thread is a car crash.

I prefer normalists myself. Nats has been used and changed on many social media platforms, and amended to Natz.

They know what they're doing.

Mon the self determinationists.

[marinello59]

I prefer normalists myself. Nats has been used and changed on many social media platforms, and amended to Natz.

They know what they're doing.

Mon the self determinationists.

Exactly the same as some Indy supporters do with the Unionist /Yoons jibes though isn’t it? Some want to portray all opponents as bowler hat wearing members of the orange order. Sad stuff from people on both sides.

[RyeSloan]

We don't "export" it there in the market sense. Plenty of it gets sent there though as British water.

What do you mean by ‘sent there as British water’?

To be very clear Scottish Water as of Aug 2018 made it very clear that they send zero water to England. They stated:

“there is currently no water supplies being diverted, piped or channelled to England from Scotland from Scottish Water”

There will of course be commercial enterprises exporting bottled water as a commoditised entity but that, I assume, is not what the poster meant when listing the items is Scotland’s credit column.

[marinello59]

What do you mean by ‘sent there as British water’?

To be very clear Scottish Water as of Aug 2018 made it very clear that they send zero water to England. They stated:

“there is currently no water supplies being diverted, piped or channelled to England from Scotland from Scottish Water”

There will of course be commercial enterprises exporting bottled water as a commoditised entity but that, I assume, is not what the poster meant when listing the items is Scotland’s credit column.

They’re stealing our rain. FACT.

[ronaldo7]

Exactly the same as some Indy supporters do with the Unionist /Yoons jibes though isn’t it? Some want to portray all opponents as bowler hat wearing members of the orange order. Sad stuff from people on both sides.

Yes.😂

I'd say most bowler hat wearing members of the orange order are died in the wool, blood and soil unionists, and we've all seen the tie ups with, local councillors etc, or are we to pretend it doesn't happen?

[JeMeSouviens]

What do you mean by ‘sent there as British water’?

To be very clear Scottish Water as of Aug 2018 made it very clear that they send zero water to England. They stated:

“there is currently no water supplies being diverted, piped or channelled to England from Scotland from Scottish Water”

There will of course be commercial enterprises exporting bottled water as a commoditised entity but that, I assume, is not what the poster meant when listing the items is Scotland’s credit column.

I wasn't trying to put anything in Scotland's "credit column", I was trying to outline the interests rUK has in hanging onto Scotland. Water was maybe a stretch and I only added it as a very long term thing. The most pressing ones are loss of face internationally and a home for Trident (which is indirectly again, loss of face internationally).

[Mibbes Aye]

And once again you avoid the issue of democracy.

Not once have I said that no voters were stupid. You're just making things up to suit your agenda.

Getting personal with people who voted yes, by calling them, nats, as you perceive it to be a pejorative suits your agenda.

I thought you were up for debate, instead, you play the unionist tune, and try to denegrate people who have a different view from you.

What about democracy?

Ach we've had that, just move on, or get back in your box, Scotland

Wont anyone think about the democracy!!! :greengrin

Being serious, you will have to explain that one to me because if you read my posts I’m not sure I expressed anything undemocratic but would welcome it being pointed out if so.

And you and Fife Hibee really need to get over folk shortening nationalist to nat, when did this over-reaction come about? There’s nothing pejorative about it, nor isn’t it ‘getting personal’. If I wanted to be critical of nationalism I would and have done it more directly as well you know.

As for calling no voters stupid, read my post, I never said you had so I’m not making anything up, am I.

Jeez, it was are enough debating with you guys when it was just policy. Now that everything is being treated as personal makes it ten times harder!

[JeMeSouviens]

They’re stealing our rain. FACT.

Maybe they could take the midgies next?

[Bristolhibby]

I'm not really sure if you're arguing with me or not? Whether you call it a subsidy or whatever, these are the facts:

- The UK spends more per head of population in Scotland than in rUK.
- But not by design, by accident, due to using out of date population figures (England's population has grown faster than Scotland's since Barnett fixed his formula.)

These are consequentials (geddit?):

- Most Tories would like to recalculate Barnett but dare not because they know it would probably tip Scotland to Yes.
- if the threat of independence recedes they will cut public spending in Scotland and tell Scotgov to raise tax if they want to maintain spending levels.

No, not arguing just pointing out that a subsidy means “a sum of money granted by the state or a public body to help an industry or business keep the price of a commodity or service low.”

My point was it isn’t a subsidy, it’s remuneration for other things that Scotland brings to the party.

If we are talking subsidies we should talk about the subsidies London and the South East gets from the rest of the U.K. for Capital investment.

J

[Bristolhibby]

What do you mean by ‘sent there as British water’?

To be very clear Scottish Water as of Aug 2018 made it very clear that they send zero water to England. They stated:

“there is currently no water supplies being diverted, piped or channelled to England from Scotland from Scottish Water”

There will of course be commercial enterprises exporting bottled water as a commoditised entity but that, I assume, is not what the poster meant when listing the items is Scotland’s credit column.

Water isn’t a commodity now, but in 100 years? The salivation of melting ice might be more of a problem. Will be good to have a source of fresh water in the future.

J

[Mibbes Aye]

We never made a positive case (in your opinion). Stop stating it as an absolute fact. For many, being in complete control of our own finances and our future direction was very much a positive case, whether you personally agree with that or not.

You never made a positive case, let alone a winning case and that is fact. Acceptance and moving on to a different approach is the best thing Nats can do rather than remaining innured in the politics of grievance.

Just on your point about complete control of ones own finances - would that be using the Euro whereby economic and fiscal policy would be shaped by the convergence criteria set by Europe. Or retaining the pound where critical decisions were made by the Bank of England?

These questions have come up before and will keep coming up as they have never been adequately answered for the majority of voters. You can’t blame your opponents or the voters for that!

[ronaldo7]

Wont anyone think about the democracy!!! :greengrin

Being serious, you will have to explain that one to me because if you read my posts I’m not sure I expressed anything undemocratic but would welcome it being pointed out if so.

And you and Fife Hibee really need to get over folk shortening nationalist to nat, when did this over-reaction come about? There’s nothing pejorative about it, nor isn’t it ‘getting personal’. If I wanted to be critical of nationalism I would and have done it more directly as well you know.

As for calling no voters stupid, read my post, I never said you had so I’m not making anything up, am I.

Jeez, it was are enough debating with you guys when it was just policy. Now that everything is being treated as personal makes it ten times harder!

Sorry, I didn't receive any e mail. Maybe you could post the one you got. Awaits in anticipation...

Your constant referral back to 2014, as if its when time stood still.

You're supposed to be a Democrat, or so you espouse.

The mandate is in place, isn't it?

[Bristolhibby]

You never made a positive case, let alone a winning case and that is fact. Acceptance and moving on to a different approach is the best thing Nats can do rather than remaining injured in the politics of grievance.

Just on your point about complete control of ones own finances - would that be using the Euro whereby economic and fiscal policy would be shaped by the convergence criteria set by Europe. Or retaining the pound where critical decisions were made by the Bank of England?

Hese questions have come up before and will keep coming up as they have never been adequately answered for the majority of voters. You can’t blame your opponents or the voters for that!

Does Westminster decide what’s best for Scotland when publishing its budget. Scotland has already ceded financial control. That happened in 1707. A corporate takeover.

All the Euro Zone countries are independent nation states.

J

[Mibbes Aye]

Having a healthly scepticism for the UK does not equate to pro-nationalism (or "nat" as you keep embarrassingly putting it).

I didn't answer your question about the "resentful minority", because the question is based on your own fabrication with no substantiated fact.

I described a ‘resentful minority’.

You said there was virtually no evidence of that, which I disagree with but hey-no.

But if there was virtually no evidence, then that means you were saying there must be some, even if it’s only a little.

And I was merely asking what you thought that evidence was.

No fabrication there, is there? It’s all in the posts above.

And I am genuinely curious about the spectrum within the pro-Indy movement as some are clearly uncomfortable with the ‘angry brigade’.

[Mibbes Aye]

Does Westminster decide what’s best for Scotland when publishing its budget. Scotland has already ceded financial control. That happened in 1707. A corporate takeover.

All the Euro Zone countries are independent nation states.

J

On so many levels, wow.......

Do you think Nicola Suturgeon, Derek Mackay and John Swinney don’t think their budgets are important? Makes you wonder why they invest so much time and energy in them. Curiously, many parts of Scotland will complain that they are overlooked in favour of the Central Belt etc. And likewise, at a local level, many districts will complain their council prioritises other localities ahead of them, that’s the nature.

I’m also curious about the skipping from one viewpoint to a contradictory one. One minute the Union is a corporate takeover by invidious Albion to do down the dastardly Scots. Next it’s that UK Gov is overfunding Scotland as a tool to keep the Union alive. None of this really makes sense! To what end? Other than to satisfy the fantasies of a small number of grievance-ridden Nats who need an argument, however ridiculous, to make up for a lack of a serious and credible case?

As for EuroZone countries being independent nation states, the whole point of the EuroZone and the EU is to reduce the sort of differences and barriers one associates with independent nation states. Its whole ethos is moving to a homogenous state that recognises cultural differences.

[Mibbes Aye]

Sorry, I didn't receive any e mail. Maybe you could post the one you got. Awaits in anticipation...

Your constant referral back to 2014, as if its when time stood still.

You're supposed to be a Democrat, or so you espouse.

The mandate is in place, isn't it?

I like this.

It’s like a haiku, or from a Nat perspective, maybe an Eck-u :greengrin

I still don’t understand what you are saying though.

[Bristolhibby]

On so many levels, wow.......

Do you think Nicola Suturgeon, Derek Mackay and John Swinney don’t think their budgets are important? Makes you wonder why they invest so much time and energy in them. Curiously, many parts of Scotland will complain that they are overlooked in favour of the Central Belt etc. And likewise, at a local level, many districts will complain their council prioritises other localities ahead of them, that’s the nature.

I’m also curious about the skipping from one viewpoint to a contradictory one. One minute the Union is a corporate takeover by invidious Albion to do down the dastardly Scots. Next it’s that UK Gov is overfunding Scotland as a tool to keep the Union alive. None of this really makes sense! To what end? Other than to satisfy the fantasies of a small number of grievance-ridden Nats who need an argument, however ridiculous, to make up for a lack of a serious and credible case?

As for EuroZone countries being independent nation states, the whole point of the EuroZone and the EU is to reduce the sort of differences and barriers one associates with independent nation states. Its whole ethos is moving to a homogenous state that recognises cultural differences.

Wow! You missed the question in my post.

Does Westminster decide what’s best for Scotland when setting its budget and fiscal policy.

Simple question?

J

[Fife-Hibee]

You never made a positive case, let alone a winning case and that is fact. Acceptance and moving on to a different approach is the best thing Nats can do rather than remaining innured in the politics of grievance.

Just on your point about complete control of ones own finances - would that be using the Euro whereby economic and fiscal policy would be shaped by the convergence criteria set by Europe. Or retaining the pound where critical decisions were made by the Bank of England?

These questions have come up before and will keep coming up as they have never been adequately answered for the majority of voters. You can’t blame your opponents or the voters for that!

Why does it need to be one or the other? Why is the idea of Scotland having it's own established currency and banks so far fetched to you? Why is it that anything that any other country in the world can do, Scotland somehow mysteriously can't?


I described a ‘resentful minority’.

You said there was virtually no evidence of that, which I disagree with but hey-no.

But if there was virtually no evidence, then that means you were saying there must be some, even if it’s only a little.

And I was merely asking what you thought that evidence was.

No fabrication there, is there? It’s all in the posts above.

And I am genuinely curious about the spectrum within the pro-Indy movement as some are clearly uncomfortable with the ‘angry brigade’.

There's an "angry brigade" in all shades of politics. Including your own. You seem to have this weird idea that you're an enlightened one with views that are above and beyond that of the rest of us. You don't.

You're only "genuinely curious" about the "angry brigade" as you put it in the independence movement because it suits you politically. Yet, despite our so called "angry brigade", you never see anybody in that "brigade" breaking laws or getting themselves arrested for violence when out campaigning for their cause.

Compare that to the "great defenders of the union" with their orange sashes and flutes who like to go around spitting at people while defacing Cathedrals and Mosques. The likelihood of people being arrested for every 1000 of them is extremely high. The likelihood of people being arrested at an independence event/rally for every 100,000 is (as things stand) zero.

[Mibbes Aye]

Wow! You missed the question in my post.

Does Westminster decide what’s best for Scotland when setting its budget and fiscal policy.

Simple question?

J

I will let you off with not taking on any of my points in the slightest, that’s okay.

I’m not sure why you are asking me the question you are asking though. It’s not like I’m a proponent of the Union. I also find the tribalism and reductionalism of nationalism to be petty and offensive however. Maybe if there were more unionists posting on here I would have the chance to debate and challenge them but I suspect they refuse to break cover as they will face an onslaught of posts from the resentful minority, as I believe is the accepted usage :greengrin

As to your question, Westminster doesn’t really set the budget and fiscal policy. The government of the day sets it.

The Government has to take legislation to Westminster but on a normal pitch they will have the majority to do as they will, although we may be at the beginning of a shift that critics of FPTP never thought could happen. It is also worth acknowledging that certain big levers like interest rates have been sourced out to the Bank of England for a couple of decades.

So all I can do is speculate. My speculation is that the Treasury takes the lead on setting budgets and fiscal policy, and civil servants there see themselves as a different breed from other civil servants. Treasury ministers (and there was plentiful Scottishness in the New Labour years) perhaps become a wee bit similar. This means that it ends up as a lobbying contest between all the other departments for funding. Depending on how good those ministers and civil servants are, and what the issues of the day are, dictates what gets prioritised. One hopes that longer term strategy plays a part but there has been little evidence of that in recent years.

Absolutely no different in the devolved governments. Absolutely no different in local authorities.

[ronaldo7]

I like this.

It’s like a haiku, or from a Nat perspective, maybe an Eck-u :greengrin

I still don’t understand what you are saying though.

It's simple really. You've come onto the thread a few posts back( sorry, can't give you the post number, I'm on the phone), mentioning an echo chamber, and throw a few unionist tropes into your post about respecting votes, e mails, blah blah.

When I ask you questions of mandates for Indyref2, you duck and cover. It's like you're trolling this thread.

I'll ask again.

Do you agree, a mandate is already in place for us to have Indyref2?

[makaveli1875]

It's simple really. You've come onto the thread a few posts back( sorry, can't give you the post number, I'm on the phone), mentioning an echo chamber, and throw a few unionist tropes into your post about respecting votes, e mails, blah blah.

When I ask you questions of mandates for Indyref2, you duck and cover. It's like you're trolling this thread.

I'll ask again.

Do you agree, a mandate is already in place for us to have Indyref2?

No

[ronaldo7]

No

Thanks for that. How do you come to that conclusion?

[Mibbes Aye]

It's simple really. You've come onto the thread a few posts back( sorry, can't give you the post number, I'm on the phone), mentioning an echo chamber, and throw a few unionist tropes into your post about respecting votes, e mails, blah blah.

When I ask you questions of mandates for Indyref2, you duck and cover. It's like you're trolling this thread.

I'll ask again.

Do you agree, a mandate is already in place for us to have Indyref2?

Oh, don’t accuse me of trolling, that’s shabby behaviour. It’s not my fault I’ve repeatedly asked you to explain the point you were trying to make.

You seem to have got there with your final sentence.

My answer is I don’t know but I don’t think so. More importantly, if there is a mandate why isn’t there more pressure to exercise it (hud on, stupid me, the polls!!!)

I think people vote SNP for a variety of reasons. Most, undoubtedly, see it as a vehicle for independence but others will do so based on a perception of managerialist competence by SG during the SNP terms - as we know, that’s a whole other debate!

Im not overly fussed about this to-and-fro about whether there is a mandate or not - I have no ideological commitment to nationalism or unionism. It amuses me however that for a lot of Nats it seems to be the be all and end all, when the real issue, the real elephant in the room is actually swaying ten percent of the electorate, who need convinced that Yea is positive and the economics stack up.

And since the Growth Commission reported it has been deathly silence. That’s what you need to resolve. It’s not about mandates and another roll of the dice, it’s about establishing a clinching narrative that addresses the concerns of the waverers.

If they can do that they will impress me. If it is same-old grievance politics it will depress me.

[Mibbes Aye]

It's simple really. You've come onto the thread a few posts back( sorry, can't give you the post number, I'm on the phone), mentioning an echo chamber, and throw a few unionist tropes into your post about respecting votes, e mails, blah blah.

When I ask you questions of mandates for Indyref2, you duck and cover. It's like you're trolling this thread.

I'll ask again.

Do you agree, a mandate is already in place for us to have Indyref2?

And by the way, it is an echo chamber and I don’t do unionist tropes, but I reckon you don’t like uncomfortable truths :na na: :greengrin

[ronaldo7]

Oh, don’t accuse me of trolling, that’s shabby behaviour. It’s not my fault I’ve repeatedly asked you to explain the point you were trying to make.

You seem to have got there with your final sentence.

My answer is I don’t know but I don’t think so. More importantly, if there is a mandate why isn’t there more pressure to exercise it (hud on, stupid me, the polls!!!)

I think people vote SNP for a variety of reasons. Most, undoubtedly, see it as a vehicle for independence but others will do so based on a perception of managerialist competence by SG during the SNP terms - as we know, that’s a whole other debate!

Im not overly fussed about this to-and-fro about whether there is a mandate or not - I have no ideological commitment to nationalism or unionism. It amuses me however that for a lot of Nats it seems to be the be all and end all, when the real issue, the real elephant in the room is actually swaying ten percent of the electorate, who need convinced that Yea is positive and the economics stack up.

And since the Growth Commission reported it has been deathly silence. That’s what you need to resolve. It’s not about mandates and another roll of the dice, it’s about establishing a clinching narrative that addresses the concerns of the waverers.

If they can do that they will impress me. If it is same-old grievance politics it will depress me.

So. You don't know, but you don't think so. 😆😆😆

Impressive 😆😆😆

Don't you worry your self about when it'll be exercised. Well let you know.

[ronaldo7]

And by the way, it is an echo chamber and I don’t do unionist tropes, but I reckon you don’t like uncomfortable truths :na na: :greengrin

Have a nice night. 118 118

[Mibbes Aye]

Why does it need to be one or the other? Why is the idea of Scotland having it's own established currency and banks so far fetched to you? Why is it that anything that any other country in the world can do, Scotland somehow mysteriously can’t. .

Why do you lie when you post?

I have never said anything like that and your last sentence is frankly ridiculous.

[Mibbes Aye]

So. You don't know, but you don't think so. 😆😆😆

Impressive 😆😆😆

Don't you worry your self about when it'll be exercised. Well let you know.

I think you are being sarcastic.

How very, very clever of you :agree:

:greengrin

[Fife-Hibee]

Why do you lie when you post?

I have never said anything like that and your last sentence is frankly ridiculous.

Then what point are you trying to make then? You mention GBP and the Euro only as if it's a binary choice between the two.

[RyeSloan]

I wasn't trying to put anything in Scotland's "credit column", I was trying to outline the interests rUK has in hanging onto Scotland. Water was maybe a stretch and I only added it as a very long term thing. The most pressing ones are loss of face internationally and a home for Trident (which is indirectly again, loss of face internationally).

Hmm maybe I got my quotes mixed up, it was Bristol that mentioned the credit column I think.

As it is I reckon people simply don’t want to see the UK separate, it’s as simple as that.

I don’t see that as needing to hang on to Scotland or deliberately keeping it under the thumb by imposing austerity or deliberately over spending on it (take your pick of the cunning plans at play).

I know some proponents of Indy will always look for a nefarious reason as to why but I always think that they are trying to pin a complex set of dynamics onto one simple narrative hence why these reasons don’t particularly bear much scrutiny (in my humble opinion of course!).

[RyeSloan]

Does Westminster decide what’s best for Scotland when publishing its budget. Scotland has already ceded financial control. That happened in 1707. A corporate takeover.

All the Euro Zone countries are independent nation states.

J

Independent nation states that are under budgetary control from Frankfurt of course...the Italians have been having some fun with their allegedly independent status when their government tried to enact policies voted on by their own peoples.

Greece effectively lost most of their fiscal independence as the cost to stay in the Euro

Ireland suffered a massive boom and bust because they had no independent ability to manage their economy.

And of course we have that bastion of freedom Lagarde moving from the IMF to the ECB and the EU over riding their own parliament, by ignoring the lead candidate process, to try and force through a new commission president (daughter of an ex European Commissioner no less), one who of course is a proponent of further ‘integration’ and a fan of an EU army.

The term Independent seems to be rather fungible when it comes to the EU and particularly the Eurozone and of course the oft heard mantra of independent in Europe.

[Mibbes Aye]

Then what point are you trying to make then? You mention GBP and the Euro only as if it's a binary choice between the two.

I did not. I used them as examples.

Why do you take something posted and then suggest it was something else? It’s false and essentially lies.

You have still never answered the question about your acceptance of resentful minorities but I know a couple of other decent posters on here have had trouble chasing you down to actually answer a question, so not expecting anything anytime soon.

I bet the other Nats on here are chuffed that you seem to be on their side :greengrin

[Fife-Hibee]

I did not. I used them as examples.

Why do you take something posted and then suggest it was something else? It’s false and essentially lies.

You have still never answered the question about your acceptance of resentful minorities but I know a couple of other decent posters on here have had trouble chasing you down to actually answer a question, so not expecting anything anytime soon.

I bet the other Nats on here are chuffed that you seem to be on their side :greengrin

Where does this idea of "acceptance of resentful minorities" even come from? Where did I suggest this? It's false and essentially lies.

[Fife-Hibee]

Hmm maybe I got my quotes mixed up, it was Bristol that mentioned the credit column I think.

As it is I reckon people simply don’t want to see the UK separate, it’s as simple as that.

I don’t see that as needing to hang on to Scotland or deliberately keeping it under the thumb by imposing austerity or deliberately over spending on it (take your pick of the cunning plans at play).

I know some proponents of Indy will always look for a nefarious reason as to why but I always think that they are trying to pin a complex set of dynamics onto one simple narrative hence why these reasons don’t particularly bear much scrutiny (in my humble opinion of course!).

It's not about pinning a complex set of dynamics onto one simple narrative. It's about challenging overly simplistic narratives and encouraging more people to do so themselves.

To apply critical thinking, rather than simply sleepwalking into a decision.

[Mibbes Aye]

Where does this idea of "acceptance of resentful minorities" even come from? Where did I suggest this? It's false and essentially lies.

You are such a card :greengrin

I’m actually quite fond of your posts.

But in the interest of debate, can you go back to post 8581 and answer that, rather than just reading what I say about you then accusing me of the same thing?

You're an industrious engine, that’s for sure (Thomas the Tank reference, for the avoidance of doubt).

[Future17]

You are such a card :greengrin

I’m actually quite fond of your posts.

But in the interest of debate, can you go back to post 8581 and answer that, rather than just reading what I say about you then accusing me of the same thing?

You're an industrious engine, that’s for sure (Thomas the Tank reference, for the avoidance of doubt).

I'm not sure rhyming slang is an acceptable way to bypass the swear filter. ;-)

[marinello59]

Yes.��

I'd say most bowler hat wearing members of the orange order are died in the wool, blood and soil unionists, and we've all seen the tie ups with, local councillors etc, or are we to pretend it doesn't happen?

That looks like the Sevco defence of the point I actually made. Deflection. You are better than that.

[RyeSloan]

It's not about pinning a complex set of dynamics onto one simple narrative. It's about challenging overly simplistic narratives and encouraging more people to do so themselves.

To apply critical thinking, rather than simply sleepwalking into a decision.

It’s rare but on this I agree with you!

Probably not in the way you intended of course but hey [emoji2957]

[Mibbes Aye]

I'm not sure rhyming slang is an acceptable way to bypass the swear filter. ;-)

Wasn't meant that way but :greengrin

[NAE NOOKIE]

On so many levels, wow.......

Do you think Nicola Suturgeon, Derek Mackay and John Swinney don’t think their budgets are important? Makes you wonder why they invest so much time and energy in them. Curiously, many parts of Scotland will complain that they are overlooked in favour of the Central Belt etc. And likewise, at a local level, many districts will complain their council prioritises other localities ahead of them, that’s the nature.

I’m also curious about the skipping from one viewpoint to a contradictory one. One minute the Union is a corporate takeover by invidious Albion to do down the dastardly Scots. Next it’s that UK Gov is overfunding Scotland as a tool to keep the Union alive. None of this really makes sense! To what end? Other than to satisfy the fantasies of a small number of grievance-ridden Nats who need an argument, however ridiculous, to make up for a lack of a serious and credible case?

As for EuroZone countries being independent nation states, the whole point of the EuroZone and the EU is to reduce the sort of differences and barriers one associates with independent nation states. Its whole ethos is moving to a homogenous state that recognises cultural differences.

Your last paragraph is a theory advanced by many commentators on the EU …. but for the time being it seems that many states who are members or prospective members are moving away from the idea of a united states of Europe, certainly along the lines of a USA type model … its unlikely to happen IMO no matter how much certain elements want it to happen.

As for the rest …. Economic argument, economic argument, economic argument ad nauseum …. Dozens and dozens of countries have gone their own way over the last century and a bit. Norway from Sweden, the Republic of Ireland from Britain, a load of countries from the old Soviet Union and then the countries born out of the break up of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, not to mention all of the countries who have gained independence from colonial Britain.

In 90% of cases the new countries formed or who gained their independence were looking at a possible or certain economically unstable future and in some cases were definitely looking at being poorer at least in the short to medium term. And yet Scotland which no matter how bleak a picture is painted is in no way looking at becoming anything like a poor country in relation to most of them still seems to be a different case from all these other countries.

It seems that the case for Scotland becoming an independent country has been boiled down to pure economics …. never mind pride, never mind the different outlook politically this country had had from the rest of the UK for the vast majority of the last 50 years, the latest example of which is our clear Eurocentric outlook compared to the rest of Britain. Never mind the fact that folk all over the world point to the group of islands off Europe's west coast and say 'England' …. never mind any of that. While citizens of many countries literally fought and died to achieve their status on the world stage as true nation states the proud patriotic Scots cannae be arsed coz a pint might cost a bit more or petrol might be £1,30 a litre or a house that was 100K might cost 110K …. Oh and its gonna be too much bother to stop at a kiosk on the Scottish / English border to show a passport.

Perhaps the guys who signed the act of union 300 years ago weren't the "parcel o' rogues" Burns tarred them as, but rather a true reflection of the real measure of so called Scottish national pride ….. Because it seems to me we as a so called 'nation' have become a modern reflection of them. In the modern era a bunch of 90 minute nationalists whose national pride and idea of being 'a nation again' only extends as far as the contents of our purse or wallet.

Perhaps we deserve to be what we are, nothing more than a tiny insignificant region of a country called Britain which to all intents and purposes is England by another name …. so much so that most of the world call it England, to the extent that an American journalist on the news last night spoke about America's special relationship with 'England' when discussing the British ambassador situation and the BBC interviewer made absolutely no attempt to correct him. But then why should he bother when in decades of watching the so called 'British' broadcasting corporation I have never once heard an employee of theirs correct anybody who transposed the name Britain or UK with England.

To some that may be insignificant in the grand scheme of things, but to me its absolutely symptomatic of what Scotland has become, no matter how much we try to deny it. Perceived by the rest of the world as a part of England with no identity of our own as a proper country unless its a made up one to satisfy the producers of Outlander. How apt that we chose a creature which doesn't really exist as our national animal :faf:

[JeMeSouviens]

I like this.

It’s like a haiku, or from a Nat perspective, maybe an Eck-u :greengrin

I still don’t understand what you are saying though.

If you'd called it an Ecu, you'd have neatly brought it back to currency. Wasted opporchancity!

[JeMeSouviens]

Your last paragraph is a theory advanced by many commentators on the EU …. but for the time being it seems that many states who are members or prospective members are moving away from the idea of a united states of Europe, certainly along the lines of a USA type model … its unlikely to happen IMO no matter how much certain elements want it to happen.

As for the rest …. Economic argument, economic argument, economic argument ad nauseum …. Dozens and dozens of countries have gone their own way over the last century and a bit. Norway from Sweden, the Republic of Ireland from Britain, a load of countries from the old Soviet Union and then the countries born out of the break up of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, not to mention all of the countries who have gained independence from colonial Britain.

In 90% of cases the new countries formed or who gained their independence were looking at a possible or certain economically unstable future and in some cases were definitely looking at being poorer at least in the short to medium term. And yet Scotland which no matter how bleak a picture is painted is in no way looking at becoming anything like a poor country in relation to most of them still seems to be a different case from all these other countries.

It seems that the case for Scotland becoming an independent country has been boiled down to pure economics …. never mind pride, never mind the different outlook politically this country had had from the rest of the UK for the vast majority of the last 50 years, the latest example of which is our clear Eurocentric outlook compared to the rest of Britain. Never mind the fact that folk all over the world point to the group of islands off Europe's west coast and say 'England' …. never mind any of that. While citizens of many countries literally fought and died to achieve their status on the world stage as true nation states the proud patriotic Scots cannae be arsed coz a pint might cost a bit more or petrol might be £1,30 a litre or a house that was 100K might cost 110K …. Oh and its gonna be too much bother to stop at a kiosk on the Scottish / English border to show a passport.

Perhaps the guys who signed the act of union 300 years ago weren't the "parcel o' rogues" Burns tarred them as, but rather a true reflection of the real measure of so called Scottish national pride ….. Because it seems to me we as a so called 'nation' have become a modern reflection of them. In the modern era a bunch of 90 minute nationalists whose national pride and idea of being 'a nation again' only extends as far as the contents of our purse or wallet.

Perhaps we deserve to be what we are, nothing more than a tiny insignificant region of a country called Britain which to all intents and purposes is England by another name …. so much so that most of the world call it England, to the extent that an American journalist on the news last night spoke about America's special relationship with 'England' when discussing the British ambassador situation and the BBC interviewer made absolutely no attempt to correct him. But then why should he bother when in decades of watching the so called 'British' broadcasting corporation I have never once heard an employee of theirs correct anybody who transposed the name Britain or UK with England.

To some that may be insignificant in the grand scheme of things, but to me its absolutely symptomatic of what Scotland has become, no matter how much we try to deny it. Perceived by the rest of the world as a part of England with no identity of our own as a proper country unless its a made up one to satisfy the producers of Outlander. How apt that we chose a creature which doesn't really exist as our national animal :faf:


Very unfair analysis I think NN.

For starters, a large chunk of our population identifies their country as Britain. Scotland to them is either a region or an irrelevance, certainly not a potential state. They will always vote No regardless. Then another sizeable chunk comes from outside the UK altogether. Some of these people have been absorbed as Scots or Brits but others will see themselves as having no dog in the fight, and thus will vote on pragmatic lines.

Having removed them, a comfortable majority of the remainder that identify as Scots do support independence, in spite of both the actual real risks and the bombardment of negative propaganda. Considering that we are neither oppressed nor constrained from choosing our constiutional future, I think that says a lot about the resilience of Scottish independence as an idea.


Edit - not sure about my use of "our" and "we" but I think I got away with it. :wink:

[JeMeSouviens]

Hmm maybe I got my quotes mixed up, it was Bristol that mentioned the credit column I think.

As it is I reckon people simply don’t want to see the UK separate, it’s as simple as that.

I don’t see that as needing to hang on to Scotland or deliberately keeping it under the thumb by imposing austerity or deliberately over spending on it (take your pick of the cunning plans at play).

I know some proponents of Indy will always look for a nefarious reason as to why but I always think that they are trying to pin a complex set of dynamics onto one simple narrative hence why these reasons don’t particularly bear much scrutiny (in my humble opinion of course!).


True for the rUK population at large*. For the rUK government though (and even more especially when it's Tory) I think your opinion is not so much humble as hopelessly naive.


* although I think, a declining sentiment. Certainly the rUK is becoming less minded to support the Union while Barnett goes unreformed and a largeish chunk of Scots keep voting for the vile separatists.

[The Modfather]

Independence for me is as much about breaking free from Westminster and the small clique, from all parties, who attended the same schools as much as anything else. Scottish Politicians aren’t any less self serving than the rest, but I do think a Scottish parliament in an independent Scotland, whoever was in power, would be more representative of the country than Westminster is and has been.

I’d also be in favour of the rest of us breaking away from the south east of England.

[danhibees1875]

Perhaps the guys who signed the act of union 300 years ago weren't the "parcel o' rogues" Burns tarred them as, but rather a true reflection of the real measure of so called Scottish national pride ….. Because it seems to me we as a so called 'nation' have become a modern reflection of them. In the modern era a bunch of 90 minute nationalists whose national pride and idea of being 'a nation again' only extends as far as the contents of our purse or wallet.

Perhaps we deserve to be what we are, nothing more than a tiny insignificant region of a country called Britain which to all intents and purposes is England by another name …. so much so that most of the world call it England, to the extent that an American journalist on the news last night spoke about America's special relationship with 'England' when discussing the British ambassador situation and the BBC interviewer made absolutely no attempt to correct him. But then why should he bother when in decades of watching the so called 'British' broadcasting corporation I have never once heard an employee of theirs correct anybody who transposed the name Britain or UK with England.

To some that may be insignificant in the grand scheme of things, but to me its absolutely symptomatic of what Scotland has become, no matter how much we try to deny it. Perceived by the rest of the world as a part of England with no identity of our own as a proper country unless its a made up one to satisfy the producers of Outlander. How apt that we chose a creature which doesn't really exist as our national animal :faf:

You don't seem to think very highly of Scotland going by those last paragraphs. :confused:

Some people get a bit confused between UK, Britain, and England - and some people just say England for general convenience or out of ignorance. Other than them being wrong most of the time, I don't see the issue. It does seem to be an American sort of thing to conflate Britain/UK with "England" but at the same time they're anything but unaware of Scotland.

If anything I would say that Scotland has more of a worldwide known national identity than England - and most other countries IMO - has.. :dunno:

[RyeSloan]

True for the rUK population at large*. For the rUK government though (and even more especially when it's Tory) I think your opinion is not so much humble as hopelessly naive.


* although I think, a declining sentiment. Certainly the rUK is becoming less minded to support the Union while Barnett goes unreformed and a largeish chunk of Scots keep voting for the vile separatists.

Ha well maybe so. [emoji106]

[Hibrandenburg]

You don't seem to think very highly of Scotland going by those last paragraphs. :confused:

Some people get a bit confused between UK, Britain, and England - and some people just say England for general convenience or out of ignorance. Other than them being wrong most of the time, I don't see the issue. It does seem to be an American sort of thing to conflate Britain/UK with "England" but at the same time they're anything but unaware of Scotland.

If anything I would say that Scotland has more of a worldwide known national identity than England - and most other countries IMO - has.. :dunno:

It's European too and when they say England they mean Great Britain in the geographical sense. For most Germans they think Scotland is a region of England like Bavaria is to Germany.

[SHODAN]

Independence for me is as much about breaking free from Westminster and the small clique, from all parties, who attended the same schools as much as anything else. Scottish Politicians aren’t any less self serving than the rest, but I do think a Scottish parliament in an independent Scotland, whoever was in power, would be more representative of the country than Westminster is and has been.

I’d also be in favour of the rest of us breaking away from the south east of England.

That's an interesting one. If you remove SE England results from the UK then Labour actually win the 2017 general election.

[Smartie]

That's an interesting one. If you remove SE England results from the UK then Labour actually win the 2017 general election.

Forgetting for a second about "twirly flags" it is actually the suggestion that makes the most sense and solves most of the problems that we (the UK) have.

[JeMeSouviens]

Independence for me is as much about breaking free from Westminster and the small clique, from all parties, who attended the same schools as much as anything else. Scottish Politicians aren’t any less self serving than the rest, but I do think a Scottish parliament in an independent Scotland, whoever was in power, would be more representative of the country than Westminster is and has been.

I’d also be in favour of the rest of us breaking away from the south east of England.

:agree:

The fact they have a determined crew attempting to burn the witches out of the civil service isn't helping WM govt at the moment either.

On your last sentence, although I think the ship has long since sailed, it's interesting to speculate what might have happened if there had been real commitment at the top of Blair's government to English devolution leading to some sort of federal arrangement. The long term polling, eg. Scottish attitudes survey, has shown that proper "home rule", ie. control of everything in Scotland bar defence and foreign affairs, has consistently a very (usually the most) popular option.

[NAE NOOKIE]

It's European too and when they say England they mean Great Britain in the geographical sense. For most Germans they think Scotland is a region of England like Bavaria is to Germany.

That's because to all intents and purposes we are. In my opinion that's what we have allowed ourselves to become over the last 300 years, lets look at where we are now with a couple of examples.

The people of Scotland overwhelmingly voted to stay in the EU by a far larger margin than the NO vote in 2014 and yet because the vote in the UK was to leave we must leave. If you think of Britain as a country and Scotland as a region of it then fine, but it in no way supports any concept of Scotland as a country in its own right and exposes the concept of a 'union of equal nations' for the joke it is.

We have a UK parliament overwhelmingly dominated by English, Welsh and N Irish MPs which has turned round and told Scotland that even if it elects a majority of independence supporting MSP's to its parliament who stood on manifestos which included a commitment to an independence referendum for all Scots voters to see, it still wouldn't ALLOW a referendum. They will say NO even if at the next UK general election Scotland returns an overwhelming majority of independence supporting MPs all standing on a manifesto which includes a commitment to an independence referendum.

How can anybody watch their country being reduced to nothing more than a region of a bigger one like that with no actual power to put into action the political will of its citizens and pretend to themselves that what they belong to is an actual country … because it clearly isn't … and don't talk to me about our unique culture and that we have a flag and all that window dressing … so does Bavaria and the citizens of that wonderful region of Germany to my mind are bang on with their take on what Scotland is.

[James310]

The people of Scotland overwhelmingly voted to stay in the EU by a far larger margin than the NO vote in 2014 and yet because the vote in the UK was to leave we must leave. If you think of Britain as a country and Scotland as a region of it then fine, but it in no way supports any concept of Scotland as a country in its own right and exposes the concept of a 'union of equal nations' for the joke it is.

We have a UK parliament overwhelmingly dominated by English, Welsh and N Irish MPs which has turned round and told Scotland that even if it elects a majority of independence supporting MSP's to its parliament who stood on manifestos which included a commitment to an independence referendum for all Scots voters to see, it still wouldn't ALLOW a referendum. They will say NO even if at the next UK general election Scotland returns an overwhelming majority of independence supporting MPs all standing on a manifesto which includes a commitment to an independence referendum.


More people in Scotland voted No to Independence than voted to remain in the EU. Percentage wise then yes it was higher but it's misleading to say people in Scotland voted in a greater margin to remain in the EU than they did to remain in the UK when the numbers say otherwise. 1.6M remain versus 2M No.

Also the SNP were voted in on massive numbers in 2015 yet lost lots of seats in 2017. Why do you think that was, I mean the result of the EU referendum was well known and the IndyRef2 card was being played, so why lose all those votes?

I think in 2015 there was actually an Indy majority in terms of % vote share i.e. over 50% of votes were for pro Indy parties. That was as good a chance as any but ever since then the SNP vote has declined and as far as I am aware in every election since the Indy parties vote has never been over 50%.

[Moulin Yarns]

More people in Scotland voted No to Independence than voted to remain in the EU. Percentage wise then yes it was higher but it's misleading to say people in Scotland voted in a greater margin to remain in the EU than they did to remain in the UK when the numbers say otherwise. 1.6M remain versus 2M No.

Also the SNP were voted in on massive numbers in 2015 yet lost lots of seats in 2017. Why do you think that was, I mean the result of the EU referendum was well known and the IndyRef2 card was being played, so why lose all those votes?

I think in 2015 there was actually an Indy majority in terms of % vote share i.e. over 50% of votes were for pro Indy parties. That was as good a chance as any but ever since then the SNP vote has declined and as far as I am aware in every election since the Indy parties vote has never been over 50%.

Welcome back.

The old number game is a bit difficult for the no campaign as the electorate were different in each case. No 16 and 17 year olds were able to vote in the Eu referendum for example.


Are you happy with the prep season results and signings so far?

[Fife-Hibee]

That's because to all intents and purposes we are. In my opinion that's what we have allowed ourselves to become over the last 300 years, lets look at where we are now with a couple of examples.

The people of Scotland overwhelmingly voted to stay in the EU by a far larger margin than the NO vote in 2014 and yet because the vote in the UK was to leave we must leave. If you think of Britain as a country and Scotland as a region of it then fine, but it in no way supports any concept of Scotland as a country in its own right and exposes the concept of a 'union of equal nations' for the joke it is.

We have a UK parliament overwhelmingly dominated by English, Welsh and N Irish MPs which has turned round and told Scotland that even if it elects a majority of independence supporting MSP's to its parliament who stood on manifestos which included a commitment to an independence referendum for all Scots voters to see, it still wouldn't ALLOW a referendum. They will say NO even if at the next UK general election Scotland returns an overwhelming majority of independence supporting MPs all standing on a manifesto which includes a commitment to an independence referendum.

How can anybody watch their country being reduced to nothing more than a region of a bigger one like that with no actual power to put into action the political will of its citizens and pretend to themselves that what they belong to is an actual country … because it clearly isn't … and don't talk to me about our unique culture and that we have a flag and all that window dressing … so does Bavaria and the citizens of that wonderful region of Germany to my mind are bang on with their take on what Scotland is.

You're absolutely bang on. But unforunately, it'll still fall on deaf ears.

You know what will happen when Westminster turns around and makes it official that our votes in Scotland count for bugger all? Absolute jack, that's what. We won't do a damn thing about it. Because we've always known that our voice counts for nothing and we passively accept it.

Too feart to rock an already sinking boat.

[Fife-Hibee]

Also the SNP were voted in on massive numbers in 2015 yet lost lots of seats in 2017. Why do you think that was, I mean the result of the EU referendum was well known and the IndyRef2 card was being played, so why lose all those votes?

You know full well the "Indref2 card" was not being played. The SNP lost votes, because they DIDNT mention independence. Ok, I think they mentioned in once in their whole campaign leaflet. Compared to the tories who made it their entire campaign.

But low and behold, here we are in 2019, the SNP are talking up independence again and surprise surprise, they're projected to return with 50+ seats again after the next general election.

[Bangkok Hibby]

That's because to all intents and purposes we are. In my opinion that's what we have allowed ourselves to become over the last 300 years, lets look at where we are now with a couple of examples.

The people of Scotland overwhelmingly voted to stay in the EU by a far larger margin than the NO vote in 2014 and yet because the vote in the UK was to leave we must leave. If you think of Britain as a country and Scotland as a region of it then fine, but it in no way supports any concept of Scotland as a country in its own right and exposes the concept of a 'union of equal nations' for the joke it is.

We have a UK parliament overwhelmingly dominated by English, Welsh and N Irish MPs which has turned round and told Scotland that even if it elects a majority of independence supporting MSP's to its parliament who stood on manifestos which included a commitment to an independence referendum for all Scots voters to see, it still wouldn't ALLOW a referendum. They will say NO even if at the next UK general election Scotland returns an overwhelming majority of independence supporting MPs all standing on a manifesto which includes a commitment to an independence referendum.

How can anybody watch their country being reduced to nothing more than a region of a bigger one like that with no actual power to put into action the political will of its citizens and pretend to themselves that what they belong to is an actual country … because it clearly isn't … and don't talk to me about our unique culture and that we have a flag and all that window dressing … so does Bavaria and the citizens of that wonderful region of Germany to my mind are bang on with their take on what Scotland is.

Not a fan of "like" buttons but this post warrants one.

[JeMeSouviens]

That's because to all intents and purposes we are. In my opinion that's what we have allowed ourselves to become over the last 300 years, lets look at where we are now with a couple of examples.

The people of Scotland overwhelmingly voted to stay in the EU by a far larger margin than the NO vote in 2014 and yet because the vote in the UK was to leave we must leave. If you think of Britain as a country and Scotland as a region of it then fine, but it in no way supports any concept of Scotland as a country in its own right and exposes the concept of a 'union of equal nations' for the joke it is.

We have a UK parliament overwhelmingly dominated by English, Welsh and N Irish MPs which has turned round and told Scotland that even if it elects a majority of independence supporting MSP's to its parliament who stood on manifestos which included a commitment to an independence referendum for all Scots voters to see, it still wouldn't ALLOW a referendum. They will say NO even if at the next UK general election Scotland returns an overwhelming majority of independence supporting MPs all standing on a manifesto which includes a commitment to an independence referendum.

How can anybody watch their country being reduced to nothing more than a region of a bigger one like that with no actual power to put into action the political will of its citizens and pretend to themselves that what they belong to is an actual country … because it clearly isn't … and don't talk to me about our unique culture and that we have a flag and all that window dressing … so does Bavaria and the citizens of that wonderful region of Germany to my mind are bang on with their take on what Scotland is.

That happened in 1707. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

[Fife-Hibee]

That happened in 1707. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

:agree:

It's much like Wallace Mercers attempted "merger" with our club. It was never really a merger at all.

[James310]

Are you happy with the prep season results and signings so far?

I have been away on an intensive Mi5 course as my cover was clearly broken, it was in Majorca but don't tell anyone.

I think Farmer and Petrie need to loosen the purse strings, maybe attract some new investment. I met an American chap on my travels, he seemed interested in buying a soccer franchise so I will give him a call.

[Mibbes Aye]

If you'd called it an Ecu, you'd have neatly brought it back to currency. Wasted opporchancity!

Droll :greengrin

[James310]

You know full well the "Indref2 card" was not being played. The SNP lost votes, because they DIDNT mention independence. Ok, I think they mentioned in once in their whole campaign leaflet. Compared to the tories who made it their entire campaign.

But low and behold, here we are in 2019, the SNP are talking up independence again and surprise surprise, they're projected to return with 50+ seats again after the next general election.

So it wasn't in their 2017 manifesto?

Scotland’s choice
This election won’t decide whether or not Scotland will be independent. But a vote for the SNP is a vote to reinforce the Scottish Parliament’s right to decide when an independence referendum should happen.

[lord bunberry]

For me independence means a wholesale change in how we are governed. Right now we’re governed by a government that has to make decisions that aren’t in the best interest of Scotland. I’m not necessarily criticising them for that, but it’s a definite reality. When the UK government announces its spending huge amounts of money on HS2 and Crossrail, we don’t see the benefits of that in Scotland.
There’s no credible evidence that an independent Scotland would be anything other than a wealthy small nation that would have a good standard of living. The case for the union has fallen to pieces over the last 3 years. People can argue the finer points of independence, but none of those points outweigh staying in the union imo.

[Fife-Hibee]

So it wasn't in their 2017 manifesto?

Scotland’s choice
This election won’t decide whether or not Scotland will be independent. But a vote for the SNP is a vote to reinforce the Scottish Parliament’s right to decide when an independence referendum should happen.

It was in their 2016 Holyrood manifesto. As was in the Scottish Greens. Two parties who combined, make a majority in the Scottish Parliament. That's the only mandate they need.

The SNP barely mentioned independence in 2017 (as you know) and they very predictably lost voter momentum, while still managing to retain a majority of Scottish seats at Westminster. Now that they're fully focused on independence again, they're projected to take pretty much every seat back that they gained in 2015.

[Mibbes Aye]

For me independence means a wholesale change in how we are governed. Right now we’re governed by a government that has to make decisions that aren’t in the best interest of Scotland. I’m not necessarily criticising them for that, but it’s a definite reality. When the UK government announces its spending huge amounts of money on HS2 and Crossrail, we don’t see the benefits of that in Scotland.
There’s no credible evidence that an independent Scotland would be anything other than a wealthy small nation that would have a good standard of living. The case for the union has fallen to pieces over the last 3 years. People can argue the finer points of independence, but none of those points outweigh staying in the union imo.

I find this whole thing about Scotland’s best interest, well erm interesting!

Even only with a devolved government, let alone full independence, there are many complaints about decisions not being fair.

NHS Lothian has a long standing grievance against the Scottish Government about its funding because it believes it is unfair and is causing it to run budget deficits.

NHS Highland faces huge opprobrium because it needs to manage its budget which means it can’t provide everything for folk from Caithness and Sutherland in Caithness and Sutherland, and they have to travel to Raigmore, in Inverness.

I don’t think there is a definitive ‘best interest’ for Scotland on the table from anyone. If anybody wants to put one up for scrutiny and critique then that’s very welcome.

[Fife-Hibee]

I find this whole thing about Scotland’s best interest, well erm interesting!

Even only with a devolved government, let alone full independence, there are many complaints about decisions not being fair.

NHS Lothian has a long standing grievance against the Scottish Government about its funding because it believes it is unfair and is causing it to run budget deficits.

NHS Highland faces huge opprobrium because it needs to manage its budget which means it can’t provide everything for folk from Caithness and Sutherland in Caithness and Sutherland, and they have to travel to Raigmore, in Inverness.

I don’t think there is a definitive ‘best interest’ for Scotland on the table from anyone. If anybody wants to put one up for scrutiny and critique then that’s very welcome.

How about the Scottish Parliament having more money available to give to these local councils? Something they can't do right now with over a third of our raised revenue each year sitting with the UK treasury. Which they then spend on HS2, Cross Rail, Trident, Polishing up Westminster and Buckingham Palace.... etc while adding those expenses to the Scottish public spending figure so they can claim we're overspending.

[Ozyhibby]

I find this whole thing about Scotland’s best interest, well erm interesting!

Even only with a devolved government, let alone full independence, there are many complaints about decisions not being fair.

NHS Lothian has a long standing grievance against the Scottish Government about its funding because it believes it is unfair and is causing it to run budget deficits.

NHS Highland faces huge opprobrium because it needs to manage its budget which means it can’t provide everything for folk from Caithness and Sutherland in Caithness and Sutherland, and they have to travel to Raigmore, in Inverness.

I don’t think there is a definitive ‘best interest’ for Scotland on the table from anyone. If anybody wants to put one up for scrutiny and critique then that’s very welcome.

None of those problems will be fixed by independence.
Government in an independent Scotland will still suffer from the same problems all governments have. There will still be corruption and incompetence. And there will still be financial pressures.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lord bunberry]

I find this whole thing about Scotland’s best interest, well erm interesting!

Even only with a devolved government, let alone full independence, there are many complaints about decisions not being fair.

NHS Lothian has a long standing grievance against the Scottish Government about its funding because it believes it is unfair and is causing it to run budget deficits.

NHS Highland faces huge opprobrium because it needs to manage its budget which means it can’t provide everything for folk from Caithness and Sutherland in Caithness and Sutherland, and they have to travel to Raigmore, in Inverness.

I don’t think there is a definitive ‘best interest’ for Scotland on the table from anyone. If anybody wants to put one up for scrutiny and critique then that’s very welcome.

Those points could be made about any nhs authority across the whole of Britain. The point is that the less balls the government is having to juggle, the more chance it has of getting things right. The Scottish government currently has to make decisions based on the money it receives from Westminster so whether you like it or not the Scottish government can always point to the fact that the union isn’t serving Scotland when hundreds of millions are being spent on projects that don’t benefit Scotland. Would East Lothian nhs be better funded if we weren’t spending billions on nuclear weapons? Would highlands nhs have the services they want if we weren’t spending billions on making the commute from Birmingham to London a few minutes shorter.?

[Sylar]

We don't "export" it there in the market sense. Plenty of it gets sent there though as British water.

I'm really curious as to what you mean by this, truly I am.

We "transfer" virtual water through our trade with England, and the Scottish Government have (to their credit) highlighted the perks of Scotland's abundant freshwater as an economic attractor (particularly to industries that were previously based in more "parched" parts of the UK).

But that's where it ends - we don't transfer physical water directly at all (aside from the 2 cross-border rivers we have in the Esk and the Tweed). There have always been talks of developing a "super water infrastructure" system (similar to the one in operation in California), but the capital, energy and engineering needed to complete that is unattainable right now.

[The Harp Awakes]

I find this whole thing about Scotland’s best interest, well erm interesting!

Even only with a devolved government, let alone full independence, there are many complaints about decisions not being fair.

NHS Lothian has a long standing grievance against the Scottish Government about its funding because it believes it is unfair and is causing it to run budget deficits.

NHS Highland faces huge opprobrium because it needs to manage its budget which means it can’t provide everything for folk from Caithness and Sutherland in Caithness and Sutherland, and they have to travel to Raigmore, in Inverness.

I don’t think there is a definitive ‘best interest’ for Scotland on the table from anyone. If anybody wants to put one up for scrutiny and critique then that’s very welcome.

I think your examples are good evidence as to why we desperately need to be independent.

Presently Scotland is trying to address the pressures on the NHS with one hand tied behind its back. A bit like the 1960s husband who only handed over part of his wage packet to his wife and expected her to manage the household budget. She would have to make sacrifices.

Managing our own affairs would allow us to divert the current proportion of our spending on things like defence and the ever expanding costs of funding the Royal family, into causes like the NHS.

Only when we are totally self sufficient will we be able to effectively address the problems you refer to.

[Ozyhibby]

I think your examples are good evidence as to why we desperately need to be independent.

Presently Scotland is trying to address the pressures on the NHS with one hand tied behind its back. A bit like the 1960s husband who only handed over part of his wage packet to his wife and expected her to manage the household budget. She would have to make sacrifices.

Managing our own affairs would allow us to divert the current proportion of our spending on things like defence and the ever expanding costs of funding the Royal family, into causes like the NHS.

Only when we are totally self sufficient will we be able to effectively address the problems you refer to.

Yip. It’s possible that an independent scotland won’t need military base in Belize, Cyprus, Nepal etc and maybe we could fund things closer to home with the money saved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

How about the Scottish Parliament having more money available to give to these local councils? Something they can't do right now with over a third of our raised revenue each year sitting with the UK treasury. Which they then spend on HS2, Cross Rail, Trident, Polishing up Westminster and Buckingham Palace.... etc while adding those expenses to the Scottish public spending figure so they can claim we're overspending.

So the UK Treasury pays for Buckingham palace renovation and claims its Scottish public spending....I’d be interested to see your evidence for that claim.

[NAE NOOKIE]

You're absolutely bang on. But unforunately, it'll still fall on deaf ears.

You know what will happen when Westminster turns around and makes it official that our votes in Scotland count for bugger all? Absolute jack, that's what. We won't do a damn thing about it. Because we've always known that our voice counts for nothing and we passively accept it.

Too feart to rock an already sinking boat.

Well if that turns out to be the case some folk might start to think that if a democratic mandate is going to be ignored there are other ways to make your point.

[Ozyhibby]

So the UK Treasury pays for Buckingham palace renovation and claims its Scottish public spending....I’d be interested to see your evidence for that claim.

A percentage is apportioned to Scottish public spending as being for the benefit of Scotland. While we are in the union that’s actually fair enough. If we are to have a royal family then everyone needs to pay for it and not just English tax payers.
It’s possible that an independent Scotland might decide not to spend that money though, instead spending it here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

So the UK Treasury pays for Buckingham palace renovation and claims its Scottish public spending....I’d be interested to see your evidence for that claim.

Where else do you think it goes?

Buckingham Palace is publicly financed. Which means a percentage of UK public spending (in Scotlands name) is attributed towards the renovation and running costs. Just one of the many useless things that the UK Government spends their share of Scottish revenue on. Then when they run out of Scottish revenue, they take out a loan in Scotlands name, to attribute towards more useless things that are of no real interest to Scotland, then claim that Scotland is running up a deficit.

The greatest con was convincing us that we were too poor to leave, whiling running up debt in our name to spend on things that an independent Scotland would have no real use for.

[James310]

https://news.sky.com/story/the-royal-accounts-this-is-why-the-monarchy-cost-41-more-last-year-11748503

I don't know how many taxpayers there are in Scotland, say 2M? So the Royal family cost us around £1.24 x 2,000,000 = £2.48M.

That won't go very far. Maybe an hour's of NHS funding?

[Fife-Hibee]

https://news.sky.com/story/the-royal-accounts-this-is-why-the-monarchy-cost-41-more-last-year-11748503

I don't know how many taxpayers there are in Scotland, say 2M? So the Royal family cost us around £1.24 x 2,000,000 = £2.48M.

That won't go very far. Maybe an hour's of NHS funding?


Just one of the many useless things that the UK Government spends their share of Scottish revenue on.

.

[Andy Bee]

https://news.sky.com/story/the-royal-accounts-this-is-why-the-monarchy-cost-41-more-last-year-11748503

I don't know how many taxpayers there are in Scotland, say 2M? So the Royal family cost us around £1.24 x 2,000,000 = £2.48M.

That won't go very far. Maybe an hour's of NHS funding?

Any chance you can do the same calculation for the £100bn and counting for HS2, the £40bn and counting for X Rail and the £14bn for some overflow system that kicks into gear once in a blue moon when the London sewer system can't cope and has to dump into the Thames. Ohhh and could you, only if you get a chance btw calculate how much I and other Scottish taxpayers contribute towards Trident, now how many hours of Scottish NHS does that get?

Asking for a friend, honest guv.

[James310]

Any chance you can do the same calculation for the £100bn and counting for HS2, the £40bn and counting for X Rail and the £14bn for some overflow system that kicks into gear once in a blue moon when the London sewer system can't cope and has to dump into the Thames. Ohhh and could you, only if you get a chance btw calculate how much I and other Scottish taxpayers contribute towards Trident, now how many hours of Scottish NHS does that get?

Asking for a friend, honest guv.

Trident is around £163M a year I believe, according to Alex Salmond. The others I don't know I am afraid. But London and the South East do generate by far the biggest revenues in the UK and that allows other parts of the UK to benefit and allows Scotland to make choices such as free prescriptions, tution fees, social care etc. So the more money London and the SE generates the better off we all are.

Hope your friend finds that useful. Here is an article he will hopefully find of use as well.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/23/uk-budget-deficit-grows-to-more-than-10bn-as-people-spend-less

London economy subsidises rest of UK, ONS figures show

Tax receipts per head in London of £15,750 were almost double those in the two regions raising the least revenue – Wales at £7,980 and the north-east at £8,200. Northern Ireland and Scotland attracted the highest expenditure per head, at £14,020 and £13,050 respectively, with the lowest expenditure per person in the south-east and east of England at £10,580 and £10,590 per head.

[Andy Bee]

Oh, so because London contributes far more tax per head we (as in Scotland) don't pay anything towards HS2 or X Rail or any of those other London vanity projects that don't benefit Scotland,that's good news innit. I'll tell my mate

[James310]

Oh, so because London contributes far more tax per head we (as in Scotland) don't pay anything towards HS2 or X Rail or any of those other London vanity projects that don't benefit Scotland,that's good news innit. I'll tell my mate

I never said that, I said I don't know how much Scotland contributes. But as stated if it benefits London and the SE then it will benefit Scotland as we are part of the UK. Public spending in Scotland is much higher and we don't generate the same tax revenues as London and the SE. We benefit from the high tax revenues collected in that part of the UK.

The facts are there to see, if you disagree with any of them tell us which ones.

[RyeSloan]

Where else do you think it goes?

Buckingham Palace is publicly financed. Which means a percentage of UK public spending (in Scotlands name) is attributed towards the renovation and running costs. Just one of the many useless things that the UK Government spends their share of Scottish revenue on. Then when they run out of Scottish revenue, they take out a loan in Scotlands name, to attribute towards more useless things that are of no real interest to Scotland, then claim that Scotland is running up a deficit.

The greatest con was convincing us that we were too poor to leave, whiling running up debt in our name to spend on things that an independent Scotland would have no real use for.

Got ya.

You clearly have a rather weak understanding of this subject. You evidenced it previously when trying to debate the SG’s tax raising powers and you have repeatedly done so since.

Not least that the public spending on Scotland figure comes from the SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT.

Spending on the things you state is almost universally excluded in the calculations. If you even had the slightest interest in being accurate before shouting off you would know that GERS has explicitly allocated ZERO to Scotland for cross rail and have explicit policies that mean unless infrastructure spending is IN Scotland then it is all or mostly excluded.

While no one is saying the figures are perfect they are patently not falsely inflated as you say, not by the type of spending you have quoted not by the politicians or institutions you are accusing. In fact again if you had bothered to look you would have found the following from...guess who....yup the SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT on the calcs:

"This means the statistics have been found to meet user needs, to be methodologically sound, explained well and produced free of political interference."

Not that I expect you to take any of the above on board. You clearly have little or no interest in basing much of your opinion on reality.

Assuming you really really won’t be arsed ever contemplating actually attempting to properly understand Scottish tax and spend let’s try one tiny point from earlier....how we getting on with your post explaining what you meant by ‘British water’?

[Callum_62]

Money on this, no enough money for that.... Statistic here to fit narrative, statistic there to for narrative

Forget all that

How any British person isnt embarresed by the state of a "country" we have become and continue to think this is the best we can be is beyond my comprehension

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

Got ya.

You clearly have a rather weak understanding of this subject. You evidenced it previously when trying to debate the SG’s tax raising powers and you have repeatedly done so since.

Not least that the public spending on Scotland figure comes from the SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT.

Spending on the things you state is almost universally excluded in the calculations. If you even had the slightest interest in being accurate before shouting off you would know that GERS has explicitly allocated ZERO to Scotland for cross rail and have explicit policies that mean unless infrastructure spending is IN Scotland then it is all or mostly excluded.

While no one is saying the figures are perfect they are patently not falsely inflated as you say, not by the type of spending you have quoted not by the politicians or institutions you are accusing. In fact again if you had bothered to look you would have found the following from...guess who....yup the SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT on the calcs:

"This means the statistics have been found to meet user needs, to be methodologically sound, explained well and produced free of political interference."

Not that I expect you to take any of the above on board. You clearly have little or no interest in basing much of your opinion on reality.

Assuming you really really won’t be arsed ever contemplating actually attempting to properly understand Scottish tax and spend let’s try one tiny point from earlier....how we getting on with your post explaining what you meant by ‘British water’?

Why are you lying? :confused:

The GERS methodology report explicitly states that "spending is projected on the basis that government spending in Scotland remains the same proportion of UK-wide government spending".

So it stands to reason, that public spending forecast figures for Scotland would include the share of UK wide government spending (in Scotlands name). Including it's share towards crossrail and other infrastructure projects everywhere else in the UK. To claim otherwise is utterly ridiculous.

Next time you try and call out somebodies "weak understanding" on the subject. Make sure you know what you're talking about yourself first.

[JeMeSouviens]

Scotland has an unsustainable level of public spending (decided outwith Scotland) given how much revenue is earned here by our not very productive, mediocre economy (as a result of policy decided outwith Scotland).

We can either:

- keep the status quo, cross our fingers and hope that the rest of the UK will earn enough to sustain us *and* be happy to let us sponge off them.

or

- get on and try to fix things ourselves.


Personally I prefer trying to sort my own problems out.

[RyeSloan]

Why are you lying? :confused:

The GERS methodology report explicitly states that "spending is projected on the basis that government spending in Scotland remains the same proportion of UK-wide government spending".

So it stands to reason, that public spending forecast figures for Scotland would include the share of UK wide government spending (in Scotlands name). Including it's share towards crossrail and other infrastructure projects everywhere else in the UK. To claim otherwise is utterly ridiculous.

Next time you try and call out somebodies "weak understanding" on the subject. Make sure you know what you're talking about yourself first.

You are wrong. Expenditure that is identifiable by country and region outside of Scotland (so for example cross rail) is excluded. That’s one of the basic underlying tenets of the calculations.

You were also saying these figures were being deliberately manipulated to paint Scotland in a bad light yet as pointed out to you the calculations are undertaken under the auspices of the Scottish Government not Westminster or those you suggest have an axe to grind re Indy. So again you were wrong.

A final point on Buckingham palace if I may...that’s funded from the rebate from the crown estate revenue received by the UK Treasury which is given ‘back’ to the royals. The remaining crown estate monies is apportioned to Scotland by population thus shows as revenue not expenditure.

Anyway how you getting on with that British water?

[Sylar]

Why are you lying? :confused:

The GERS methodology report explicitly states that "spending is projected on the basis that government spending in Scotland remains the same proportion of UK-wide government spending".

So it stands to reason, that public spending forecast figures for Scotland would include the share of UK wide government spending (in Scotlands name). Including it's share towards crossrail and other infrastructure projects everywhere else in the UK. To claim otherwise is utterly ridiculous.

Next time you try and call out somebodies "weak understanding" on the subject. Make sure you know what you're talking about yourself first.

About that British water question I asked a page back...?

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190711/334144eaf9889b6406c5f58fc2a753bd.jpg
How do they cope without the Union dividend?[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NAE NOOKIE]

Money on this, no enough money for that.... Statistic here to fit narrative, statistic there to for narrative

Forget all that

How any British person isnt embarresed by the state of a "country" we have become and continue to think this is the best we can be is beyond my comprehension

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

Absolutely mate. UK politics has always been a bit seedy anyway, but probably no worse than any other western democracy … but just turn on the telly over the last week.

Two absolute no marks full of style and no substance ( especially Johnson ) arguing the toss with each other to become the 2nd PM foisted on this country within the last five years without actually being elected to the post by the public as leader of their party at a GE. Both of whom appear to have a policy to negate the disaster of a no deal Brexit which boils down to 'don't worry it'll be ok because we are British' … Not to mention continually saying the Irish border question can be overcome by technology, in spite of the fact that every expert worth the name has told them ad nauseum that the technology doesn't exist.

An opposition party rife with disruption and in fighting over anti Semitism with a leader over half of his MPs don't want … and on top of that lagging in the opinion polls behind probably the most dysfunctional Tory party / government since WW2.

An independent investigation finding that bullying and sexual harassment of staff is rife in both chambers of parliament, and these are the folk we rely on to set the standard, never mind the legislation, which ensures ordinary citizens can go to work without being subject to such abuses … I do not by the way absolve SNP MPs from this criticism until such time as evidence emerges that none of them are implicated.

And on the subject of parliament, we have the House of Lords … How in the 21st century anybody can tolerate decisions which directly affect their day to day lives being even influenced, never mind directly affected, by people with absolutely no democratic mandate some of whom are in that position because of nothing less than feudalism is absolutely beyond me.

In conclusion, if you look at the way the political and social wind is blowing in England, and lets not pretend that this isn't all about England, far from getting better things look like getting considerably worse in the next decade …. surely in the name of all that's holy we can do better than this !!!

[lord bunberry]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190711/334144eaf9889b6406c5f58fc2a753bd.jpg
How do they cope without the Union dividend?[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s staggering that when examples of countries of similar size to us in Europe doing well, that we still have people arguing that we’re better off in a union that holds us back.

[Hibrandenburg]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190711/334144eaf9889b6406c5f58fc2a753bd.jpg
How do they cope without the Union dividend?[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They've no oil money to drain their economy.

[James310]

I see the old Irish comparisons are being used again. The same Ireland that has one of the highest debts in the world. Any increases in interest rates and the economy is in big trouble.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-s-debt-44-365-is-owed-by-every-man-woman-and-child-in-the-state-1.3954806?mode=amp

And the same Ireland where the chances of another recession have been put at 100% due to the make up of their economy.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/chances-of-another-recession-in-ireland-100-says-ntma-chief-1.3946583?mode=amp

We can also scrap the NHS and be like Ireland where you pay to see your GP and pay for an ambulance.


Where do we sign up to be as 'rich' as Ireland?

[Curried]

Good balanced article here by Paul Kavanagh (Wee Ginger Dug) on the conservative master plan to save the precious union:

https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2019/07/11/rebellious-scots-to-shush/

[Callum_62]

I see the old Irish comparisons are being used again. The same Ireland that has one of the highest debts in the world. Any increases in interest rates and the economy is in big trouble.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-s-debt-44-365-is-owed-by-every-man-woman-and-child-in-the-state-1.3954806?mode=amp

And the same Ireland where the chances of another recession have been put at 100% due to the make up of their economy.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/chances-of-another-recession-in-ireland-100-says-ntma-chief-1.3946583?mode=amp

We can also scrap the NHS and be like Ireland where you pay to see your GP and pay for an ambulance.


Where do we sign up to be as 'rich' as Ireland?We all know that no other country in the wold is as good as the UK - in your fantasy land -

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[James310]

We all know that no other country in the wold is as good as the UK - in your fantasy land -

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

Did I say that? No I never.

Why not refute the points if you think I am wrong. Is it not right to balance the positives of the Irish economy with the negatives? If not, why not?

Maybe it's you in the fantasy land if you think everything will be hunky dory in an independent Scotland. Did you say that, I don't know, but I will just assume you did like you assumed.

[Ozyhibby]

I see the old Irish comparisons are being used again. The same Ireland that has one of the highest debts in the world. Any increases in interest rates and the economy is in big trouble.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-s-debt-44-365-is-owed-by-every-man-woman-and-child-in-the-state-1.3954806?mode=amp

And the same Ireland where the chances of another recession have been put at 100% due to the make up of their economy.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/chances-of-another-recession-in-ireland-100-says-ntma-chief-1.3946583?mode=amp

We can also scrap the NHS and be like Ireland where you pay to see your GP and pay for an ambulance.


Where do we sign up to be as 'rich' as Ireland?

The chances of a recession here are 100% as well. As it is in most countries. If we go for a no deal brexit then I think both countries will have a recession. Nothing to do with independence.
As for the NHS chat, we don’t have to do everything another independent country does. That’s their choice. We would certainly do it differently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jack]

I see the old Irish comparisons are being used again. The same Ireland that has one of the highest debts in the world. Any increases in interest rates and the economy is in big trouble.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-s-debt-44-365-is-owed-by-every-man-woman-and-child-in-the-state-1.3954806?mode=amp

And the same Ireland where the chances of another recession have been put at 100% due to the make up of their economy.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/chances-of-another-recession-in-ireland-100-says-ntma-chief-1.3946583?mode=amp

We can also scrap the NHS and be like Ireland where you pay to see your GP and pay for an ambulance.


Where do we sign up to be as 'rich' as Ireland?

Good point!

Ireland is the 33rd most indebted country in the world the per capita debt works out at $49,000.

The UK on the other hand is second in the world after the USA and the per capita debt works out at $127,000.

Source wiki.

[Glory Lurker]

I would like to compare an indy Scotland to Norway or Denmark, please.

[James310]

Good point!

Ireland is the 33rd most indebted country in the world the per capita debt works out at $49,000.

The UK on the other hand is second in the world after the USA and the per capita debt works out at $127,000.

Source wiki.

So do you think the US or the UK are in danger of defaulting on that debt anytime soon? The US is considered probably the safest investment in the world, like the UK they can maintain that due to the size of the economy.

I think if Scotland was in a similar situation to Ireland with such high level of debts with a relatively small economy then we are asking for trouble, like the articles point out is an issue for Ireland.

As I say there are positives and negatives, it's fair to look at them all.

[Mibbes Aye]

I would like to compare an indy Scotland to Norway or Denmark, please.

On you go then.

[lord bunberry]

I see the old Irish comparisons are being used again. The same Ireland that has one of the highest debts in the world. Any increases in interest rates and the economy is in big trouble.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-s-debt-44-365-is-owed-by-every-man-woman-and-child-in-the-state-1.3954806?mode=amp

And the same Ireland where the chances of another recession have been put at 100% due to the make up of their economy.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/chances-of-another-recession-in-ireland-100-says-ntma-chief-1.3946583?mode=amp

We can also scrap the NHS and be like Ireland where you pay to see your GP and pay for an ambulance.


Where do we sign up to be as 'rich' as Ireland?

The chances of recession in the uk are also 100% and probably before Ireland.

[Jack]

So do you think the US or the UK are in danger of defaulting on that debt anytime soon? The US is considered probably the safest investment in the world, like the UK they can maintain that due to the size of the economy.

I think if Scotland was in a similar situation to Ireland with such high level of debts with a relatively small economy then we are asking for trouble, like the articles point out is an issue for Ireland.

As I say there are positives and negatives, it's fair to look at them all.

Sorry I forgot how wee we are supposed to be.

Ireland is in the world top ten GDP per capita whoever is measuring it.

The UK makes it into the top 30. Of course with Scotland's GDP being slightly higher than the UK as a whole come independence rUk will be even further behind.

Source wiki.

[Moulin Yarns]

https://indyposterboy.scot/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/A5_big_smart_s1-1200x856.jpg



https://indyposterboy.scot/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/a5_big_smart_s2.jpg

[James310]

Sorry I forgot how wee we are supposed to be.

Ireland is in the world top ten GDP per capita whoever is measuring it.

The UK makes it into the top 30. Of course with Scotland's GDP being slightly higher than the UK as a whole come independence rUk will be even further behind.

Source wiki.

You must have missed the posts about how the Irish economy is swollen and reliant on a small number of multi national companies such as Apple, Facebook and Google. Attracted by the low levels of corporation tax which the EU is taking the Irish to court over.

It's great now but it's a dangerous situation to be reliant on such a small number of companies for your wealth, they could be gone tomorrow with their billions in tax.

[Jack]

You must have missed the posts about how the Irish economy is swollen and reliant on a small number of multi national companies such as Apple, Facebook and Google. Attracted by the low levels of corporation tax which the EU is taking the Irish to court over.

It's great now but it's a dangerous situation to be reliant on such a small number of companies for your wealth, they could be gone tomorrow with their billions in tax.

Yeah yeah yeah.

Pretty much the same as the oils running out and now it's not running out no-one will want to buy it anyway.

Much better being part of the UK as it bombs post Brexit.

It at least it would bomb but the UK defence budget can't afford a bomb!

[Fife-Hibee]

So do you think the US or the UK are in danger of defaulting on that debt anytime soon? The US is considered probably the safest investment in the world, like the UK they can maintain that due to the size of the economy.

I think if Scotland was in a similar situation to Ireland with such high level of debts with a relatively small economy then we are asking for trouble, like the articles point out is an issue for Ireland.

As I say there are positives and negatives, it's fair to look at them all.

It has nothing to do with the "size of their economy". What does economic size have to do with not defaulting on their debts? :confused:

The US doesn't default on it's debts, because it creates phantom wealth out of thin air then uses that to pay off debts. Why? Because they're the US and they can get away with doing so without being stood up to by anyone.

[Fife-Hibee]

You must have missed the posts about how the Irish economy is swollen and reliant on a small number of multi national companies such as Apple, Facebook and Google. Attracted by the low levels of corporation tax which the EU is taking the Irish to court over.

It's great now but it's a dangerous situation to be reliant on such a small number of companies for your wealth, they could be gone tomorrow with their billions in tax.

You must have missed the post about multi national companies being replaced by other multinational companies. When one collapses, it creates a gap in the market to be filled by another.

So your "small number of companies" argument falls flat on it's face. Because they'll always be replacements.

[PeeJay]

You must have missed the posts about how the Irish economy is swollen and reliant on a small number of multi national companies such as Apple, Facebook and Google. Attracted by the low levels of corporation tax which the EU is taking the Irish to court over.

It's great now but it's a dangerous situation to be reliant on such a small number of companies for your wealth, they could be gone tomorrow with their billions in tax.

Also interesting how most of the Irish economy proponents on here fail to recall the fact that the EU had to bail it out ... selective amnesia is a great thing ... :greengrin

[James310]

It has nothing to do with the "size of their economy". What does economic size have to do with not defaulting on their debts? :confused:

The US doesn't default on it's debts, because it creates phantom wealth out of thin air then uses that to pay off debts. Why? Because they're the US and they can get away with doing so without being stood up to by anyone.

Following your logic the US is so big it can create this phantom wealth, it's so big it can get away with it. Could Ireland get away with it as well?

[Fife-Hibee]

Also interesting how most of the Irish economy proponents on here fail to recall the fact that the EU had to bail it out ... selective amnesia is a great thing ... :greengrin

Who didn't recieve a bail out in 2008? Nobody is saying the Irish economy is untouchable. Just that it's simply performing better now than the UK is, despite the UKs whopping £500bn bail out.

[lord bunberry]

Also interesting how most of the Irish economy proponents on here fail to recall the fact that the EU had to bail it out ... selective amnesia is a great thing ... :greengrin

Was being bailed out by the EU any worse than the decade of austerity that continues to this day? It was bad in Ireland for a while, but it’s bounced back strongly while Britain remains in the doldrums.

[James310]

I think the Irish economy is doing well, but it would be folly to focus only on the positives as some here want to, the positives should also be balanced with the obvious negatives as well.

[PeeJay]

Who didn't recieve a bail out in 2008?

Germany didn't! - Neither did the UK ...

[Fife-Hibee]

Following your logic the US is so big it can create this phantom wealth, it's so big it can get away with it. Could Ireland get away with it as well?

Of course not. Irelands economy is doing well on merit. Just like Norway. They'd be sanctioned heavily by the US if they tried to rig their own economy.

[Fife-Hibee]

Neither did the UK ...

Of course not ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_Kingdom_bank_rescue_package

[lord bunberry]

I think the Irish economy is doing well, but it would be folly to focus only on the positives as some here want to, the positives should also be balanced with the obvious negatives as well.

You only seem to want to focus on the negatives of an independent Scotland. We’re all well aware of the problems Ireland faced, but they’ve overcome them and are doing better the Britain is. That’s why Ireland is used as an example.

[Callum_62]

Did I say that? No I never.

Why not refute the points if you think I am wrong. Is it not right to balance the positives of the Irish economy with the negatives? If not, why not?

Maybe it's you in the fantasy land if you think everything will be hunky dory in an independent Scotland. Did you say that, I don't know, but I will just assume you did like you assumed.No because every country who its pointed out is doing better than the UK you will pull an arbitrary stat to say imagine wanting to be like them

Norway and I believe child poverty was the last one..... Even tho there child poverty levels are better than the UKs

Ur default position it to rubbish everything that isn't the UK and deflect from everything the UK doing poorly in

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[PeeJay]

Of course not ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_Kingdom_bank_rescue_package

The EU bailed out Ireland: WHO bailed out the UK again?

[Fife-Hibee]

The EU bailed out Ireland: WHO bailed out the UK again?

The US Federal Reserves.

[James310]

You only seem to want to focus on the negatives of an independent Scotland. We’re all well aware of the problems Ireland faced, but they’ve overcome them and are doing better the Britain is. That’s why Ireland is used as an example.

No, if me and some other posters never pointed out some negatives for balance then reading this place you would assume everything was great in places like Ireland and it was a land of milk and honey. When it has it's problems like any other country.

[James310]

The US Federal Reserves.

What about the Bank of England bail out, did we imagine that or was it funded from Rothschilds or something else.

[James310]

No because every country who its pointed out is doing better than the UK you will pull an arbitrary stat to say imagine wanting to be like them

Norway and I believe child poverty was the last one..... Even tho there child poverty levels are better than the UKs

Ur default position it to rubbish everything that isn't the UK and deflect from everything the UK doing poorly in

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

It's balance, there is enough of an echo chamber on here as it is. Surely you think it's fair to point out the positives and the negatives, not just blindly focus on the positives?

[Fife-Hibee]

What about the Bank of England bail out, did we imagine that or was it funded from Rothschilds or something else.

What are you on about? :confused:

Are you talking about the Bank of England bail out from the Federal Reserve? Or the share recieved from the Bank of England to the Bank of Scotland though barnett consequentials?

[The Modfather]

It's balance, there is enough of an echo chamber on here as it is. Surely you think it's fair to point out the positives and the negatives, not just blindly focus on the positives?

Talking about balance, can you tell us what positives you think there are to Scotland becoming independent?

[James310]

What are you on about? :confused:

Are you talking about the Bank of England bail out from the Federal Reserve? Or the share recieved from the Bank of England to the Bank of Scotland though barnett consequentials?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_Kingdom_bank_rescue_package

[Fife-Hibee]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_Kingdom_bank_rescue_package

Ok, you've lost me here.

It's the bank rescue package that i'm referring to. So your response makes no sense to me whatsoever.

[James310]

Talking about balance, can you tell us what positives you think there are to Scotland becoming independent?

In terms of balance there are pages and pages of that. If you can't see that then something is wrong. But there are very few posters who will point out the negatives, if they do like me they tend to get abuse and attempts made to get them chucked off the board due to their political opinion.

[Moulin Yarns]

You would think that Hibs weren't playing today.

[The Modfather]

In terms of balance there are pages and pages of that. If you can't see that then something is wrong. But there are very few posters who will point out the negatives, if they do like me they tend to get abuse and attempts made to get them chucked off the board due to their political opinion.

You’re spot on to raise the negatives, all the positives and negatives should be discussed when it comes to debating independence.

I was asking you, specifically, what positives you saw to independence? While still thinking that staying in the UK is the best course of action.

[James310]

You’re spot on to raise the negatives, all the positives and negatives should be discussed when it comes to debating independence.

I was asking you, specifically, what positives you saw to independence? While still thinking that staying in the UK is the best course of action.

I think Brexit has highlighted that Scotland having control of immigration policy would be a positive of Independence. We have an ageing population and we need to attract more people to Scotland. I would happily see immigration policy devolved to Scotland, but if we became Independent then that would be a big positive.

[Moulin Yarns]

https://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?340534-Stirling-v-Hibs/page5

[Fife-Hibee]

I think Brexit has highlighted that Scotland having control of immigration policy would be a positive of Independence. We have an ageing population and we need to attract more people to Scotland. I would happily see immigration policy devolved to Scotland, but if we became Independent then that would be a big positive.

But as you know, immigration will never be devolved to Scotland as part of the UK. As it would require a border of some kind. So that positive goes straight out of the window without independence.

[Moulin Yarns]

I think Brexit has highlighted that Scotland having control of immigration policy would be a positive of Independence. We have an ageing population and we need to attract more people to Scotland. I would happily see immigration policy devolved to Scotland, but if we became Independent then that would be a big positive.

Oi!! Less of the aging population, I'm a grumpy old ******* already 😁

[James310]

But as you know, immigration will never be devolved to Scotland as part of the UK. As it would require a border of some kind. So that positive goes straight out of the window without independence.

I was asked what a positive of Independence would be, I answered it would be control of immigration.

[Just Alf]

All well and good, but you're pulling folks up for not being balanced while at the very same time being one of the most one-sided posters here :-)




Aye I know,... Not on TV tho and I've only just finished work, the beer in the club's going down singing tho!


That's my excuse :-)

Anyway 0 - 1! GGTTH

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

But as you know, immigration will never be devolved to Scotland as part of the UK. As it would require a border of some kind. So that positive goes straight out of the window without independence.

I think you have missed the point. James acknowledged that immigration is a positive motivation for independence.

[Just Alf]

I was asked what a positive of Independence would be, I answered it would be control of immigration.True... Suppose........






:-)

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

https://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?340534-Stirling-v-Hibs/page5

1-0 up against Stirling from the penalty spot in a meaningless, eye bleeding pre-season warm up. Some of us just aren't that bothered about it?

[Moulin Yarns]

1-0 up against Stirling from the penalty spot in a meaningless, eye bleeding pre-season warm up. Some of us just aren't that bothered about it?

Obviously! Even though it's a trophy we have a chance of winning. I assume you won't want a ticket for the final.

[The Modfather]

I think Brexit has highlighted that Scotland having control of immigration policy would be a positive of Independence. We have an ageing population and we need to attract more people to Scotland. I would happily see immigration policy devolved to Scotland, but if we became Independent then that would be a big positive.

Just the one positive, and one that you offer up a solution to within the union. Not really the genuine balance I was hoping for, but no point flogging a dead horse.

[James310]

Just the one positive, and one that you offer up a solution to within the union. Not really the genuine balance I was hoping for, but no point flogging a dead horse.

I am not a spokesman for the SNP.

I know it was a long time ago but I think Devo Max was the preferred choice of the people of Scotland, but it was never put to the people. I think Scotland having more powers while remaining in the UK is something that needs looked at again.

We can already take our own path with a lot of things like tution fees, prescriptions and social care. We have tax raising powers now as well. Just imagine what could be achieved if the effort that the SNP put into Independence was put into Health and Education while at the same time having full fiscal autonomy. The opportunity cost of Independence is significant.

[Moulin Yarns]

I am not a spokesman for the SNP.

I know it was a long time ago but I think Devo Max was the preferred choice of the people of Scotland, but it was never put to the people. I think Scotland having more powers while remaining in the UK is something that needs looked at again.

We can already take our own path with a lot of things like tution fees, prescriptions and social care. We have tax raising powers now as well. Just imagine what could be achieved if the effort that the SNP put into Independence was put into Health and Education while at the same time having full fiscal autonomy. The opportunity cost of Independence is significant.

Is that what Treesa is talking about with the review of devolution?

[Fife-Hibee]

I am not a spokesman for the SNP.

I know it was a long time ago but I think Devo Max was the preferred choice of the people of Scotland, but it was never put to the people. I think Scotland having more powers while remaining in the UK is something that needs looked at again.

We can already take our own path with a lot of things like tution fees, prescriptions and social care. We have tax raising powers now as well. Just imagine what could be achieved if the effort that the SNP put into Independence was put into Health and Education while at the same time having full fiscal autonomy. The opportunity cost of Independence is significant.

Full fiscal autonomy is a trap. Whatever additional funds the Scottish Government raises through increased taxation can ultimately be stripped away from the funding block. Imagine the Scottish Government used these powers to raise an additional 1 billion pounds. The UK Government could then hack that 1 billion pound off from the budget for the next financial year effectively turning a Scottish tax into a UK tax (that only applies to Scotland).

The Scottish economy will never be allowed to flurish or get ahead of the rest of the UK as long as we remain part of it. What if Scotland can do so much better? What if we have bigger ambitions than the UK? Being part of the UK ensures we can never be something better than it.

[The Modfather]

I am not a spokesman for the SNP.

I know it was a long time ago but I think Devo Max was the preferred choice of the people of Scotland, but it was never put to the people. I think Scotland having more powers while remaining in the UK is something that needs looked at again.

We can already take our own path with a lot of things like tution fees, prescriptions and social care. We have tax raising powers now as well. Just imagine what could be achieved if the effort that the SNP put into Independence was put into Health and Education while at the same time having full fiscal autonomy. The opportunity cost of Independence is significant.

The SNP and independence are not one and the same. I asked you about positives of independence, I never mentioned anything about the SNP.

I said a few pages back I would be in favour of the rest of us getting independence from the South East Of England and Westminster. However I can’t see there ever being any real appetite from Westminster for full Devo Max unless support for independence was overwhelming and Devo Max was the lesser of two evils for Westminster.

This all came about as balance was being discussed. Is it fair to summarise your balance on the positives of independence as, immigration - but we can fix that as part of the union anyway? Or is there any other positives and opportunities to independence you can see?

[James310]

Full fiscal autonomy is a trap. Whatever additional funds the Scottish Government raises through increased taxation can ultimately be stripped away from the funding block. Imagine the Scottish Government used these powers to raise an additional 1 billion pounds. The UK Government could then hack that 1 billion pound off from the budget for the next financial year effectively turning a Scottish tax into a UK tax (that only applies to Scotland).

The Scottish economy will never be allowed to flurish or get ahead of the rest of the UK as long as we remain part of it. What if Scotland can do so much better? What if we have bigger ambitions than the UK? Being part of the UK ensures we can never be something better than it.

But the people of Scotland want to remain part of the UK. Will of the people and all that? So would a solution that allows us to remain in the UK but have control over pretty much everything else not satisfy the majority, as I say I believe it was the most popular option at the time.

Is Devo Max not what we raise in Scotland we spend in Scotland? There would be no funding required from Westminster, so nothing to 'hack off'?

[James310]

Is that what Treesa is talking about with the review of devolution?

Sorry no idea, if in the last few weeks I probably missed it. My Mi5 handlers would not allow me to go on the phone.

[James310]

The SNP and independence are not one and the same. I asked you about positives of independence, I never mentioned anything about the SNP.

I said a few pages back I would be in favour of the rest of us getting independence from the South East Of England and Westminster. However I can’t see there ever being any real appetite from Westminster for full Devo Max unless support for independence was overwhelming and Devo Max was the lesser of two evils for Westminster.

This all came about as balance was being discussed. Is it fair to summarise your balance on the positives of independence as, immigration - but we can fix that as part of the union anyway? Or is there any other positives and opportunities to independence you can see?

Well of course I am going to believe most things can be fixed while being part of the UK. Just like I imagine you think a lot of things can only be fixed by separation and Independence.

[Fife-Hibee]

But the people of Scotland want to remain part of the UK. Will of the people and all that? So would a solution that allows us to remain in the UK but have control over pretty much everything else not satisfy the majority, as I say I believe it was the most popular option at the time.

Is Devo Max not what we raise in Scotland we spend in Scotland? There would be no funding required from Westminster, so nothing to 'hack off'?

On the surface devo-max would look good and it would certainly satisfy enough people for a while. But just like how enough people used to be satisfied with the old system, sooner or later, they would discover the holes in the new system and why it isn't what they thought it was.

Devo Max would be sold as "what we raise in Scotland we spend in Scotland" by the UK Government. But in reality, the UK Government would still take it's share from Scotland for what it considers "UK wide funding projects". There would then be the risk of the UK Government increasing that share whenever the Scottish Government raises taxes in Scotland. Making it utterly pointless for the Scottish Government to mess with any of the devolved tax leverages. Ultimately rendering the Parliament useless and redundant. Which would play straight into the hands of the UK Government.

[Moulin Yarns]

Sorry no idea, if in the last few weeks I probably missed it. My Mi5 handlers would not allow me to go on the phone.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-48848660

[The Modfather]

Well of course I am going to believe most things can be fixed while being part of the UK. Just like I imagine you think a lot of things can only be fixed by separation and Independence.

There’s plenty of posters who sit on one side of the fence or the other in terms of independence but can still debate the merits objectively. I was merely curious as to how balanced you were when you were calling out the need for balance.

To me it simply looks like you’re a mirror of Fife-Hibee, albeit from the union side, and the only balance you bring is to counter his blinkered pro independence with your own pro blinkered anti independence. The majority of the rest of us sit somewhere in the middle interested in meaningful and open minded debate about pros v cons.

[Fife-Hibee]

There’s plenty of posters who sit on one side of the fence or the other in terms of independence but can still debate the merits objectively. I was merely curious as to how balanced you were when you were calling out the need for balance.

To me it simply looks like you’re a mirror of Fife-Hibee, albeit from the union side, and the only balance you bring is to counter his blinkered pro independence with your own pro blinkered anti independence. The majority of the rest of us sit somewhere in the middle interested in meaningful and open minded debate about pros v cons.

Ah, the old middle ground, sitting on the fence mantra. You'll get splinters if you sit on it too long.

[Just Alf]

Ah, the old middle ground, sitting on the fence mantra. You'll get splinters if you sit on it too long.Not what he said and totally proves his point.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

Not what he said and totally proves his point.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Read again. It's what he said.

I'm pro-independence. What a crime.

[James310]

The majority of the rest of us sit somewhere in the middle interested in meaningful and open minded debate about pros v cons.

That's simply not true, in my opinion of course and based on what what I read here. I don't see many on here who I would describe as sitting in the middle of the Independence debate.

[stoneyburn hibs]

I think the Irish economy is doing well, but it would be folly to focus only on the positives as some here want to, the positives should also be balanced with the obvious negatives as well.

You keep concentrating on the negatives and the balance will be just fine.

[Mibbes Aye]

There’s plenty of posters who sit on one side of the fence or the other in terms of independence but can still debate the merits objectively. I was merely curious as to how balanced you were when you were calling out the need for balance.

To me it simply looks like you’re a mirror of Fife-Hibee, albeit from the union side, and the only balance you bring is to counter his blinkered pro independence with your own pro blinkered anti independence. The majority of the rest of us sit somewhere in the middle interested in meaningful and open minded debate about pros v cons.

I think that’s a bit unfair on James 310.

His politics are not mine but he makes reasonable arguments in a dignified manner and then usually gets half a dozen posters leaping on him demanding he prove this, that or the other.

[James310]

You keep concentrating on the negatives and the balance will be just fine.

Well not sure about that, still significantly more posters who will only discuss the positives and ignore the flip side. But glad to be of service.

[Fife-Hibee]

Well not sure about that, still significantly more posters who will only discuss the positives and ignore the flip side. But glad to be of service.

You make a negative, then people counter it with a positive. What else do you expect?

Some people ramble on about "balanced discussion". Well you need the negative nae sayers and the positive yay sayers to balance the whole thing out. Otherwise, what's their left to discuss?

[James310]

You make a negative, then people counter it with a positive. What else do you expect?

Some people ramble on about "balanced discussion". Well you need the negative nae sayers and the positive yay sayers to balance the whole thing out. Otherwise, what's their left to discuss?

I fully expect and encourage the positives and the negatives to be discussed. I find myself posting mainly the negatives in response to the overwhelming number of pro Indy posts that do not consider the other side.

I am clearly the minority on here so my posts will stand out and I will take the 'flak' of the Indy posters on here.

[stoneyburn hibs]

I fully expect and encourage the positives and the negatives to be discussed. I find myself posting mainly the negatives in response to the overwhelming number of pro Indy posts that do not consider the other side.

I am clearly the minority on here so my posts will stand out and I will take the 'flak' of the Indy posters on here.

Your existence on this thread is to negate anything positive regarding Scotland with your Unionist diatribe.

Stating the obvious really.

[JeMeSouviens]

Full fiscal autonomy is a trap. Whatever additional funds the Scottish Government raises through increased taxation can ultimately be stripped away from the funding block. Imagine the Scottish Government used these powers to raise an additional 1 billion pounds. The UK Government could then hack that 1 billion pound off from the budget for the next financial year effectively turning a Scottish tax into a UK tax (that only applies to Scotland).

The Scottish economy will never be allowed to flurish or get ahead of the rest of the UK as long as we remain part of it. What if Scotland can do so much better? What if we have bigger ambitions than the UK? Being part of the UK ensures we can never be something better than it.

Under FFA there would be no funding block. All money raised in Scotland would go to the SG. We’d pay towards common UK services, defence, foreign embassies etc

[Fife-Hibee]

Under FFA there would be no funding block. All money raised in Scotland would go to the SG. We’d pay towards common UK services, defence, foreign embassies etc

Indeed if it's set up that way. But i'm not so sure the UK Governments idea of FFA in Scotland would match up with our own expectations. I can't see them ever laying waste to the funding block. I may be wrong, but I can't see them going down that route.

[JeMeSouviens]

Indeed if it's set up that way. But i'm not so sure the UK Governments idea of FFA in Scotland would match up with our own expectations. I can't see them ever laying waste to the funding block. I may be wrong, but I can't see them going down that route.

If it isn’t then it’s not FFA, it’s partial FA.

[Fife-Hibee]

If it isn’t then it’s not FFA, it’s partial FA.

Remember when we were promised "demo max" in 2014 then just a couple of years later the UK Government claimed to have delivered it? I rest my case. :greengrin

[James310]

Your existence on this thread is to negate anything positive regarding Scotland with your Unionist diatribe.

Stating the obvious really.

Balancing the Independence diatribe and petty grievance politics that many sprout on here.

What's so different to the many posters on here who come on and just want to talk about Tory bad and Westminster bad. Why don't you attack them? Is it because you agree with them?

[stoneyburn hibs]

Balancing the Independence diatribe and petty grievance politics that many sprout on here.

What's so different to the many posters on here who come on and just want to talk about Tory bad and Westminster bad. Why don't you attack them? Is it because you agree with them?

You know I agree with them. Do you have anything positive to say regarding a potential Independent Scotland?

[James310]

You know I agree with them. Do you have anything positive to say regarding a potential Independent Scotland?

I answered that earlier, did you choose to ignore that.

So people who do what you accuse me of are all good because they have same political views as you, but because I have a different political opinion I am the one who is in the wrong. Surely you see the hypocritical stance you are taking? Although you probably don't do you?

[Sylar]

You must have missed the post about multi national companies being replaced by other multinational companies. When one collapses, it creates a gap in the market to be filled by another.

So your "small number of companies" argument falls flat on it's face. Because they'll always be replacements.

Oh, the ****ing irony.

[Mibbes Aye]

Your existence on this thread is to negate anything positive regarding Scotland with your Unionist diatribe.

Stating the obvious really.

Thats a very poor post.

I don’t agree with James 310 in the slightest but he makes points that Nats don’t like and can’t answer and leads to abuse and accusing him of diatribes and negative posting,

Shameful and shabby.

[stoneyburn hibs]

Thats a very poor post.

I don’t agree with James 310 in the slightest but he makes points that Nats don’t like and can’t answer and leads to abuse and accusing him of diatribes and negative posting,

Shameful and shabby.

In your opinion, I'll stand by it thanks.

As per yourself, I think you have a perception of yourself as being the judge, jury and executioner of the Holy Ground.

Shameful and shabby, do one.

[ronaldo7]

Balancing the Independence diatribe and petty grievance politics that many sprout on here.

What's so different to the many posters on here who come on and just want to talk about Tory bad and Westminster bad. Why don't you attack them? Is it because you agree with them?


It's because the Tories and Westminster are generally bad for our country. Some can see it, others like you, don't seem able to.

[James310]

In your opinion, I'll stand by it thanks.

As per yourself, I think you have a perception of yourself as being the judge, jury and executioner of the Holy Ground.

Shameful and shabby, do one.

Can you not see the hypocrisy of your stance though?

[James310]

It's because the Tories and Westminster are generally bad for our country. Some can see it, others like you, don't seem able to.

That's your opinion, it's not a fact. You paint your opinions as facts, they are not.

[ronaldo7]

That's your opinion, it's not a fact. You paint your opinions as facts, they are not.

I'd wager the vast majority of Scottish people would view the Tories being bad for our country. This is my opinion, and not fact. You would agree about the Tories wouldn't you?

[James310]

I'd wager the vast majority of Scottish people would view the Tories being bad for our country. This is my opinion, and not fact. You would agree wouldn't you?

Well the Tory vote is on the rise in Scotland, look at the last GE result in Scotland and the last Holyrood elections were they showed big increases. It's hard to say if you don't vote Tory you also believe they are bad for the country. Someone can vote Green but may not believe the SNP is bad for the country for example.

The facts are they have more Westminster and Holyrood seats in Scotland for a long time, do you agree that's a fact?

[ronaldo7]

Well the Tory vote is on the rise in Scotland, look at the last GE result in Scotland and the last Holyrood elections were they showed big increases. It's hard to say if you don't vote Tory you also believe they are bad for the country. Someone can vote Green but may not believe the SNP is bad for the country for example.

The facts are they have more Westminster and Holyrood seats in Scotland for a long time, do you agree that's a fact?

You're right, they do have more seats than normal. It's not too difficult moving from 1 Westminster seat, upwards though. 😆

I look forward to the next election with gusto.

This detracts from my point however.

The Tories have been generally bad for Scotland. Do you agree or not, if you don't agree, you could maybe post a few policies which were introduced recently, which were good for us.

I'm off out now, so I'll pick this up later. Cheers.

[Callum_62]

Well the Tory vote is on the rise in Scotland, look at the last GE result in Scotland and the last Holyrood elections were they showed big increases. It's hard to say if you don't vote Tory you also believe they are bad for the country. Someone can vote Green but may not believe the SNP is bad for the country for example.

The facts are they have more Westminster and Holyrood seats in Scotland for a long time, do you agree that's a fact?Yeah I'm sure I read they won it

How many times have Scotland voted for a tory Govt?

I guess the answer to that will tell you what the Scottish people in general think about the tories, their policies and how good they are for Scotland

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[James310]

You're right, they do have more seats than normal. It's not too difficult moving from 1 Westminster seat, upwards though. 😆

I look forward to the next election with gusto.

This detracts from my point however.

The Tories have been generally bad for Scotland. Do you agree or not, if you don't agree, you could maybe post a few policies which were introduced recently, which were good for us.

I'm off out now, so I'll pick this up later. Cheers.

At the last budget due to increased spending in the NHS in England and Wales Scotland saw an increase of funding of £950M over a 3 Year period. That's a nice sum to continue to fund the different paths we may wish to take with things like tution fees and free prescriptions. So the policy of increases of NHS funding in England and Wales has proved to be beneficial for Scotland.

I think the doubling of the tax free allowance over the last 10 years has been good for everyone, meaning the lowest paid and part time workers pay no income tax at all. That's a good thing.

I think the inheritance tax changes rolled out a few years back were a good thing as well. Meaning parents and grandparents can leave their property to their loved ones and in the vast majority of cases unless you have a very expensive property you will pay no inheritance tax at all.

[Ozyhibby]

Proper devo max where tax is raised in Scotland and then we pay money into the UK for shared services could win me over but it’s never going to be offered so independence is the only way forward for me.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

Yeah I'm sure I read they won it

How many times have Scotland voted for a tory Govt?

I guess the answer to that will tell you what the Scottish people in general think about the tories, their policies and how good they are for Scotland

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

So do people think the same about the Greens, the Lib Dems and Labour now? Just because you vote for party A then party B, C and D are bad for the country. We have a Green voter on this board who I am sure would not agree with that logic, just because he votes for the Greens does he believe all the rest are bad for the country including the SNP? I don't think so.

Using your logic the majority of the country must think the SNP are bad for Scotland as they failed in the last Scottish Elections and General Elections to get a majority of the votes cast.

[James310]

Proper devo max where tax is raised in Scotland and then we pay money into the UK for shared services could win me over but it’s never going to be offered so independence is the only way forward for me.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It should be explored again I believe. If you are saying it could win you over then there is merit in looking at it in more depth. I think it would command a majority, it did in the past.

"A public opinion poll carried out at the end of October 2011 for the BBC Politics Show indicated that devo-max was the most popular option with Scottish voters: 33% backed devo-max, 28% supported independence and 29% backed no further constitutional change.[13] A public opinion poll carried out in March 2013 for the SNP, however, indicated that 52% of respondents believed the Scottish Government should be responsible for all tax and spending decisions in Scotland. Also, 53% of respondents believed that the Scottish government would be best suited to decide welfare and pensions policy for Scotland.[14]"

[Jack]

Well the Tory vote is on the rise in Scotland, look at the last GE result in Scotland and the last Holyrood elections were they showed big increases. It's hard to say if you don't vote Tory you also believe they are bad for the country. Someone can vote Green but may not believe the SNP is bad for the country for example.

The facts are they have more Westminster and Holyrood seats in Scotland for a long time, do you agree that's a fact?

It's not difficult to rise from zero!

[weecounty hibby]

So no facts, no figures, no quotes from any source but just a real life example of Scotland v Ireland. Irish friends of mine who lived in Alloa for a number of years due to work have moved home again to Ireland. Again this is down to work but mostly through choice. They could have stayed here, employed by the same company, paid the same salary, still having to travel Europe for their job. But hey chose to go home to Ireland. Better standard of living, better prospects for their kids, better way if life, better access to Europe were just some of the reasons they gave. Believe me when I say that Scotland is a poorer place without them as they gave so much to out community when here. They cannot believe that we as a nation only had to put a tick in a box to remove ourselves from the restrictions of Westminster and failed to do so.
I have been over to their town and area in Ireland and see a town, county, province and country so at ease with itself and so forward thinking and confident it makes me want to weep that we have up that chance.
As I said no facts, no figures, nothing more than a "feeling" of a small country finding its way and doing well for itself

[ronaldo7]

At the last budget due to increased spending in the NHS in England and Wales Scotland saw an increase of funding of £950M over a 3 Year period. That's a nice sum to continue to fund the different paths we may wish to take with things like tution fees and free prescriptions. So the policy of increases of NHS funding in England and Wales has proved to be beneficial for Scotland.

I think the doubling of the tax free allowance over the last 10 years has been good for everyone, meaning the lowest paid and part time workers pay no income tax at all. That's a good thing.

I think the inheritance tax changes rolled out a few years back were a good thing as well. Meaning parents and grandparents can leave their property to their loved ones and in the vast majority of cases unless you have a very expensive property you will pay no inheritance tax at all.

Money, money, money. Where are the social policies?

On your £950 million, care to elaborate on the £2.6 billion we're short on our budget over the last 10 years due to austerity. Just think what we could have done with that.

On tax, were already doing better, with the introduction of SRIT, and making those who can afford to, pay more.

What percentage of Scots benefited from this change? I'd guess, and it's only a guess, but 5%?

As I said the social policies forced on Scotland by the Tories are, disabled people being robbed blind, the hostile environment policy which is forcing people from our country due to unrealistic targets on profit. Teachers forced to give up jobs due to home office restrictions. The list is endless, but as long as your bank balance is fine and dandy, then all is well in, Janet and johns house.

Social policies, for the betterment of all our people is what I'm fighting for. I'll leave you to count your pennies.