Scottish Independence

[Future17]

Throwing good money after bad.

What's the alternative here?

I'm not an expert so this is a genuine question.

[Ozyhibby]

What's the alternative here?

I'm not an expert so this is a genuine question.

Let it go. Once the govt takes over that ship yard we will be stuck with it. We will end up putting millions into it every year while struggling to fund the NHS.
If we need a ship built then we order it from wherever in the world can build it for the best value and we concentrate our economy on the things we do well.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

“I have no idea what side of the fence that it’s on...” :rotflmao:

The very first drop down is the same old same old about how fantastic it would be if Scotland was an independent nation. I think we know where the rest is going.

It doesn’t actually seem to say anything that is going to convince soft No’s, it’s the same vague and woolly appeal to heart over head that didn’t convince 55% last time.

You and it need to try harder :greengrin

How has that head over heart thing been working out?

[James310]

I think if we have one eye on independence then we also need to keep an eye on industries and services that would be necessary for an independent Scotland within the EU. It would be a dereliction of duty for the Scottish government not to do so.

It it not the job of the Scottish Government to represent the whole of Scotland? Not just the minority that voted for Independence. To suggest they should spend millions of tax payers money on buying a loss making company so that it positions them well for Indy is not something the majority of Scots who voted against Independence would support.

There may be other valid reasons to nationalise it, but doing it to support Independence is not one.

Is that the future in an Independent Scotland? Nationalisation and subsidising loss making companies?

[Fife-Hibee]

Let it go. Once the govt takes over that ship yard we will be stuck with it. We will end up putting millions into it every year while struggling to fund the NHS.
If we need a ship built then we order it from wherever in the world can build it for the best value and we concentrate our economy on the things we do well.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They let it go. There's a major political campaign (funded from London) pointing out the Scottish Governments "failures" to save the ship yards and why that means Scotland would be doomed with independence.

The easily swayed will be swayed away from independence, support falls below 50%. Westminster continues to deny another referendum while they kill off what little left of our industries.

Game over.

[Fife-Hibee]

Is that the future in an Independent Scotland? Nationalisation and subsidising loss making companies?

No. That's the future of Scotland in the UK.... and the past.

[Hibrandenburg]

It it not the job of the Scottish Government to represent the whole of Scotland? Not just the minority that voted for Independence. To suggest they should spend millions of tax payers money on buying a loss making company so that it positions them well for Indy is not something the majority of Scots who voted against Independence would support.

There may be other valid reasons to nationalise it, but doing it to support Independence is not one.

Is that the future in an Independent Scotland? Nationalisation and subsidising loss making companies?

It is the job of the Scottish government to prepare the country for what might lie ahead. Westminster could learn something from that looking at the unprecedented ****up that is Brexit. If we achieve independence within the EU we will need ships, ports and airports. It makes sense to be prepared for that rather than start from scratch when the time comes.

Btw I'm not suggesting that this is the reasoning behind the government's decision, just speculating a possible motivation.

[Ozyhibby]

They let it go. There's a major political campaign (funded from London) pointing out the Scottish Governments "failures" to save the ship yards and why that means Scotland would be doomed with independence.

The easily swayed will be swayed away from independence, support falls below 50%. Westminster continues to deny another referendum while they kill off what little left of our industries.

Game over.

It’s too late to save the ship yards. The Scottish government should stay out of private business. It’s a trap that will be there forever if they take it over. Before you know it we will be building ships we don’t need at prices we can’t afford just to avoid any political damage. Take the hit now and move on.
The government is struggling to fund the services it currently provides never mind getting into the ship building game.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

It is the job of the Scottish government to prepare the country for what might lie ahead. Westminster could learn something from that looking at the unprecedented ****up that is Brexit. If we achieve independence within the EU we will need ships, ports and airports. It makes sense to be prepared for that rather than start from scratch when the time comes.

Btw I'm not suggesting that this is the reasoning behind the government's decision, just speculating a possible motivation.

If we become independent within the Eu then any ship contracts will have to go out to competitive tender within the EU. There are better ship yards out there who will bid cheaper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

It it not the job of the Scottish Government to represent the whole of Scotland? Not just the minority that voted for Independence. To suggest they should spend millions of tax payers money on buying a loss making company so that it positions them well for Indy is not something the majority of Scots who voted against Independence would support.

There may be other valid reasons to nationalise it, but doing it to support Independence is not one.

Is that the future in an Independent Scotland? Nationalisation and subsidising loss making companies?

It’s the present.

So far the SNP has nationalised Prestwick at huge cost, and the wave energy companies it pumped many millions into for no return. There is also the rather murky Bi-Fab loan / equity stake that has failed to deliver much (if anything at all)

And now we can add a ship yard that lost £60m in its last accounts yet was loaned £45m and a couple of ferries that were meant to cost £97 and may end up around double that.

As industrial policies go its hardly a ringing endorsement.

[Ozyhibby]

It’s the present.

So far the SNP has nationalised Prestwick at huge cost, and the wave energy companies it pumped many millions into for no return. There is also the rather murky Bi-Fab loan / equity stake that has failed to deliver much (if anything at all)

And now we can add a ship yard that lost £60m in its last accounts yet was loaned £45m and a couple of ferries that were meant to cost £97 and may end up around double that.

As industrial policies go its hardly a ringing endorsement.

I agree, this is the sort of nonsense that will eventually bring a govt down. Let it go now and get a couple of Sunday’s bad headlines or ‘save it’ and be constantly hounded by the bad publicity each new subsidy brings as well as having to cut funding elsewhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

I agree, this is the sort of nonsense that will eventually bring a govt down. Let it go now and get a couple of Sunday’s bad headlines or ‘save it’ and be constantly hounded by the bad publicity each new subsidy brings as well as having to cut funding elsewhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It won't simply be a couple of sunday's worth of bad headlines. The situation will be twisted and milked for as long as possible.

I doubt the plan is to keep the ship yards under nationalization in the long run. Their must be a plan in place to steady the ship (excuse the pun), otherwise I don't think they'd be making this decision right now.

[Hibrandenburg]

If we become independent within the Eu then any ship contracts will have to go out to competitive tender within the EU. There are better ship yards out there who will bid cheaper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm no expert but allowing other bids doesn't mean any future government has to accept the cheapest or even the best. Scotland will decide for itself how it goes about improving its transport infrastructure.

[Ozyhibby]

It won't simply be a couple of sunday's worth of bad headlines. The situation will be twisted and milked for as long as possible.

I doubt the plan is to keep the ship yards under nationalization in the long run. Their must be a plan in place to steady the ship (excuse the pun), otherwise I don't think they'd be making this decision right now.

That’s what they said about Prestwick. It’s up for sale now but no sign of any bidders because Airports in the middle of nowhere are not that attractive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lord bunberry]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-scotland-business-49316478?__twitter_impression=true

This is a dumb idea. I get why they are doing it politically but this will cost hundreds of millions pounds to save just 300 jobs. And it will only save them temporarily. Eventually they will be lost no matter what, just like eventually Prestwick airport will be closed. And all that public money will be gone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Prestwick isn’t the only example of the Scottish government taking a company into public ownership. They took the east coast rail line into public ownership and it made a profit before being sold on again. I believe it’s back in public ownership again after the private company made a mess of it again. Hopefully the shipyard will be less like Prestwick and more like the east coast main line.

[James310]

I'm no expert but allowing other bids doesn't mean any future government has to accept the cheapest or even the best. Scotland will decide for itself how it goes about improving its transport infrastructure.

No, the EU will decide assuming Scotland is in the EU. There are lots of complex EU rules around the state subsidising companies.

Also as a taxpayer then would you not want the best deal, or we heading back to the 70's where we spend money on propping up loss making industry when the money could be spent on things like Health and Education.

[Fife-Hibee]

No, the EU will decide assuming Scotland is in the EU. There are lots of complex EU rules around the state subsidising companies.

Also as a taxpayer then would you not want the best deal, or we heading back to the 70's where we spend money on propping up loss making industry when the money could be spent on things like Health and Education.

They're not "propping up" the industry though, are they? They're taking control of it. Perhaps they see an opportunity to turn things around. There's no good reason why Scottish shipyards shouldn't compete. Perhaps more competent management will make the difference.

[James310]

They're not "propping up" the industry though, are they? They're taking control of it. Perhaps they see an opportunity to turn things around. There's no good reason why Scottish shipyards shouldn't compete. Perhaps more competent management will make the difference.

Like they turned round Prestwick?

[Hibrandenburg]

No, the EU will decide assuming Scotland is in the EU. There are lots of complex EU rules around the state subsidising companies.

Also as a taxpayer then would you not want the best deal, or we heading back to the 70's where we spend money on propping up loss making industry when the money could be spent on things like Health and Education.

Wrong, Scotland would be allowed to invest in its ship building industry for a given period of time. The restructuring clause in EU shipbuilding laws has been implemented in several countries to allow them to establish competitive privatised industries.

[RyeSloan]

They're not "propping up" the industry though, are they? They're taking control of it. Perhaps they see an opportunity to turn things around. There's no good reason why Scottish shipyards shouldn't compete. Perhaps more competent management will make the difference.

They are very much propping up this yard. £45m of loans to date shows that to be the case.

They were prevented from propping it up further due to EU regs hence why it had to go bust first before any further intervention.

As for ‘no good reason’ why Scottish shipyards can’t compete...history and the global economics of ship building would suggest otherwise.

Same with Bi-Fab. Simply much cheaper to have the work done for the offshore wind farm it was meant to be supplying done in the Far East. The fact the SG failed to contractually ensure that a percentage of that work was done locally when EDF bought out the project is another inconvenient matter that seems to have been ignored.

[Ozyhibby]

They are very much propping up this yard. £45m of loans to date shows that to be the case.

They were prevented from propping it up further due to EU regs hence why it had to go bust first before any further intervention.

As for ‘no good reason’ why Scottish shipyards can’t compete...history and the global economics of ship building would suggest otherwise.

Same with Bi-Fab. Simply much cheaper to have the work done for the offshore wind farm it was meant to be supplying done in the Far East. The fact the SG failed to contractually ensure that a percentage of that work was done locally when EDF bought out the project is another inconvenient matter that seems to have been ignored.

If we are going to tackle climate change then we need cheap windmills. Lots of them. If that means buying them in then so be it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

Wrong, Scotland would be allowed to invest in its ship building industry for a given period of time. The restructuring clause in EU shipbuilding laws has been implemented in several countries to allow them to establish competitive privatised industries.

You sure about that? They are not warships.

What is Article 346?

EU law requires most government contracts to be procured via an open, competitive process. The main EU legislation in the defence domain is the Defence and Security Directive 2009/81/EC, transposed into UK law by Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011.13

However, Article 346 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides for an exemption to the procurement rules where a country considers it to be necessary for national security reasons: “any Member State may take such measures as it considers necessary for the protection of the essential interests of its security which are connected with the production of or trade in arms, munitions and war material”. Article 346 refers to a list drawn up in 1958 by the Council of Ministers of products to which the provisions

[Hibrandenburg]

You sure about that? They are not warships.

What is Article 346?

EU law requires most government contracts to be procured via an open, competitive process. The main EU legislation in the defence domain is the Defence and Security Directive 2009/81/EC, transposed into UK law by Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011.13

However, Article 346 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides for an exemption to the procurement rules where a country considers it to be necessary for national security reasons: “any Member State may take such measures as it considers necessary for the protection of the essential interests of its security which are connected with the production of or trade in arms, munitions and war material”. Article 346 refers to a list drawn up in 1958 by the Council of Ministers of products to which the provisions

There's a restructuring clause in there as well. I remember Belgium and a couple of other countries were granted temporary leeway after the agreement was signed. Later Poland was also given an exemption to allow it to restructure the Gdansk yard after joining the EU. I might be wrong but I think Poland are still "restructuring" much to the annoyance of the EU.

[Ozyhibby]

There's a restructuring clause in there as well. I remember Belgium and a couple of other countries were granted temporary leeway after the agreement was signed. Later Poland was also given an exemption to allow it to restructure the Gdansk yard after joining the EU. I might be wrong but I think Poland are still "restructuring" much to the annoyance of the EU.

It’s likely we will end up permanently restructuring like the Polish govt. If Jim McColl can’t make this yard work, what chance is there that some civil servants at Holyrood will manage?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

On the topic of wasting money I see the Scottish taxpayers have also 'spent' over £500,000 for Alex Salmond's legal expenses in the botched investigation into his conduct.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/salmond-wins-500-000-payout-from-scottish-government-over-botched-conduct-probe-1-4982877/

"A Scottish Government spokesman said today: “We can confirm that final settlement of £512,250 has been made to Mr Salmond for legal costs arising from his petition for judicial review.”

The Court of Session ruled that Scottish Government had acted illegally over the way it handled the complaints against the ex-SNP leader after complaints were made by two civil servants"

On to his trial in the new year now.

[Smartie]

On the topic of wasting money I see the Scottish taxpayers have also 'spent' over £500,000 for Alex Salmond's legal expenses in the botched investigation into his conduct.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/salmond-wins-500-000-payout-from-scottish-government-over-botched-conduct-probe-1-4982877/

"A Scottish Government spokesman said today: “We can confirm that final settlement of £512,250 has been made to Mr Salmond for legal costs arising from his petition for judicial review.”

The Court of Session ruled that Scottish Government had acted illegally over the way it handled the complaints against the ex-SNP leader after complaints were made by two civil servants"

On to his trial in the new year now.

What is your actual opinion on this?

Phrases such as " I see the Scottish taxpayers have also 'spent' over £500,000" do tend to attract attention and people may with some justification get their backs up at the fact.

The ongoing Salmond situation as I see it is a good one for you. The situation to which you refer is a lose/lose situation for Salmond and the Scottish government. They are a person and an institution that you don't appear to have much time for so in any eventuality you can gloat.

Salmond on this occasion was found to be in the right. The investigation was poorly handled. When that happens an individual - irrespective of the circumstances - will normally have their legal fees paid by the other side.

I'm a proud Scot. I vote SNP. I want nothing but success and prosperity for other Scots, even those who I disagree with politically. If I am on the receiving end of unfair or illegal treatment from the Scottish government then I will have no qualms about fighting tooth and nail for justice and if found to be correct then the legal bill is passed to the taxpayer. The money would no doubt be most important for some, but also important is that we know our justice system is strong and that investigations of this nature are legal and fair. Sometimes that is a price worth paying, even if those who wish to sensationalise such matters disagree.

You never know when you might be on the receiving end yourself.

[James310]

What is your actual opinion on this?

Phrases such as " I see the Scottish taxpayers have also 'spent' over £500,000" do tend to attract attention and people may with some justification get their backs up at the fact.

The ongoing Salmond situation as I see it is a good one for you. The situation to which you refer is a lose/lose situation for Salmond and the Scottish government. They are a person and an institution that you don't appear to have much time for so in any eventuality you can gloat.

Salmond on this occasion was found to be in the right. The investigation was poorly handled. When that happens an individual - irrespective of the circumstances - will normally have their legal fees paid by the other side.

I'm a proud Scot. I vote SNP. I want nothing but success and prosperity for other Scots, even those who I disagree with politically. If I am on the receiving end of unfair or illegal treatment from the Scottish government then I will have no qualms about fighting tooth and nail for justice and if found to be correct then the legal bill is passed to the taxpayer. The money would no doubt be most important for some, but also important is that we know our justice system is strong and that investigations of this nature are legal and fair. Sometimes that is a price worth paying, even if those who wish to sensationalise such matters disagree.

You never know when you might be on the receiving end yourself.

I don't think the situation is good for anyone, strange thing to say.

I am disappointed that over half a million of tax payers money has been spent because proper procedure was not followed, that's why he won his case. Who knows that the outcome would have been if the correct process has been followed and the government never breached their own guidelines.

[Smartie]

I don't think the situation is good for anyone, strange thing to say.

I am disappointed that over half a million of tax payers money has been spent because proper procedure was not followed, that's why he won his case. Who knows that the outcome would have been if the correct process has been followed and the government never breached their own guidelines.

A fair response.

I'm not convinced they had a correct process in place in the first place, although in fairness it is a fairly unusual set of circumstances.

It's a lot of money to appear to be chucked down the swanny, but if it has led to a known procedure being set up so that complaints of this nature are handled properly in future then at least some good will have come of it, even if in a rather expensive way.

Obviously with the big case coming next year we all have to go on little actual detail right now. It will be very interesting if "all is revealed" eventually so we can actually pick the bones of what has gone on.

[Tomsk]

Prestwick isn’t the only example of the Scottish government taking a company into public ownership. They took the east coast rail line into public ownership and it made a profit before being sold on again. I believe it’s back in public ownership again after the private company made a mess of it again. Hopefully the shipyard will be less like Prestwick and more like the east coast main line.

The Scottish Government does have responsibility for some rail franchises, including the Caledonian Sleeper which has attracted so much negative publicity recently, but it has never owned the East Coast Mainline. The UK Government did until recently and indeed the line was profitable during this period.

[Ozyhibby]

The Scottish Government does have responsibility for some rail franchises, including the Caledonian Sleeper which has attracted so much negative publicity recently, but it has never owned the East Coast Mainline. The UK Government did until recently and indeed the line was profitable during this period.

And it’s is easy to make a profit on if you are not paying franchise fees (as the govt obviously are not). It’s the over bidding on the franchise that has pushed the operators into loss, not the day to day operation of the business.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[StevieC]

And it’s is easy to make a profit on if you are not paying franchise fees (as the govt obviously are not). It’s the over bidding on the franchise that has pushed the operators into loss, not the day to day operation of the business.


Spot on. I’ve travelled between Edinburgh and Newcastle regularly over the past 20 years and seen all sorts of issues with the franchises and the service.
That said, it is now (whilst nationalised under LNER) that I’m seeing prices rocketing, and very poor advance deals. I know it’s getting run by a management partnership (Ernst and Young?) so it’s possible that the price hike is to ensure the management company is making a profit?

[Jack]

And it’s is easy to make a profit on if you are not paying franchise fees (as the govt obviously are not). It’s the over bidding on the franchise that has pushed the operators into loss, not the day to day operation of the business.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So the private companies pushed themselves into a loss making position. Nobody is forcing them to bid for these franchises. Private railway companies don't seem to be able to run a railway!

IIRC there's been a couple of prisons been taken back into public ownership where the private prison companies have mucked up.

Employees have been transferring between private and public sectors, temporarily and permanently at all levels of admin and management, some head hunted, for decades.

Constantly suggesting because something is bad because it's run by the Government is out dated and detracts from your argument.

[lord bunberry]

The Scottish Government does have responsibility for some rail franchises, including the Caledonian Sleeper which has attracted so much negative publicity recently, but it has never owned the East Coast Mainline. The UK Government did until recently and indeed the line was profitable during this period.
Apologies, I knew it had gone into public ownership, but I thought it had been the Scottish government that was running it.

[Ozyhibby]

So the private companies pushed themselves into a loss making position. Nobody is forcing them to bid for these franchises. Private railway companies don't seem to be able to run a railway!

IIRC there's been a couple of prisons been taken back into public ownership where the private prison companies have mucked up.

Employees have been transferring between private and public sectors, temporarily and permanently at all levels of admin and management, some head hunted, for decades.

Constantly suggesting because something is bad because it's run by the Government is out dated and detracts from your argument.

The railways have improved massively since they were run privately. And people have responded in record numbers.
Prisons are a different matter. They should never be run by private companies. Look closely and bet you will find that Johnson’s pledge to increase sentences etc have been influenced by campaign donations etc from G4S and other such companies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-49304055

Well, we know he will get at least one vote from a poster on here. :tee hee::tee hee:

Would anyone else consider voting for his party?

Have you got the guts to admit the story is a bit mince?

Come on, be a man about it. 😉

[Moulin Yarns]

Take a look at Scots in the Union 🇬🇧 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 (@ScotsInTheUnion): https://twitter.com/ScotsInTheUnion?s=09

[James310]

Have you got the guts to admit the story is a bit mince?

Come on, be a man about it. 😉

Why is it mince?

You were/are his biggest supporter on here. Have you not linked to him and his articles hundreds of times?

With regards to being a man then that is of course reference to a poster who has still failed to explain what his joke or comment about me was all about. I think if you are happy enough to post it here for all to see you should be happy enough to explain it, that seems reasonable to me. He refuses to do so though despite many requests and that's his choice. However if he wants to do so then we can all judge for ourselves if it was funny or not.

As I said to another poster I am happy to leave it at that and have not raised it again, but also happy to bring it up again if you or anyone else wants to. Although I suspect everyone else is bored by now and would rather we focussed on 'on topic' discussion points, not silly little jokes about individuals.

[ronaldo7]

Why is it mince?

You were/are his biggest supporter on here. Have you not linked to him and his articles hundreds of times?

With regards to being a man then that is of course reference to a poster who has still failed to explain what his joke or comment about me was all about. I think if you are happy enough to post it here for all to see you should be happy enough to explain it, that seems reasonable to me. He refuses to do so though despite many requests and that's his choice. However if he wants to do so then we can all judge for ourselves if it was funny or not.

As I said to another poster I am happy to leave it at that and have not raised it again, but also happy to bring it up again if you or anyone else wants to. Although I suspect everyone else is bored by now and would rather we focussed on 'on topic' discussion points, not silly little jokes about individuals.


You can't help yourself. Twitch twitch Curtains open again then. 😂

It's mince because it wasn't true. He's not "taking on" the SNP.

Your hatred of the SNP is palpable.

[James310]

You can't help yourself. Twitch twitch Curtains open again then. 😂

It's mince because it wasn't true. He's not "taking on" the SNP.

Your hatred of the SNP is palpable.

You are probably just disappointed as you saw yourself as the perfect candidate for his new party. You obviously have very similar views linking to his posts hundreds of times.

www.wingsoverscotland.com/voteforR7

[Fife-Hibee]

You are probably just disappointed as you saw yourself as the perfect candidate for his new party. You obviously have very similar views linking to his posts hundreds of times.

www.wingsoverscotland.com/voteforR7

We all seen the Scotsman headline claiming that wings were coming after the SNP.

Some of us read beyond the headlines though to get the actual facts of the matter.

[James310]

We all seen the Scotsman headline claiming that wings were coming after the SNP.

Some of us read beyond the headlines though to get the actual facts of the matter.

I thought you never read any papers, you got all your information from the internet? What papers do you read? The National maybe? I see today they are really focused on the big issues in society like what flag appears on packets of chicken.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/17834785.supermarkets-still-plastering-scottish-food-union-jack/

[Fife-Hibee]

I thought you never read any papers, you got all your information from the internet? What papers do you read? The National maybe? I see today they are really focused on the big issues in society like what flag appears on packets of chicken.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/17834785.supermarkets-still-plastering-scottish-food-union-jack/

I don't read or buy the national. I am however aware of the nature of their coverage. The UK state using an old nazi style propaganda technique to stir up "Britishness" in Scotland is very much relevant to their content and coverage.

Go south of the border and see how many supermarkets like Tescos, Asda and Morrisons feel the need to have union jack stalls outside their shops. You'll be hard pressed to find any. A stark contrast to what they're doing in Scotland.

[RyeSloan]

I don't read or buy the national. I am however aware of the nature of their coverage. The UK state using an old nazi style propaganda technique to stir up "Britishness" in Scotland is very much relevant to their content and coverage.

Go south of the border and see how many supermarkets like Tescos, Asda and Morrisons feel the need to have union jack stalls outside their shops. You'll be hard pressed to find any. A stark contrast to what they're doing in Scotland.

Union Jack stalls? What are they?

[RyeSloan]

I thought you never read any papers, you got all your information from the internet? What papers do you read? The National maybe? I see today they are really focused on the big issues in society like what flag appears on packets of chicken.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/17834785.supermarkets-still-plastering-scottish-food-union-jack/

Is that a spoof?

‘Grossly offensive to those that don’t identify as British’?

Seriously?

As for getting upset about the mini tail lights...oh my days...

[James310]

Is that a spoof?

‘Grossly offensive to those that don’t identify as British’?

Seriously?

As for getting upset about the mini tail lights...oh my days...

As far as I know it's real, but yea flags on food packets is really important to some people.

[James310]

I don't read or buy the national. I am however aware of the nature of their coverage. The UK state using an old nazi style propaganda technique to stir up "Britishness" in Scotland is very much relevant to their content and coverage.

Go south of the border and see how many supermarkets like Tescos, Asda and Morrisons feel the need to have union jack stalls outside their shops. You'll be hard pressed to find any. A stark contrast to what they're doing in Scotland.

Morrisons have the same displays across the country. There was a remainer complaining about it recently as they had boxes of fruit with the Union Jack on sale outside their stores. But are you suggesting that the supermarkets are involved in some conspiracy to only label food sold in Scotland with the Union Jack?

[Mibbes Aye]

Is that a spoof?

‘Grossly offensive to those that don’t identify as British’?

Seriously?

As for getting upset about the mini tail lights...oh my days...

Grievance junkie journalism, and I'm being generous calling it journalism

Way to win over the 55%

Does anyone on the Nat side want to try and suggest that article is going to do anything other than portray the Nationalist cause as petty-minded?

"They may take our lives, but they'll never take our chicken labelling"!!!

[JeMeSouviens]

Grievance junkie journalism, and I'm being generous calling it journalism

Way to win over the 55%

Does anyone on the Nat side want to try and suggest that article is going to do anything other than portray the Nationalist cause as petty-minded?

"They may take our lives, but they'll never take our chicken labelling"!!!

In a word, no.

[Slavers]

Is that a spoof?

‘Grossly offensive to those that don’t identify as British’?

Seriously?

As for getting upset about the mini tail lights...oh my days...

I don't understand the outrage considering the EU brand olive oil made in Italy as being a product of the EU and not Italy.

[Fife-Hibee]

Morrisons have the same displays across the country. There was a remainer complaining about it recently as they had boxes of fruit with the Union Jack on sale outside their stores. But are you suggesting that the supermarkets are involved in some conspiracy to only label food sold in Scotland with the Union Jack?

I'm suggesting that since 2014 there has been a very steep rise in Union Jackery in major english owned super market chains. Yes, they appear on products right across the UK. But why the sudden necessity to display them on so many products? It was barely a thing pre-2014.

[James310]

I'm suggesting that since 2014 there has been a very steep rise in Union Jackery in major english owned super market chains. Yes, they appear on products right across the UK. But why the sudden necessity to display them on so many products? It was barely a thing pre-2014.

It was probably a thing before 2014 but nobody cared, now it's a big deal for a minority of people.

Asda is owned by US company Walmart, Morrisons and Tesco are PLCs owned by their shareholders who will be be based all over but the largest 'owners' will be fund management companies. None of them are 'English' owned as you put it.

Upon checking the biggest owner of Tesco Plc is US based Blackrock Fund Managers, are they behind this plan to display more Union Jack's?

[Mr Grieves]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49352971

Another fun day within scottish labour

:banana:

[ronaldo7]

You are probably just disappointed as you saw yourself as the perfect candidate for his new party. You obviously have very similar views linking to his posts hundreds of times.

www.wingsoverscotland.com/voteforR7

Is this it then?

Have you stopped your wee strop, and disbanded "the gang" then?

Have you decided to open the curtains fully, or are you going back into your room when the big boys call you out.

It's make your mind up time, wee Jimmy.

On your wings comment, I've linked to his site many times, that's because he's debunked most of the arguments that you espouse.

It's also a bit rich coming from you, who gets his info from Scotland in union, and Brian spanner.

Oh before you forget, and put me on ignore once more, we've got a bet running, remember that?

[marinello59]

I'm suggesting that since 2014 there has been a very steep rise in Union Jackery in major english owned super market chains. Yes, they appear on products right across the UK. But why the sudden necessity to display them on so many products? It was barely a thing pre-2014.

It’s been a thing all my life and I’m older than Methuselah’s Dad. I would respectfully suggest you are seeing something that just isn’t there.

[ronaldo7]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49352971

Another fun day within scottish labour

:banana:

Is Richard the leopardheart still considering his position.

Ian Murray will be frothing about this.

Popcorn.

[stoneyburn hibs]

Is Richard the leopardheart still considering his position.

Ian Murray will be frothing about this.

Popcorn.

It'll be interesting to hear what he has to say.

[danhibees1875]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49352971

Another fun day within scottish labour

:banana:

Strange timing. Easy way to lose some credibility before any potential election. He must have been worried that he might have stood a chance getting somewhere against BJ. :dunno:

[James310]

Is this it then?

Have you stopped your wee strop, and disbanded "the gang" then?

Have you decided to open the curtains fully, or are you going back into your room when the big boys call you out.

It's make your mind up time, wee Jimmy.

On your wings comment, I've linked to his site many times, that's because he's debunked most of the arguments that you espouse.

It's also a bit rich coming from you, who gets his info from Scotland in union, and Brian spanner.

Oh before you forget, and put me on ignore once more, we've got a bet running, remember that?

Yes I remember our bet and the signs are still there. In the last few weeks as we have seen record drug deaths across Scotland, an empty hospital years late and costing millions while lying empty and as we face a no deal Brexit the FM has been busy appearing on Loose Women to talk about the break up of Miley Cyrus and her partner and now seems to be interviewing authors as part of a fringe show. It's almost as if she is preparing for a life outside of politics?

The Salmond case and the investigation into her actions are key, the case seems to have taken forever to come to court but I believe it is early next year. The investigation into her actions can only happen when the criminal case has ended I believe. All those missing emails and deleted appointments from her calender, nothing suspicious at all...her husband is also the CEO of the party which seems to go largely missed by many, but what other western government would have a husband and wife as the 2 most powerful people in the party or indeed the country? It's wide open for abuse and cover up.

Derek McKay was reported to be stepping up his bid and seems to be her favoured candidate to replace her (hope so, don't rate him at all) but Joanna Cherry I am sure will make a play, she is probably the candidate the Unionist parties will fear the most as she is a very strong character like Salmond was (and the bullying allegations were found not to be true with her)

She has also been promising a referendum for about 3 years now but nothing seems to happen. Why not ask for a S30 now, get refused and then we can see what her next move is. She had said it will happen next year but has never said how. The hard core will not accept this much longer.

Maybe Angus McNeil MP will get his way? Sounds like a plan :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Northernhibee]

Is that a spoof?

‘Grossly offensive to those that don’t identify as British’?

Seriously?

As for getting upset about the mini tail lights...oh my days...

The MINI is made in Oxford. If they'd rather drive around with the English flag on the back of their car because Scotland hasn't got anything to do with it I'm sure they'd be much happier.

[Fife-Hibee]

It’s been a thing all my life and I’m older than Methuselah’s Dad. I would respectfully suggest you are seeing something that just isn’t there.

It may have always been a thing. But nowhere near the scale that we're seeing today. Anybody who suggests otherwise is a liar.

[marinello59]

It may have always been a thing. But nowhere near the scale that we're seeing today. Anybody who suggests otherwise is a liar.

A liar? Wow. You can withdraw that remark. If you chucked that at any other poster you would be looking at time out from here.
It’s opinion. Just because people don’t agree with you doesn’t make them a liar.

[Fife-Hibee]

A liar? Wow. You can withdraw that remark. If you chucked that at any other poster you would be looking at time out from here.
It’s opinion. Just because people don’t agree with you doesn’t make them a liar.

It's not about opinion. It's historical fact. Union Jackery on products is a growing trend. Who are you trying to kid suggesting that it's always been this bad? It certainly wasn't like this a decade ago.

Threatening to silence me isn't going to work either. People know the truth.

[marinello59]

It may have always been a thing. But nowhere near the scale that we're seeing today. Anybody who suggests otherwise is a liar.

The ‘We’re Backing Britain campaign ran in the late sixties and was pretty big on UJ branding. As was the Buy British campaign of the 80s and 90’s. There have been various others over the years dating all the way back to the 30’s and all designed to boost the sales of UK goods.
Now would you like to provide some evidence that this has only recently become apparent on a large scale?

[Fife-Hibee]

The ‘We’re Backing Britain campaign ran in the late sixties and was pretty big on UJ branding. As was the Buy British campaign of the 80s and 90’s. There have been various others over the years dating all the way back to the 30’s and all designed to boost the sales of UK goods.
Now would you like to provide some evidence that this has only recently become apparent on a large scale?

What do you want me to do? Go to the supermarkets, purchase all the products and send them to you for your own analysis?

I don't need to convince anybody. Everybody can see it for what it is.

Can you provide any evidence that suggests that union jackery increases the sale of products?

[marinello59]

What do you want me to do? Go to the supermarkets, purchase all the products and send them to you for your own analysis?

I don't need to convince anybody. Everybody can see it for what it is.

Can you provide any evidence that suggests that union jackery increases the sale of products?

I’m not arguing it did boost sales, I’m jusy saying it existed. You seem to be denying point blank that it did.

[marinello59]

It's not about opinion. It's historical fact. Union Jackery on products is a growing trend. Who are you trying to kid suggesting that it's always been this bad? It certainly wasn't like this a decade ago.

Threatening to silence me isn't going to work either. People know the truth.

It is about opinion and perception as I hope my follow up post demonstrated. Nobody would silence you for having your own view.
However calling people liars who disagree with you is not really acceptable is it?

[Fife-Hibee]

I’m not arguing it did boost sales, I’m jusy saying it existed. You seem to be denying point blank that it did.

So why do they do it then? Is it just a coincidence that they did it in the 80s when the union was on shoogly peg back then as well?

If there's no evidence to suggest that it boosts sales. Then what other possible motives could there be beyond instilling a British ethos?

[marinello59]

So why do they do it then? Is it just a coincidence that they did it in the 80s when the union was on shoogly peg back then as well?

If there's no evidence to suggest that it boosts sales. Then what other possible motives could there be beyond instilling a British ethos?

The Buy British campaign of the 80’s was designed to get us to buy more UK agricultural produce. There is no conclusive evidence that it worked. We possibly all liked cheap New Zealand lamb etc too much. I’m not so sure or ran against a background of the imminent break up of the Union at all. That certainly wasn’t the case with the Backing Britain stuff in the late sixties.

[degenerated]

It’s been a thing all my life and I’m older than Methuselah’s Dad. I would respectfully suggest you are seeing something that just isn’t there.

Never to the scale it is now, it's like last night of the proms in the fruit and veg section in Tesco these days.

[Fife-Hibee]

The Buy British campaign of the 80’s was designed to get us to buy more UK agricultural produce. There is no conclusive evidence that it worked. We possibly all liked cheap New Zealand lamb etc too much. I’m not so sure or ran against a background of the imminent break up of the Union at all. That certainly wasn’t the case with the Backing Britain stuff in the late sixties.

So if it didn't work in the 80s, why would it work now?

Unless it has nothing to do with boosting the sales of Scottish/English/Welsh/N.Irish produce.

[marinello59]

Never to the scale it is now, it's like last night of the proms in the fruit and veg section in Tesco these days.

Buy British Beef?
Were Backing Britain? Both of those campaigns ran for years and were huge. We can argue about our perceptions of how prevalent it is today rather than in the past but it has always been there. I’m not a liar for suggesting it has. :wink:

[Fife-Hibee]

Buy British Beef?
Were Backing Britain? Both of those campaigns ran for years and were huge. We can argue about our perceptions of how prevalent it is today rather than in the past but it has always been there. I’m not a liar for suggesting it has. :wink:

I never said it was a lie to suggest that it's been done before. It's a lie to suggest that it has occured on the same scale before. It hasn't. It's been getting progressively worse over the past 5 years.

[James310]

Never to the scale it is now, it's like last night of the proms in the fruit and veg section in Tesco these days.

So who do you think is behind it?

[Fife-Hibee]

So who do you think is behind it?

The UK Government.

[Moulin Yarns]

Purely for information.


https://ukandeu.ac.uk/flags-on-food-why-the-fuss/

[James310]

The UK Government.

And how do they make the likes of Tesco, Morrisons and Asda follow their orders to display more Union Jack's at the front of the store for example?

Is it a government Minister's responsibility to oversee this? If not who does from the Government?

[ronaldo7]

Purely for information.


https://ukandeu.ac.uk/flags-on-food-why-the-fuss/

Thanks for that. Very informative. Particularly the bit where it says the UK Gov have done hee haw to protect our brands.

Stick a Jack on it, and the Plebs will be happy though.

Great.😊

[Fife-Hibee]

And how do they make the likes of Tesco, Morrisons and Asda follow their orders to display more Union Jack's at the front of the store for example?

Is it a government Minister's responsibility to oversee this? If not who does from the Government?

Clearly you're not familiar with DEFRA.

[JeMeSouviens]

There does seem to be some sort of UK gov campaign going on:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DxwjuDsWoAA2xiM?format=jpg&name=900x900

Bit weird, but there you go.

[Fife-Hibee]

There does seem to be some sort of UK gov campaign going on:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DxwjuDsWoAA2xiM?format=jpg&name=900x900

Bit weird, but there you go.

No questionable interference going on here....

https://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/brithaggis1.jpg

https://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/britchwhisky.jpg

[James310]

Clearly you're not familiar with DEFRA.

It's marketing, these businesses exist to make money for their shareholders. Last time I checked Scotland was part of the UK so Scottish food will have UK labels on it if appropriate and if someone thinks they will sell more by doing so. I am guessing the pictures of the Whisky and Haggis will mainly be on sale in tourist heavy places as well.

Does it really matter about what flag is on something at the end of the day? It is that important?

[NAE NOOKIE]

This rebranding drive by the Tory government / Westminster is definitely a thing at the moment and a definite conscious effort to promote 'Britishness' in the face of a growing move towards sympathy for the idea of Scottish independence.

I recently received a free 'newspaper' through my door promoted and produced by the local Tory party … The name of this paper was 'The Borderlands news' containing stories bashing the SNP.

The headline story was about how the UK government was to pump 260 million pounds into 'the Borders' … only by reading further did you find out that 200 million of that was to be spent in the north of England as part of an overall 340 million pounds venture and that the Scottish governments contribution to that overall sum was more than the amount the Tories would spend from their 260 million on this side of the border.


The next story was that the UK government was to fund a feasibility study into extending the Borders rail link from Tweedbank to Carlisle and slagging the Scottish government for not having done so up till now … Totally ignoring the fact that if the SNP hadn't pushed through the Borders rail link from Edinburgh to Tweedbank against opposition from amongst others in this part of the world the Tories there wouldn't be a rail link to consider extending.

After that there was a story about the Scottish government failing the people of the Borders with a slow rollout of high speed broadband. Conveniently forgetting to mention that the rollout of high speed broadband is a matter reserved to Westminster and that the Scottish government only has a programme because of its frustration at the glacial pace of the UK governments efforts in that area.

In short lies and misinformation that the Daily Mail would be proud of … and all under the banner of promoting somewhere called 'the Borderlands' … Never in the 40 odd years I've lived here have I heard of anybody referring to 'the Borderlands' … its been 'the Borders' and that refers to some of the Scottish counties close to the English border …. This 'the Borderlands' pish is just an attempt by the unionists to blur the lines between Scotland and England as separate historical entities and for me no different to the thankfully now ridiculed idea of referring to Scotland as 'North Britain'

Don't tell me their isn't a Tory agenda aimed at Britishing up Scotland.

[Fife-Hibee]

It's marketing, these businesses exist to make money for their shareholders. Last time I checked Scotland was part of the UK so Scottish food will have UK labels on it if appropriate and if someone thinks they will sell more by doing so. I am guessing the pictures of the Whisky and Haggis will mainly be on sale in tourist heavy places as well.

Does it really matter about what flag is on something at the end of the day? It is that important?

Yes it matters. I suggest you read the link provided by Moulin Yarns. There's no evidence to suggest that Union Jacks on the packaging of products does anything to boost sales.

If it's on sale in tourist heavy places in Scotland, then it should be branded as Scottish. Presumably tourists who come here are aware that this country is called Scotland and not just some Northern region of Britannia?

[Fife-Hibee]

This rebranding drive by the Tory government / Westminster is definitely a thing at the moment and a definite conscious effort to promote 'Britishness' in the face of a growing move towards sympathy for the idea of Scottish independence.

I recently received a free 'newspaper' through my door promoted and produced by the local Tory party … The name of this paper was 'The Borderlands news' containing stories bashing the SNP.

The headline story was about how the UK government was to pump 260 million pounds into 'the Borders' … only by reading further did you find out that 200 million of that was to be spent in the north of England as part of an overall 340 million pounds venture and that the Scottish governments contribution to that overall sum was more than the amount the Tories would spend from their 260 million on this side of the border.


The next story was that the UK government was to fund a feasibility study into extending the Borders rail link from Tweedbank to Carlisle and slagging the Scottish government for not having done so up till now … Totally ignoring the fact that if the SNP hadn't pushed through the Borders rail link from Edinburgh to Tweedbank against opposition from amongst others in this part of the world the Tories there wouldn't be a rail link to consider extending.

After that there was a story about the Scottish government failing the people of the Borders with a slow rollout of high speed broadband. Conveniently forgetting to mention that the rollout of high speed broadband is a matter reserved to Westminster and that the Scottish government only has a programme because of its frustration at the glacial pace of the UK governments efforts in that area.

In short lies and misinformation that the Daily Mail would be proud of … and all under the banner of promoting somewhere called 'the Borderlands' … Never in the 40 odd years I've lived here have I heard of anybody referring to 'the Borderlands' … its been 'the Borders' and that refers to some of the Scottish counties close to the English border …. This 'the Borderlands' pish is just an attempt by the unionists to blur the lines between Scotland and England as separate historical entities and for me no different to the thankfully now ridiculed idea of referring to Scotland as 'North Britain'

Don't tell me their isn't a Tory agenda aimed at Britishing up Scotland.

:top marks

I get a similar free "newspaper" here as well. Called "The Grapevine". Which is literally the same thing. Except it take a pro LibDem stance. Although i'm pretty sure it would take a pro Tory stance if it was the tories keeping the SNP out here. Same type of misleading articles as well.

What I would be interested to know is where the Scottish branch of the liberal democrats gets its funding in order to be able to send out thousands of these "newpapers" for free regularly.

[stoneyburn hibs]

Great Britvan, the new ads on billboard's from Vauxhall.

[Moulin Yarns]

Lost cause


https://twitter.com/ScotsInTheUnion/status/1161976396257857536?s=19

[CloudSquall]

I think Scotland should be protecting itself as a brand, salmon, whisky, haggis etc are all known as Scottish abroad and we should be promoting it as such.

[stoneyburn hibs]

I think Scotland should be protecting itself as a brand, salmon, whisky, haggis etc are all known as Scottish abroad and we should be promoting it as such.

With a big **** off saltire 😁

[Moulin Yarns]

With a big **** off saltire 😁

And plenty of tartan 😉

[Mibbes Aye]

I think Scotland should be protecting itself as a brand, salmon, whisky, haggis etc are all known as Scottish abroad and we should be promoting it as such.

I’m sure ‘Scotch’ already has protected status whenever it comes to describing whisky made on these shores.

Of course the majority of ‘Scottish’ whisky is owned by Diageo, Pernod Ricard and Louis Vuitton Moët Hennessy, so in fairness it is maybe the Tricolore (en Francais) that should be adorning any bottles :greengrin

[McD]

So why do they do it then? Is it just a coincidence that they did it in the 80s when the union was on shoogly peg back then as well?

If there's no evidence to suggest that it boosts sales. Then what other possible motives could there be beyond instilling a British ethos?



Absolute straw man argument! You said it was a recent ‘thing’, M59 has deconstructed that completely, and you immediately shift to this, which has heehaw to do with what you originally suggested.

[Fife-Hibee]

Absolute straw man argument! You said it was a recent ‘thing’, M59 has deconstructed that completely, and you immediately shift to this, which has heehaw to do with what you originally suggested.

Except, what I actually said was:


It may have always been a thing. But nowhere near the scale that we're seeing today.

I never denied it was a thing in the past. So allow me to clarify again.

It's never been on this scale before.

[weecounty hibby]

I’m sure ‘Scotch’ already has protected status whenever it comes to describing whisky made on these shores.

Of course the majority of ‘Scottish’ whisky is owned by Diageo, Pernod Ricard and Louis Vuitton Moët Hennessy, so in fairness it is maybe the Tricolore (en Francais) that should be adorning any bottles :greengrin

Scotch does have protected status. At the moment. The Americans are already testing the waters on that one. Also Diageo is a UK company, headquartered in London.

[McD]

Except, what I actually said was:



I never denied it was a thing in the past. So allow me to clarify again.

It's never been on this scale before.


You know what, fair point. I’d misread what you’d said previously, my apologies.

[Mibbes Aye]

Scotch does have protected status. At the moment. The Americans are already testing the waters on that one. Also Diageo is a UK company, headquartered in London.

Yeah, my point was more about Pernod Ricard and LVMH.

But Diageo being a U.K. company based in London sort of undermines the whole thing about Scotch being Scottish also, doesn’t it?

[weecounty hibby]

Yeah, my point was more about Pernod Ricard and LVMH.

But Diageo being a U.K. company based in London sort of undermines the whole thing about Scotch being Scottish also, doesn’t it?
All about where it's made. Do you think that all Champagne is made by French owned companies?

[Mibbes Aye]

All about where it's made. Do you think that all Champagne is made by French owned companies?

I don’t think that’s the point.

I guess I meant it isn’t really something to protect for Scotland if all the profits are going to multinationals, hedge funds and shareholders across the world.

We get some income from domestic taxation, a little bit from export duties and a few jobs, distilleries don’t really employ many people at all nowadays.

[stoneyburn hibs]

I don’t think that’s the point.

I guess I meant it isn’t really something to protect for Scotland if all the profits are going to multinationals, hedge funds and shareholders across the world.

We get some income from domestic taxation, a little bit from export duties and a few jobs, distilleries don’t really employ many people at all nowadays.


It was the point, superb move of the goalposts 😁

[weecounty hibby]

I don’t think that’s the point.

I guess I meant it isn’t really something to protect for Scotland if all the profits are going to multinationals, hedge funds and shareholders across the world.

We get some income from domestic taxation, a little bit from export duties and a few jobs, distilleries don’t really employ many people at all nowadays.

It's 100% the point. We get lots of money from taxation, we get lots of money from export duties and Diageo alone directly employs about 4000 people in Scotland and many more indirectly. But if the Americans get their way post Brexit "Scotch" could be made anywhere and the Scotch Whisky Act will be a worthless piece of paper. Independence within Europe would protect that

[lapsedhibee]

It's never been on this scale before.
Can you prove that the increasing Union Jackery isn't mostly a result of the EU tightening requirements to show member-country-of-origin on food packaging?

[Fife-Hibee]

Can you prove that the increasing Union Jackery isn't mostly a result of the EU tightening requirements to show member-country-of-origin on food packaging?

It may well be. The UK isn't a country though. It's a political union of countries.

[Mibbes Aye]

It's 100% the point. We get lots of money from taxation, we get lots of money from export duties and Diageo alone directly employs about 4000 people in Scotland and many more indirectly. But if the Americans get their way post Brexit "Scotch" could be made anywhere and the Scotch Whisky Act will be a worthless piece of paper. Independence within Europe would protect that

It really isn’t the point at all.

To answer your earlier question, most top-end champagne houses are independent or owned by French conglomerates. You could maybe explain what point you were trying to make but the comparison obviously doesn’t stand.

Time after time on here, I read about Scotland’s fabulous natural resources, including and especially whisky. Yet the profits don’t sit here, they go to multinationals, so it’s not really ‘Scotland’s’ resource.

Not a nationalist, not a unionist but I don’t like spurious pointmaking hence my post. Just to play devils advocate, Scotland has an incredible natural resource in the deep sea lanes that surround Faslane, hence why the nuclear subs are based there.

I would be interested to see neutral analysis of whether whisky or Faslane provides more jobs or more input to the Scottish economy.

And to take it up a level, alcohol has led to far more Scottish deaths than nuclear weapons, hasn’t it?

Maybe we are looking at the wrong thing :-)

For the avoidance of doubt I love whisky and don’t like nuclear weapons but just saying.......

[Fife-Hibee]

It really isn’t the point at all.

To answer your earlier question, most top-end champagne houses are independent or owned by French conglomerates. You could maybe explain what point you were trying to make but the comparison obviously doesn’t stand.

Time after time on here, I read about Scotland’s fabulous natural resources, including and especially whisky. Yet the profits don’t sit here, they go to multinationals, so it’s not really ‘Scotland’s’ resource.

Not a nationalist, not a unionist but I don’t like spurious pointmaking hence my post. Just to play devils advocate, Scotland has an incredible natural resource in the deep sea lanes that surround Faslane, hence why the nuclear subs are based there.

I would be interested to see neutral analysis of whether whisky or Faslane provides more jobs or more input to the Scottish economy.

And to take it up a level, alcohol has led to far more Scottish deaths than nuclear weapons, hasn’t it?

Maybe we are looking at the wrong thing :-)

For the avoidance of doubt I love whisky and don’t like nuclear weapons but just saying.......

Faslane doesn't offer that many Scottish jobs. It's English jobs in Scotland. Why does that matter? Because it's not the Scottish economy that benefits from these jobs. It's the UK treasury that benefits from UK defence jobs, regardless of where those jobs are based.

[Mibbes Aye]

Faslane doesn't offer that many Scottish jobs. It's English jobs in Scotland. Why does that matter? Because it's not the Scottish economy that benefits from these jobs. It's the UK treasury that benefits from UK defence jobs, regardless of where those jobs are based.

Can you prove that?

[weecounty hibby]

It really isn’t the point at all.

To answer your earlier question, most top-end champagne houses are independent or owned by French conglomerates. You could maybe explain what point you were trying to make but the comparison obviously doesn’t stand.

Time after time on here, I read about Scotland’s fabulous natural resources, including and especially whisky. Yet the profits don’t sit here, they go to multinationals, so it’s not really ‘Scotland’s’ resource.

Not a nationalist, not a unionist but I don’t like spurious pointmaking hence my post. Just to play devils advocate, Scotland has an incredible natural resource in the deep sea lanes that surround Faslane, hence why the nuclear subs are based there.

I would be interested to see neutral analysis of whether whisky or Faslane provides more jobs or more input to the Scottish economy.

And to take it up a level, alcohol has led to far more Scottish deaths than nuclear weapons, hasn’t it?

Maybe we are looking at the wrong thing :-)

For the avoidance of doubt I love whisky and don’t like nuclear weapons but just saying.......

So only a product made in a country by a company owned and registered in that country really counts as an asset to said country? How about Vauxhall advertising as a British company since 1903. How do you feel about that given that they are part of a French company, I think.
The point about champagne was that it will be protected even though not all companies are french. The UK will need to negotiate with the US on trade deals and one of the topics up for grabs will be whisky. Wouldn't happen in an independent Scotland within the EU.

[weecounty hibby]

Can you prove that?

I disagree with loads of what Fife says but I think that I can remember seeing something about the majority of Faslane workforce had home addresses in England. Can't remember the origin of that but can remember reading it. Sorry but way to lazy to search

[James310]

I disagree with loads of what Fife says but I think that I can remember seeing something about the majority of Faslane workforce had home addresses in England. Can't remember the origin of that but can remember reading it. Sorry but way to lazy to search

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/how-many-people-are-employed-at-the-faslane-nuclear-base-1-4361349


"It found the MOD employed 4,700 people in Argyll and Bute - 34 per cent of the total number of local jobs, and the highest concentration in Scotland.

A 2014 Freedom of Information request found a total of 2,250 non-military employees worked at Faslane, with the FAI estimating the base in turn supports a total of 4,911 jobs across Scotland"

[weecounty hibby]

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/how-many-people-are-employed-at-the-faslane-nuclear-base-1-4361349


"It found the MOD employed 4,700 people in Argyll and Bute - 34 per cent of the total number of local jobs, and the highest concentration in Scotland.

A 2014 Freedom of Information request found a total of 2,250 non-military employees worked at Faslane, with the FAI estimating the base in turn supports a total of 4,911 jobs across Scotland"
Thanks for that. Your Indy search engine working quickly this evening😂

[James310]

Thanks for that. Your Indy search engine working quickly this evening😂

It's amazing what spending 2 seconds looking for something does.

[Ozyhibby]

Whiskey and other products will continue to be owned by multi nationals after independence so not really an issue one way or another.
I personally think it would be many years before the nuclear subs were moved from Faslane as well, and even when they are the base will remain as part of Scotland’s commitment to NATO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[marinello59]

Faslane doesn't offer that many Scottish jobs. It's English jobs in Scotland. Why does that matter? Because it's not the Scottish economy that benefits from these jobs. It's the UK treasury that benefits from UK defence jobs, regardless of where those jobs are based.

Lossiemouth, Elgin and Forres spring to mind as towns who were/are heavily dependent on MOD jobs to support the local economy.

[allmodcons]

It really isn’t the point at all.

To answer your earlier question, most top-end champagne houses are independent or owned by French conglomerates. You could maybe explain what point you were trying to make but the comparison obviously doesn’t stand.

Time after time on here, I read about Scotland’s fabulous natural resources, including and especially whisky. Yet the profits don’t sit here, they go to multinationals, so it’s not really ‘Scotland’s’ resource.

Not a nationalist, not a unionist but I don’t like spurious pointmaking hence my post. Just to play devils advocate, Scotland has an incredible natural resource in the deep sea lanes that surround Faslane, hence why the nuclear subs are based there.

I would be interested to see neutral analysis of whether whisky or Faslane provides more jobs or more input to the Scottish economy.

And to take it up a level, alcohol has led to far more Scottish deaths than nuclear weapons, hasn’t it?

Maybe we are looking at the wrong thing :-)

For the avoidance of doubt I love whisky and don’t like nuclear weapons but just saying.......

It's not about 'ownership' of the resource though is it. It's all about what the resource creates in terms of employment, investment and the knock on effect to the economy and of course the huge amount of tax it generates for the exchequer, whisky fits the bill as a net contributor whereas nuclear subs, whilst creating employment, are a drain on finances.

By the way, there is no disputing the fact that Scotland has fabulous natural resources.

[Mibbes Aye]

It's not about 'ownership' of the resource though is it. It's all about what the resource creates in terms of employment, investment and the knock on effect to the economy and of course the huge amount of tax it generates for the exchequer, whisky fits the bill as a net contributor whereas nuclear subs, whilst creating employment, are a drain on finances.

By the way, there is no disputing the fact that Scotland has fabulous natural resources.

You really have to do a cost benefit analysis there though. Which in fairness is practically impossible because it means trying to measure counterfactuals.

While I don’t think any of us rejoice in the fact we possess nuclear weapons and that we have spent many billions in acquiring and maintaining them over the decades, the corollary is that we have enjoyed massive international influence as a consequence, not least of all because of our resultant inextricable links to the US.

Rightly or wrongly, there were benefits derived that don’t measure simply on the balance sheet.

[ronaldo7]

Can you prove that the increasing Union Jackery isn't mostly a result of the EU tightening requirements to show member-country-of-origin on food packaging?

I've bought bratwurst in Aldi, and Parma ham in Lidl with no sign of a German or Italian flag anywhere on the packaging.

Maybe the EU just forgot about them. 😆

[stoneyburn hibs]

You really have to do a cost benefit analysis there though. Which in fairness is practically impossible because it means trying to measure counterfactuals.

While I don’t think any of us rejoice in the fact we possess nuclear weapons and that we have spent many billions in acquiring and maintaining them over the decades, the corollary is that we have enjoyed massive international influence as a consequence, not least of all because of our resultant inextricable links to the US.

Rightly or wrongly, there were benefits derived that don’t measure simply on the balance sheet.

There were, not in this day and age now though.

It's now a costly exercise for the long gone empire, who still think that they are influential in the world.

[Glory Lurker]

You really have to do a cost benefit analysis there though. Which in fairness is practically impossible because it means trying to measure counterfactuals.

While I don’t think any of us rejoice in the fact we possess nuclear weapons and that we have spent many billions in acquiring and maintaining them over the decades, the corollary is that we have enjoyed massive international influence as a consequence, not least of all because of our resultant inextricable links to the US.

Rightly or wrongly, there were benefits derived that don’t measure simply on the balance sheet.

I'd happily trade influence for spending cash on other things.

[Mibbes Aye]

I'd happily trade influence for spending cash on other things.

That's great. Can you tell us how you quantify that?

[Mibbes Aye]

There were, not in this day and age now though.

It's now a costly exercise for the long gone empire, who still think that they are influential in the world.

How do we know?

It's so subjective that I don't think it is possible to derive empirical evidence (excuse the pun), but lack of evidence doesn't prove a negative.

[Bristolhibby]

I disagree with loads of what Fife says but I think that I can remember seeing something about the majority of Faslane workforce had home addresses in England. Can't remember the origin of that but can remember reading it. Sorry but way to lazy to search

The sailors possibly, but the civilian Babcock workers, civil servants and countless jobs in the local supply chain would all be based in the West of Scotland.

FWIW Faslane jobs would still be there supporting the Scottish Defence Force Navy. Just substitute Nuclear Submarines for mine sweepers, patrol vessels and frigates. They will all need maintaining and crewing.

I also believe post Independence Scotland will keep Nuclear Submarines in some sort of Scotexit deal. At least until the rUK sorts out where it will base and maintain its Submarine fleet in the long term.

J

[Glory Lurker]

That's great. Can you tell us how you quantify that?

If we're not paying to maintain a nuclear deterrent, we spend the money on other things?

[Hibbyradge]

If we're not paying to maintain a nuclear deterrent, we spend the money on other things?

How much does Scotland spend on the nuclear deterrent?

[Glory Lurker]

How much does Scotland spend on the nuclear deterrent?

More than it would if it didn't have it?

[allmodcons]

How much does Scotland spend on the nuclear deterrent?

I could go google some figures but can't be arsed doing the research for a lazy bugger like you :greengrin.

What I do know is that the UK's annual defence budget is circa £40 billion which IMO is a complete waste of resource. Scotland's share of this would be roughly £4 billion.

As for the 'kudos' we get from having nuclear weapons who gives a ****. Our so called 'special relationship' with the US has cost us dearly in past.

The UK can't help but see itself as a world superpower. It's about time our 'leaders' took their heads out of the sand and started spending less on defence and more on the things that matter.

Footnote: The annual operating costs of Trident are estimated at 5% - 6% of the defence budget, so about £2 billion per annum. Scotland's share circa £200 million. The cost of buying the system in today's prices is estimated at £20 billion.

[Fife-Hibee]

How much does Scotland spend on the nuclear deterrent?

Scotlands contribution to the building of the replacement trident nuclear system is around £3,500,000,000. Followed by around £170,000,000 in annual running costs which will rise over time.

Scotlands contribution to the total MOD budget is around £3,000,000,000 a year (nearly 10% of the Scottish Government budget) and rising.

[allmodcons]

Scotlands contribution to the building of the replacement trident nuclear system is around £3,500,000,000. Followed by around £170,000,000 in annual running costs which will rise over time.

Scotlands contribution to the total MOD budget is around £3,000,000,000 a year (nearly 10% of the Scottish Government budget) and rising.

I think you'll find it's closer to £4 billion now.

[lapsedhibee]

I've bought bratwurst in Aldi, and Parma ham in Lidl

Very unpatriotic of you. We need to be fighting them on the beaches, on the fields and in the streets, not pouring money into their invading supermarkets.

[Ozyhibby]

I think you'll find it's closer to £4 billion now.

And people worry that an independent Scotland won’t be able to cut our deficit. We could half that and still have higher defence spending that most of the EU.
Selling off our share of all the foreign bases will bring in a few quid as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

And people worry that an independent Scotland won’t be able to cut our deficit. We could half that and still have higher defence spending that most of the EU.
Selling off our share of all the foreign bases will bring in a few quid as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Current deficit is c£13BN, so you shave of a few billion by reducing defence spending. Still quite a few billion left to find, and don't forget no fiscal transfer from UK Government of c£12BN a year, so reducing a deficit of £13BN while losing the block grant of £12BN as well.

That's quite a few billions to find.

Would an independent Scotland be in NATO? Would it want to be?

[Ozyhibby]

That’s up to an independent Scotland. Current SNP policy is to remain in NATO.
Are you adding that £13bn and £12bn together?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

You really have to do a cost benefit analysis there though. Which in fairness is practically impossible because it means trying to measure counterfactuals.

While I don’t think any of us rejoice in the fact we possess nuclear weapons and that we have spent many billions in acquiring and maintaining them over the decades, the corollary is that we have enjoyed massive international influence as a consequence, not least of all because of our resultant inextricable links to the US.

Rightly or wrongly, there were benefits derived that don’t measure simply on the balance sheet.

I'm not sure how well geopolitical strategic advantage translates into an actual tangible benefit to the population these days though. The UK is middling by most measures of success compared with European countries in general. Only France shares nuclear capability, and they don't do that well either.

Going forward, I would've thought a key power in the EU would have considerably more global influence than a medium sized power outside the EU, nukes or no.

The argument about Trident/Faslane as a job creation scheme has always seemed farcical to me. Last estimate I saw was £2Bn a year over it's 35 year life. Even if you just gave 20000 people £100K a year each, you'd only be spending the same.

[James310]

That’s up to an independent Scotland. Current SNP policy is to remain in NATO.
Are you adding that £13bn and £12bn together?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am saying our current deficit is £13BN, which needs to reduce to even consider joining the EU. And we receive a block grant of c£12BN a year, so in an independent Scotland we would on the one hand have to reduce the deficit while at the same time no longer having the block grant of £12BN.

Some tough decisions would need to be made, many 'experts' have predicted it will lead to years of austerity as we need to get the deficit under control, but would immediately also be £12BN down as no block grant.

[Hibbyradge]

More than it would if it didn't have it?

I've no idea if Scotland spends anything on it and I don't know what the ROI would be if it does.

[The Modfather]

I am saying our current deficit is £13BN, which needs to reduce to even consider joining the EU. And we receive a block grant of c£12BN a year, so in an independent Scotland we would on the one hand have to reduce the deficit while at the same time no longer having the block grant of £12BN.

Some tough decisions would need to be made, many 'experts' have predicted it will lead to years of austerity as we need to get the deficit under control, but would immediately also be £12BN down as no block grant.

So it’s effectively a choice between austerity in an independent Scotland or austerity in a post Brexit (likely no deal) UK?

[James310]

So it’s effectively a choice between austerity in an independent Scotland or austerity in a post Brexit (likely no deal) UK?

If a no deal Brexit then yes, that would be a disaster.

Although I note when expert's predict a no deal Brexit will be a disaster pretty much everyone on here is in agreement, yet when anyone predicts Independence will lead to austerity and economic hardship it's dismissed as project fear and not true, funny that.

[The Modfather]

If a no deal Brexit then yes, that would be a disaster.

Although I note when expert's predict a no deal Brexit will be a disaster pretty much everyone on here is in agreement, yet when anyone predicts Independence will lead to austerity and economic hardship it's dismissed as project fear and not true, funny that.

For me, at a high level discussion, given the choice between austerity in an independent Scotland working towards re-joining the EU. Or austerity in a post Brexit UK (with a no deal making it a much harsher kind of austerity) hell bent on isolating itself. Independence is the clear choice IMO.

[Fife-Hibee]

I've no idea if Scotland spends anything on it and I don't know what the ROI would be if it does.

Of course it does. There is no ROI. We're not making anything out of it.

[Ozyhibby]

I am saying our current deficit is £13BN, which needs to reduce to even consider joining the EU. And we receive a block grant of c£12BN a year, so in an independent Scotland we would on the one hand have to reduce the deficit while at the same time no longer having the block grant of £12BN.

Some tough decisions would need to be made, many 'experts' have predicted it will lead to years of austerity as we need to get the deficit under control, but would immediately also be £12BN down as no block grant.

Our notional deficit is £13bn. That’s it. Instead of funding it with the block grant (which the uk govt borrows anyway) we would need to borrow the money to fund it direct. This would be unsustainable long term.
The choice would then be how to reduce it down to a more manageable £5-6bn. This could be achieved with a mixture of spending cuts and economic growth. If we were to emulate the Irish economy (surely anything they can do, we can do?) then that would wipe out our deficit totally.

What is the unionist plan for our notional deficit? Just accept it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

Our notional deficit is £13bn. That’s it. Instead of funding it with the block grant (which the uk govt borrows anyway) we would need to borrow the money to fund it direct. This would be unsustainable long term.
The choice would then be how to reduce it down to a more manageable £5-6bn. This could be achieved with a mixture of spending cuts and economic growth. If we were to emulate the Irish economy (surely anything they can do, we can do?) then that would wipe out our deficit totally.

What is the unionist plan for our notional deficit? Just accept it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Our national deficit isn't £13bn. How can it be? Scotland doesn't take that loan out and Scotland isn't privy to how it's supposedly spent on Scotland either. A lot of things are going to come to light after independence.

[allmodcons]

Current deficit is c£13BN, so you shave of a few billion by reducing defence spending. Still quite a few billion left to find, and don't forget no fiscal transfer from UK Government of c£12BN a year, so reducing a deficit of £13BN while losing the block grant of £12BN as well.

That's quite a few billions to find.

Would an independent Scotland be in NATO? Would it want to be?

Sorry but this is of course bull****. Just because the SNP have 'accepted' GERS figures it pays not to believe everything you're told by Government (both Governments that is). The GERS figures are a joke. A system devised by Ian Lang (I think) to show Scotland just how poor she is.

To make matters worse the so called 'deficit' has been run up on Westminster's watch. The system you love.

Most countries run a deficit but, of course, it's not acceptable for an iScotland.

If you are seriously think that an iScotland would have a £25 billion deficit then I say your deluded.

[James310]

Our notional deficit is £13bn. That’s it. Instead of funding it with the block grant (which the uk govt borrows anyway) we would need to borrow the money to fund it direct. This would be unsustainable long term.
The choice would then be how to reduce it down to a more manageable £5-6bn. This could be achieved with a mixture of spending cuts and economic growth. If we were to emulate the Irish economy (surely anything they can do, we can do?) then that would wipe out our deficit totally.

What is the unionist plan for our notional deficit? Just accept it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We have done the Irish thing to death now, their low tax and low regulation environment is not sustainable and has been declared illegal by the EU. Reliance on a small number of mutil Nationals is not a desirable and sustainable position, it's high risk and I don't see anyone other than you suggesting this.

[James310]

Our national deficit isn't £13bn. How can it be? Scotland doesn't take that loan out and Scotland isn't privy to how it's supposedly spent on Scotland either. A lot of things are going to come to light after independence.

Derek McKay told me so, but he has a plan.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/derek-mackay-independent-scotland-can-halve-13-billion-deficit-in-a-few-years-1-4882496

[Ozyhibby]

Our national deficit isn't £13bn. How can it be? Scotland doesn't take that loan out and Scotland isn't privy to how it's supposedly spent on Scotland either. A lot of things are going to come to light after independence.

I said notional.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

Derek McKay told me so, but he has a plan.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/derek-mackay-independent-scotland-can-halve-13-billion-deficit-in-a-few-years-1-4882496

Or another headline. "An independent Scotland could reduce spending by 6-7 billion in a few years". Doesn't mean there's a £13bn deficit.

[Ozyhibby]

We have done the Irish thing to death now, their low tax and low regulation environment is not sustainable and has been declared illegal by the EU. Reliance on a small number of mutil Nationals is not a desirable and sustainable position, it's high risk and I don't see anyone other than you suggesting this.

And yet there they are with a balanced budget next year, something the UK govt has no chance of doing anytime soon.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

We have done the Irish thing to death now, their low tax and low regulation environment is not sustainable and has been declared illegal by the EU. Reliance on a small number of mutil Nationals is not a desirable and sustainable position, it's high risk and I don't see anyone other than you suggesting this.

Where has Ireland’s tax rate been declared illegal? When are they increasing it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

Sorry but this is of course bull****. Just because the SNP have 'accepted' GERS figures it pays not to believe everything you're told by Government (both Governments that is). The GERS figures are a joke. A system devised by Ian Lang (I think) to show Scotland just how poor she is.

To make matters worse the so called 'deficit' has been run up on Westminster's watch. The system you love.

Most countries run a deficit but, of course, it's not acceptable for an iScotland.

If you are seriously think that an iScotland would have a £25 billion deficit then I say your deluded.

I never said a £25BN deficit though did I? I said we need to consider spending cuts to reduce a deficit while at the same time losing the block grant.

It's great we can run this deficit though and the UK covers it for us, allows us to make choices like free prescriptions and free University funding.

[Fife-Hibee]

I never said a £25BN deficit though did I? I said we need to consider spending cuts to reduce a deficit while at the same time losing the block grant.

It's great we can run this deficit though and the UK covers it for us, allows us to make choices like free prescriptions and free University funding.

The block grant doesn't offer Scotland anything that we don't already contribute to the treasury. It just means the UK has less direct control over how Scotlands own money is spent in Scotland.

[Hibbyradge]

Or another headline. "An independent Scotland could reduce spending by 6-7 billion in a few years". Doesn't mean there's a £13bn deficit.

I haven't seen that headline. I've only seen the one saying it's a £13bn deficit

Got a link?

[James310]

Where has Ireland’s tax rate been declared illegal? When are they increasing it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/eu-serves-notice-on-ireland-over-tax-avoidance-rule-delay-1.3971144

Ireland is a modern day tax haven.

I get the sense in an Independent Scotland you would make a great Tory, with your low tax and low regulation policies. You were also strongly against the privatisation of failing industries.

You sure you are with the right party?

[allmodcons]

I never said a £25BN deficit though did I? I said we need to consider spending cuts to reduce a deficit while at the same time losing the block grant.

It's great we can run this deficit though and the UK covers it for us, allows us to make choices like free prescriptions and free University funding.

How many times? If by 'we' you mean Scotland 'we' don't run up any deficit. The UK runs up the deficit. Your beloved Westminster is responsible for the deficit and the eye watering National Debt.

[Fife-Hibee]

I haven't seen that headline. I've only seen the one saying it's a £13bn deficit

Got a link?

You're missing the point entirely. The article headline makes it seem like Mackay is accepting that there is a £13bn deficit in Scotland, when really he's just pointing out that an independent Scotland could reduce spending by 6-7 billion. Even Derek Mackay refers to the deficit as "notional" if you read the article itself.

Just another example of misleading headlines.

[Hibbyradge]

You're missing the point entirely. The article headline makes it seem like Mackay is accepting that there is a £13bn deficit in Scotland, when really he's just pointing out that an independent Scotland could reduce spending by 6-7 billion. Even Derek Mackay refers to the deficit as "notional" if you read the article itself.

Just another example of misleading headlines.

So you managed to read the article, not just the headline?

Well done.

Except, you didn't understand it.

[Fife-Hibee]

So you managed to read the article, not just the headline?

Well done.

Something you clearly didn't. Which would explain your confusion on the matter.

I suggest you read what is actually quoted in the article. Not everything else added in by the Scotsman editoral team.

[Hibbyradge]

Something you clearly didn't. Which would explain your confusion on the matter.

I suggest you read what is actually quoted in the article. Not everything else added in by the Scotsman editoral team.

I suggest you read it.

He's talking about reducing Scotland's £13bn deficit.

[James310]

How many times? If by 'we' you mean Scotland 'we' don't run up any deficit. The UK runs up the deficit. Your beloved Westminster is responsible for the deficit and the eye watering National Debt.

So what is Derek McKay the Scottish Government Finance Minister referring to?

You are one of the deficit deniers. Even hardliners like George Kerevan agree there is a deficit.

You have an opinion that Scotland does not have a deficit, that's fine. But don't confuse your opinion with facts, when lots of other people believe the opposite, they just have a different opinion to you. It's a common theme here, many seem to think their opinions are facts.

[Fife-Hibee]

I suggest you read it.

He's talking about reducing Scotland's £13bn deficit.

A deficit he refers to as "notional". Why didn't the headline say "Derek Mackay: Independent Scotland can halve £13 billion NOTIONAL deficit in a few years".

The headline validates the idea that Scotland has a £13bn deficit without question. Derek Mackay (if you read his quotes) clearly doesn't believe that to be the case.

[Hibbyradge]

It's a common theme here, many seem to think their opinions are facts.

I agree with you. If a fact appears that doesn't suit an opinion, it's ignored or there's an ad hominem response.

Unfortunately, you're equally as guilty of doing the same.

I'm interested in several of the subjects being discussed on this board, but certain individuals are sucking all the enjoyment out of it.

[James310]

Unfortunately, you're equally as guilty of doing the same.

I disagree, but respect your opinion.

[Fife-Hibee]

I disagree, but respect your opinion.

It's not opinion though it's fact. Because just like everybody else, Hibbyradge is guilty of thinking their opinion is fact and that anybody who challenges it should simply be ignored. Real grown up behaviour right there.

[JeMeSouviens]

Technically there is no Scottish deficit because Scotland doesn't borrow any money. Furthermore, there is no prize for not spending every penny of the UK block grant. It's not like Scotland can stash it away, it has to be spent or handed back.

Otoh, on day 1 of Scottish independence, if we want to maintain current levels of public spending and revenue raised in Scotland is the same as now, then we will have a large and unsustainable deficit. In the short term, borrowing is cheap, in the medium to long term we must grow revenues or cut spending to a sustainable level.

If we stick with the Union, we must put out a begging bowl to rUK. If they reform Barnett or introduce further UK austerity, we are (almost) completely at the UK gov's mercy, apart from income tax on earned income which accounts for about 1/6 of revenue raised in Scotland and will inevitably decline as immigration to Scotland shrivels up and dies.

ps. reading back, I have used "we" a fair bit, but I can't be bothered going back to rethink. :greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

It's not opinion though it's fact. Because just like everybody else, Hibbyradge is guilty of thinking their opinion is fact and that anybody who challenges it should simply be ignored. Real grown up behaviour right there.

Like your opinion on the headline about the first Brand New School built in Scotland for 20 years?

[Fife-Hibee]

Like your opinion on the headline about the first Brand New School built in Scotland for 20 years?

I know what 'brand new' means. You're free to believe what you want about it. But me and a growing number of people in Scotland see headlines like these to be deliberately misleading. You only need to read the responses to the tweet to get an idea.

[Lester B]

It's not opinion though it's fact. Because just like everybody else, Hibbyradge is guilty of thinking their opinion is fact and that anybody who challenges it should simply be ignored. Real grown up behaviour right there.

So your opinion is fact. Other people's opinions even if backed by facts are mere opinions.

Go and lie down before you melt down further

[Fife-Hibee]

So your opinion is fact. Other people's opinions even if backed by facts are mere opinions.

Go and lie down before you melt down further

I have backed up my points here. Simply ignoring that I have and saying you disagree, just because you disagree, doesn't win debates. Perhaps in your own head it does, but not to those looking in.

[Moulin Yarns]

I have backed up my points here. Simply ignoring that I have and saying you disagree, just because you disagree, doesn't win debates. Perhaps in your own head it does, but not to those looking in.

:faf:

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/eu-serves-notice-on-ireland-over-tax-avoidance-rule-delay-1.3971144

Ireland is a modern day tax haven.

I get the sense in an Independent Scotland you would make a great Tory, with your low tax and low regulation policies. You were also strongly against the privatisation of failing industries.

You sure you are with the right party?

So they haven’t declared Ireland’s tax rate illegal, have they. They have asked that they change the way interest is dealt with and Ireland have said they will comply. Ireland will continue to be very business friendly and raking in the tax receipts.

I’m not with any party but I am in favour of independence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

So they haven’t declared Ireland’s tax rate illegal, have they. They have asked that they change the way interest is dealt with and Ireland have said they will comply. Ireland will continue to be very business friendly and raking in the tax receipts.

I’m not with any party but I am in favour of independence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2923_en.htm

They gave illegal tax benefits, under EU law.

Ireland has done very well out of the likes of Apple, Google and Facebook but I don't believe it's a sustainable model and its very high risk. Also not something that anyone other than yourself seem to be suggesting is a model Scotland should follow i.e. low tax and low regulation for mutil Nationals.

[Ozyhibby]

https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2923_en.htm

They gave illegal tax benefits, under EU law.

Ireland has done very well out of the likes of Apple, Google and Facebook but I don't believe it's a sustainable model and its very high risk. Also not something that anyone other than yourself seem to be suggesting is a model Scotland should follow i.e. low tax and low regulation for mutil Nationals.

Apple paid that tax bill in full.
How is it not sustainable?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

Apple paid that tax bill in full.
How is it not sustainable?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ireland supports tax avoidance on a grand scale, it's done really well out if it so far but the Apple case shows that the EU will now allow it to continue. Ireland massively depends on these companies and at some point, it could be a while away I agree, it will stop and that will be a massive shock to the economy.

Maybe that shock comes when Scotland gets Independence and we cut our corporation tax to be lower than Ireland and we attract Apple, Google and Facebook? Then what happens to Ireland?

Then someone comes along and cuts their tax rate again to be lower than Scotland's....you see where I am going. It's not sustainable.

[Moulin Yarns]

Ireland supports tax avoidance on a grand scale, it's done really well out if it so far but the Apple case shows that the EU will now allow it to continue. Ireland massively depends on these companies and at some point, it could be a while away I agree, it will stop and that will be a massive shock to the economy.

Maybe that shock comes when Scotland gets Independence and we cut our corporation tax to be lower than Ireland and we attract Apple, Google and Facebook? Then what happens to Ireland?

Then someone comes along and cuts their tax rate again to be lower than Scotland's....you see where I am going. It's not sustainable.



I'll admit I'm no financial expert like CWG and Caversham among others but how does Ireland depend on companies which are avoiding tax, surely that is a contradiction?

[Ozyhibby]

Ireland supports tax avoidance on a grand scale, it's done really well out if it so far but the Apple case shows that the EU will now allow it to continue. Ireland massively depends on these companies and at some point, it could be a while away I agree, it will stop and that will be a massive shock to the economy.

Maybe that shock comes when Scotland gets Independence and we cut our corporation tax to be lower than Ireland and we attract Apple, Google and Facebook? Then what happens to Ireland?

Then someone comes along and cuts their tax rate again to be lower than Scotland's....you see where I am going. It's not sustainable.

So it’s only not sustainable because you think so. Glad we cleared that up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

I'll admit I'm no financial expert like CWG and Caversham among others but how does Ireland depend on companies which are avoiding tax, surely that is a contradiction?

:agree:

You would think that a country that "supports tax avoidance on a grand scale" would be crumbling to the ground. Yet, Ireland is doing perfectly fine.

[James310]

So it’s only not sustainable because you think so. Glad we cleared that up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And likewise, it is because you say so? But I backed up my opinion with why I felt that way with examples of what could play out.

[James310]

:agree:

You would think that a country that "supports tax avoidance on a grand scale" would be crumbling to the ground. Yet, Ireland is doing perfectly fine.

Most countries that support tax avoidance do well? Do you think I said tax evasion?

[Moulin Yarns]

Most countries that support tax avoidance do well? Do you think I said tax evasion?

Can I congratulate you and avoiding, or is it evading, the BBC Bias thread :wink:

[Fife-Hibee]

Most countries that support tax avoidance do well? Do you think I said tax evasion?

Or perhaps there isn't as much tax avoidance as you think there is. Perhaps there's just the right level of tax avoidance to entice enough companies to pay enough tax there to maximize Irelands tax revenue intake.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

I have backed up my points here. Simply ignoring that I have and saying you disagree, just because you disagree, doesn't win debates. Perhaps in your own head it does, but not to those looking in.

I really think you should do yourself a favour and have a break from this forum, it's not a pleasant watch.

[Lester B]

I have backed up my points here. Simply ignoring that I have and saying you disagree, just because you disagree, doesn't win debates. Perhaps in your own head it does, but not to those looking in.

I didn't say I disagreed.

I implied that you are increasingly losing a grasp of reality which was previously tenuous at best.

Highlighted text is telling isn't it? Another indication.

[Fife-Hibee]

I really think you should do yourself a favour and have a break from this forum, it's not a pleasant watch.

How about no?

Your disagreements (without ever explaining why you disagree with anything I say) isn't going to stop me posting what I think.

[Fife-Hibee]

I didn't say I disagreed.

I implied that you are increasingly losing a grasp of reality which was previously tenuous at best.

Highlighted text is telling isn't it? Another indication.

How do you know i'm losing grasp of reality? You're not in my own head.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

How about no?

Your disagreements (without ever explaining why you disagree with anything I say) isn't going to stop me posting what I think.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm showing concern for your well being.

[James310]

Or perhaps there isn't as much tax avoidance as you think there is. Perhaps there's just the right level of tax avoidance to entice enough companies to pay enough tax there to maximize Irelands tax revenue intake.

Well the EU disagree, hence their legal action.

[Fife-Hibee]

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm showing concern for your well being.

Well that's awfully nice of you. If only there were more people like you out there who cared so much about the well being of complete strangers, the world would be a far better place. :wink:

But I think i'll be ok.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Well that's awfully nice of you. If only there were more people like you out there who cared so much about the well being of complete strangers, the world would be a far better place. :wink:

But I think i'll be ok.

I'm out! 😕

[Lester B]

How do you know i'm losing grasp of reality? Because I read your posts

[Fife-Hibee]

Well the EU disagree, hence their legal action.

What legal action is that? I know they said they would take legal action against Ireland last year, but they dropped the case when Apple coughed up £13bn in back taxes. I'm not aware of any current on going legal proceedings against Ireland by the EU.

[Lester B]

You're not in my own head.

And therein lies the problem. No one is. They don't follow your logic. They don't understand why you are right about everything. They don't realise your intellectual superiority and you hate that. They should just listen because you are the expert on the given topic. It's that simple. But they don't listen do they? They don't understand. They are stupid and I'm one of the worst. You can't understand what's in their heads

I'm getting warmer here aren't I?

[Fife-Hibee]

And therein lies the problem. No one is. They don't follow your logic. They don't understand why you are right about everything. They don't realise your intellectual superiority and you hate that. They should just listen because you are the expert on the given topic. It's that simple. But they don't listen do they? They don't understand. They are stupid and I'm one of the worst. You can't understand what's in their heads

I'm getting warmer here aren't I?

Yep, you're right. 100% unquestionably correct.



In your own mind.

[James310]

What legal action is that? I know they said they would take legal action against Ireland last year, but they dropped the case when Apple coughed up £13bn in back taxes. I'm not aware of any current on going legal proceedings against Ireland by the EU.

So was legal action taken? Yes. Was it dropped when Apple paid up? Yes. Was legal action taken though? Yes, that's why Apple paid up.

"In light of the full payment by Apple of the illegal State aid it had received from Ireland, Commissioner Vestager will be proposing to the college of commissioners the withdrawal of this court action,” said commission spokesman Ricardo Cardoso."

Court action is legal action. It happened. If it never happened nothing would need to be withdrawn.

Your having a nightmare today. I am not wanting to get involved further.

Have a Kit Kat, I am off for one.

[Fife-Hibee]

So was legal action taken? Yes. Was it dropped when Apple paid up? Yes. Was legal action taken though? Yes, that's why Apple paid up.

"In light of the full payment by Apple of the illegal State aid it had received from Ireland, Commissioner Vestager will be proposing to the college of commissioners the withdrawal of this court action,” said commission spokesman Ricardo Cardoso."

Court action is legal action. It happened.

Your having a nightmare today. I am not wanting to get involved further.

Have a Kit Kat, I am off for one.

Allow me to repeat. "I'm not aware of any current on going legal proceedings against Ireland by the EU". I accept there were legal proceedings last year. Will you accept that they were dropped?

[Ozyhibby]

So was legal action taken? Yes. Was it dropped when Apple paid up? Yes. Was legal action taken though? Yes, that's why Apple paid up.

"In light of the full payment by Apple of the illegal State aid it had received from Ireland, Commissioner Vestager will be proposing to the college of commissioners the withdrawal of this court action,” said commission spokesman Ricardo Cardoso."

Court action is legal action. It happened. If it never happened nothing would need to be withdrawn.

Your having a nightmare today. I am not wanting to get involved further.

Have a Kit Kat, I am off for one.

That was on a specific issue regarding intellectual property. The EU has zero say in the rates that Ireland charges its corporation tax at though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lester B]

Yep, you're right. 100% unquestionably correct.



In your own mind.

Deflection won't work son.

Most people aren't like you, you do know that?

[Ozyhibby]

And likewise, it is because you say so? But I backed up my opinion with why I felt that way with examples of what could play out.

You put forward a couple of hypotheticals. In the meantime the Irish govt deals in reality and is coining it in to the benefit of the Irish people.
The EU has no say in the levels of taxation that Ireland charges and will not in the future. There is no legal issues outstanding. Ireland’s tax regime is perfectly sustainable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

Deflection won't work son.

Most people aren't like you, you do know that?

You're 100% correct. Wow, you're really on fire today.

Oh but wait... most people aren't like you either. In fact, most people aren't like most people. They're just themselves.

[Lester B]

You're 100% correct. Wow, you're really on fire today.

Oh but wait... most people aren't like you either. In fact, most people aren't like most people. They're just themselves.

Sarcasm doesn't work either. Nor insult or denial. We've already established that deflection doesn't. I think my meaning was clear but let me explain further. Most people are NT. You are not. That much has become abundantly clear.

[allmodcons]

So what is Derek McKay the Scottish Government Finance Minister referring to?

You are one of the deficit deniers. Even hardliners like George Kerevan agree there is a deficit.

You have an opinion that Scotland does not have a deficit, that's fine. But don't confuse your opinion with facts, when lots of other people believe the opposite, they just have a different opinion to you. It's a common theme here, many seem to think their opinions are facts.

It is a fact that Scotland doesn't have a deficit. The UK has a deficit.

In case you hadn't noticed Scotland is not an Independent country.

Stop playing the fool.

[Fife-Hibee]

It is a fact that Scotland doesn't have a deficit. The UK has a deficit.

In case you hadn't noticed Scotland is not an Independent country.

Stop playing the fool.

Indeed.

The UK Government builds up a deficit, then attributes a share of that deficit to Scotland. As long as Scotland is in the UK and the UK continues to run up a deficit, a share of that deficit will forever be attributed to Scotland. Which of course allows unionists to forever make the "What about Scotlands deficit?" argument.

The UK deficit (in which the UK Government attributes a share to Scotland) has nothing to do with Scottish Government spending and therefore keeps the control over that deficit firmly out of the control of Scotland.

[James310]

Allow me to repeat. "I'm not aware of any current on going legal proceedings against Ireland by the EU". I accept there were legal proceedings last year. Will you accept that they were dropped?

FFS, you said 'what legal action' and I told you exactly what the legal action was.

Yes it was dropped, after legal action that you at first denied had taken place.

[Fife-Hibee]

FFS, you said 'what legal action' and I told you exactly what the legal action was.

Yes it was dropped, after legal action that you at first denied had taken place.

Yes, 'what legal action'. As in right now? I wasn't referring to historical legal actions. But you already knew that.

[RyeSloan]

Oh my word. This thread is a hoot.

[James310]

It is a fact that Scotland doesn't have a deficit. The UK has a deficit.

In case you hadn't noticed Scotland is not an Independent country.

Stop playing the fool.

This is a direct quote from Nicola Sturgeon in this article.

"I accept that Scotland’s economy has challenges and always have done,” Sturgeon said. “Yes, Scotland has a deficit and it’s a deficit we want to see reduced to sustainable levels."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/23/independent-scotland-would-need-to-cut-deficit-says-sturgeon


So Yes or No, is Nicola Sturgeon saying above Scotland has a deficit?

Let me answer for you, she says "Yes, Scotland has a deficit"

Are you calling her a liar?

So it's not a fact, it's an opinion. One that the head of the Scottish Government disagrees with you on as well.

[Ozyhibby]

FFS, you said 'what legal action' and I told you exactly what the legal action was.

Yes it was dropped, after legal action that you at first denied had taken place.

So there are no outstanding legal actions by the EU in regards to Ireland?
But in case there may be one at a future undetermined date based on powers the EU does not have, you think Ireland’s economic success is unsustainable?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

Yes, 'what legal action'. As in right now? I wasn't referring to historical legal actions. But you already knew that.

I give up.

[Moulin Yarns]

To both James and Fife, the EU legal action against amazon was because they channeled taxation from across the EU through the hq in Ireland, not because of the level of taxation in Ireland, although obviously it was lower there.


Amazon are appealing, this from 1 hour ago.


https://9to5mac.com/2019/08/16/apples-appeal/

Edit : as someone said, a few seconds on Google does work wonders.

[Ozyhibby]

This is a direct quote from Nicola Sturgeon in this article.

"I accept that Scotland’s economy has challenges and always have done,” Sturgeon said. “Yes, Scotland has a deficit and it’s a deficit we want to see reduced to sustainable levels."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/23/independent-scotland-would-need-to-cut-deficit-says-sturgeon


So Yes or No, is Nicola Sturgeon saying above Scotland has no deficit?

Let me answer for you, she says "Yes, Scotland has a deficit"

Are you calling her a liar?

So it's not a fact, it's an opinion. One that the head of the Scottish Government disagrees with you on as well.

It’s a notional deficit based on Uk spending. I think an independent Scotland may have different spending priorities than the uk govt. We may not want to carry on our engagements in the Middle East for example. We may not feel the need for bases in the Falkland Islands. Or Belize. Or Brunei etc etc etc. We may not fancy spending billions on brexit. There are lots of ways the New independent Scotland could save money without it having any affect on the standard of living here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

This is a direct quote from Nicola Sturgeon in this article.

"I accept that Scotland’s economy has challenges and always have done,” Sturgeon said. “Yes, Scotland has a deficit and it’s a deficit we want to see reduced to sustainable levels."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/23/independent-scotland-would-need-to-cut-deficit-says-sturgeon


So Yes or No, is Nicola Sturgeon saying above Scotland has no deficit?

Let me answer for you, she says "Yes, Scotland has a deficit"

Are you calling her a liar?

So it's not a fact, it's an opinion. One that the head of the Scottish Government disagrees with you on as well.

It is, as Derek Mackay put it a 'nominal' deficit. It is hypothetical. Based on a methodology report that gives very little away about how the UK Goverment actually spends that money (along with nearly half of Scotlands tax revenues) in Scotland.

So no, Nicola Sturgeon isn't lying. She's using hypothetical speak. Scotland with independence has a deficit. How much is highly debatable at this stage. Scotland in the UK however has no deficit as Scotland is seen as a region rather than a country and can't be held legally responsible for a deficit ran up by the UK treasury.

[James310]

So there are no outstanding legal actions by the EU in regards to Ireland?
But in case there may be one at a future undetermined date based on powers the EU does not have, you think Ireland’s economic success is unsustainable?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's powers the EU want, they don't have them now but they are very keen on tax harmonisation.

https://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKBN1ET1ZY


"The EU's tax commissioner Pierre Moscovici said in November that the Commission was considering using extraordinary powers to strip EU states of their veto power on tax matters to break resistance over blocked legislation."

Look we have different opinions, you think Scotland can benefit from low tax and low regulation like Ireland has. I think that it's not a sustainable model to follow as it's risky to rely on a low tax regime that places significant reliance on a small number of large mutli national companies, but you will accept those risks as you think it's worth it.

[Ozyhibby]

It's powers the EU want, they don't have them now but they are very keen on tax harmonisation.

https://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKBN1ET1ZY


"The EU's tax commissioner Pierre Moscovici said in November that the Commission was considering using extraordinary powers to strip EU states of their veto power on tax matters to break resistance over blocked legislation."

Look we have different opinions, you think Scotland can benefit from low tax and low regulation like Ireland has. I think that it's not a sustainable model to follow as it's risky to rely on a low tax regime that places significant reliance on a small number of large mutli national companies, but you will accept those risks as you think it's worth it.

There is zero chance of the EU being able to ‘strip’ EU states of their veto on tax matters. Absolutely zero chance.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

There is zero chance of the EU being able to ‘strip’ EU states of their veto on tax matters. Absolutely zero chance.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well if I weigh up your comment of 'zero chance' of it happening and the comment from the EU's tax commissioner Pierre Moscovici then I hope you don't take offense when I take his side on this. I reckon he will have a bit of influence on these things.

[Fife-Hibee]

Well if I weigh up your comment of 'zero chance' of it happening and the comment from the EU's tax commissioner Pierre Moscovici then I hope you don't take offense when I take his side on this. I reckon he will have a bit of influence on these things.

Do you think the 27 members are just going to hand over their tax power rights? It really doesn't matter what Pierre Moscovici says. It would require compliance from each member and I don't see a single member complying with that.

[allmodcons]

This is a direct quote from Nicola Sturgeon in this article.

"I accept that Scotland’s economy has challenges and always have done,” Sturgeon said. “Yes, Scotland has a deficit and it’s a deficit we want to see reduced to sustainable levels."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/23/independent-scotland-would-need-to-cut-deficit-says-sturgeon


So Yes or No, is Nicola Sturgeon saying above Scotland has a deficit?

Let me answer for you, she says "Yes, Scotland has a deficit"

Are you calling her a liar?

So it's not a fact, it's an opinion. One that the head of the Scottish Government disagrees with you on as well.

Nicola Sturgeon is wrong. I think she would have been better placed saying Scotland has a notional deficit or an Independent Scotland would have a deficit.

So no not calling here a liar but defo think her choice of words could have been a lot better.

[Callum_62]

Do you think the 27 members are just going to hand over their tax power rights? It really doesn't matter what Pierre Moscovici says. It would require compliance from each member and I don't see a single member complying with that.Yeah but what if Germany with the biggest population votes for it?

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

Yeah but what if Germany with the biggest population votes for it?

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

It doesn't quite work that way.

[Ozyhibby]

Yeah but what if Germany with the biggest population votes for it?

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

Doesn’t matter. Every EU state has a veto over tax matters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Callum_62]

Doesn’t matter. Every EU state has a veto over tax matters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[emoji6][emoji23] What kind of backward union is that

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

[emoji6][emoji23] What kind of backward union is that

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

I was blind, but now I see.

Very clever. :greengrin

[James310]

Do you think the 27 members are just going to hand over their tax power rights? It really doesn't matter what Pierre Moscovici says. It would require compliance from each member and I don't see a single member complying with that.

But when Nationalists tell me nobody politicians from Germany, France and Spain etc are saying that Scotland will get a special deal and have no problem getting back into the EU it absolutely does matter what they say to many.

It's a struggle to keep up when someone says something and if it means something or not, I guess it depends what they say and if you agree with them or not, is that how it works.

[Ozyhibby]

But when Nationalists tell me nobody politicians from Germany, France and Spain etc are saying that Scotland will get a special deal and have no problem getting back into the EU it absolutely does matter what they say to many.

It's a struggle to keep up when someone says something and if it means something or not, I guess it depends what they say and if you agree with them or not, is that how it works.

This guy probably means it totally but he can’t deliver it.
When an EU commissioner says that Scotland would be welcome in the EU he also means it and it is also very deliverable.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

But when Nationalists tell me nobody politicians from Germany, France and Spain etc are saying that Scotland will get a special deal and have no problem getting back into the EU it absolutely does matter what they say to many.

It's a struggle to keep up when someone says something and if it means something or not, I guess it depends what they say and if you agree with them or not, is that how it works.

You appear to be getting confused here.

Those "nobody politicians" have the power to veto, so of course what they say matters. What Pierre Moscovici (The EU Tax Commissioner) says doesn't matter, because of those politicians that have the power to veto.

Those same politicians that have the power to veto have stated quite clearly that they will not veto Scotlands application for EU membership.

Understand? They veto one thing, but not the other.

[Fife-Hibee]

Interesting guardian article from 2014 which still holds up today.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/scots-independence-england-scotland?CMP=share_btn_fb&fbclid=IwAR3s-x_eu1-d8MEfj7ycJ1DQzEWth5zIEruqPfjq486dKX8vgU2I8OgHuXE

Also a very interesting comment from 'Fred' who knew exactly what was going on. :wink:
https://i.ibb.co/st5PkMB/wow.png

[stoneyburn hibs]

Interesting guardian article from 2014 which still holds up today.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/scots-independence-england-scotland?CMP=share_btn_fb&fbclid=IwAR3s-x_eu1-d8MEfj7ycJ1DQzEWth5zIEruqPfjq486dKX8vgU2I8OgHuXE

Also a very interesting comment from 'Fred' who knew exactly what was going on. :wink:
https://i.ibb.co/st5PkMB/wow.png

My money is on James310 writing that comment 😁

[James310]

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/electoral-watchdog-insists-on-assessing-any-indyref2-question-before-it-is-put-to-voters-1-4986373

Quite rightly so. Interesting they say 1 year timetable, so by Nicola Sturgeons timetable it will be announced any day now? She has promised one by end of 2020 has she not?

[The Modfather]

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/electoral-watchdog-insists-on-assessing-any-indyref2-question-before-it-is-put-to-voters-1-4986373

Quite rightly so. Interesting they say 1 year timetable, so by Nicola Sturgeons timetable it will be announced any day now? She has promised one by end of 2020 has she not?

Nothing will be announced before we know what is happening with Brexit on the 31st October, and nor should anything happen before then.

[James310]

Nothing will be announced before we know what is happening with Brexit on the 31st October, and nor should anything happen before then.

So we have a hard Brexit, she asks for a S30 which she has already been told will be refused, then what?

[The Modfather]

So we have a hard Brexit, she asks for a S30 which she has already been told will be refused, then what?

We’re in uncharted territory. All we can do is wait and watch as things play out.

[Fife-Hibee]

So we have a hard Brexit, she asks for a S30 which she has already been told will be refused, then what?

We all get back in our jock box and accept our place in the British colony.

Or we stick our fingers up at Westminster and leave anyway.

[JeMeSouviens]

We’re in uncharted territory. All we can do is wait and watch as things play out.

:agree:

We're about to get a GE by the look of it. An SNP surge looks likely and combined with a potentially hung parliament it's not hard to see why McDonnell & Corbyn have been softening their indyref2 stance recently.

[Ozyhibby]

The latest no pension until your 75 story could be a big help to the SNP. They should give a ‘rocks will melt with the sun’ commitment that pensions in an independent Scotland will remain at the current age. The over 50’s vote is definitely an area the Yes vote needs to improve on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190820/2dc298c6371d0b737368d671ed4e45dc.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[speedy_gonzales]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190820/2dc298c6371d0b737368d671ed4e45dc.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I completely misread that, thought I wouldn't have to work until I was 75, then I could start work,,,, just as well I read the body of the text and not just the headline.

[Smartie]

I completely misread that, thought I wouldn't have to work until I was 75, then I could start work,,,, just as well I read the body of the text and not just the headline.

:greengrin

I just realised you can read it the way you described and it makes perfect sense.

[James310]

:greengrin

I just realised you can read it the way you described and it makes perfect sense.

It had me switching sides thinking I can quit work and pick it up again at aged 75.

[Fife-Hibee]

By the time some of us are 75 (if we make it there), it'll be at 90 or something. :faf:

[CloudSquall]

GERs figures out tomorrow, chug-a-thon time for the unionists over how dependent we are on hand outs from England.

[JeMeSouviens]

GERs figures out tomorrow, chug-a-thon time for the unionists over how dependent we are on hand outs from England.

Oh God, dog food boy will be cranking up his abacus. :rolleyes:

[degenerated]

Oh God, dog food boy will be cranking up his abacus. :rolleyes:I'm holding fire till I see what big dog world and pets at home have to say about it first.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[James310]

https://twitter.com/blairmcdougall/status/1163801268407721984?s=19

For all you GERs fans. Funny how their opinions change when the figures go from showing one position to showing another. How strange!

[Fife-Hibee]

https://twitter.com/blairmcdougall/status/1163801268407721984?s=19

For all you GERs fans. Funny how their opinions change when the figures go from showing one position to showing another. How strange!

I sure hope for unionists that these figures don't show another glaring deficit ran up by the UK Government in Scotlands name. Kind of puts to bed the argument that the UK is working for Scotland.

[James310]

I sure hope for unionists that these figures don't show another glaring deficit ran up by the UK Government in Scotlands name. Kind of puts to bed the argument that the UK is working for Scotland.

Is that the notional one or the real one, it's so confusing.

[Fife-Hibee]

Is that the notional one or the real one, it's so confusing.

There is no 'real one' because as i've pointed out before, the Scottish Government cannot be held legally liable for money borrowed by the UK Government and spent by the UK Government.

After squandering half of Scotlands tax contributions sent and held by the UK treasury....

[Glory Lurker]

https://twitter.com/blairmcdougall/status/1163801268407721984?s=19

For all you GERs fans. Funny how their opinions change when the figures go from showing one position to showing another. How strange!

What is your position on them, James310?

[James310]

What is your position on them, James310?

Like Sturgeon and McKay it depends on what they say.

[Glory Lurker]

Like Sturgeon and McKay it depends on what they say.

No, come on. Where are you on them?

[James310]

No, come on. Where are you on them?

Can I evoke the R7 precedent and not answer? No, it's ok.

What do you mean where am I on them? They are what they are, they are the Government Expenditure and Revenue figures. They are figures produced by the Scottish Government, as far as I know they are factually correct, unless you think otherwise.

Not sure what you are asking me? It's a bunch of statistics.

[Fife-Hibee]

Can I evoke the R7 precedent and not answer? No, it's ok.

What do you mean where am I on them? They are what they are, they are the Government Expenditure and Revenue figures. They are figures produced by the Scottish Government, as far as I know they are factually correct, unless you think otherwise.

Not sure what you are asking me? It's a bunch of statistics.

How can they be "factually correct" as far as you know. When you know the figures are based on methodologies and assumptions on how the UK Government spends half of Scotlands tax revenues?

When the Scottish Government says GERS is the best they've got. They're not saying it's good, they're telling you that it's all they have to guess how UK Government spending is applied in Scotland, as the UK Government will not release the 'factually correct' figures to the Scottish Parliament.

[James310]

How can they be "factually correct" as far as you know. When you know the figures are based on methodologies and assumptions on how the UK Government spends half of Scotlands tax revenues?

When the Scottish Government says GERS is the best they've got. They're not saying it's good, they're telling you that it's all they have to guess how UK Government spending is applied in Scotland, as the UK Government will not release the 'factually correct' figures to the Scottish Parliament.

Well I said it because they are factually correct, as far as I know. There I said it again.

Why when they showed a positive position were Nicola Sturgeon and Derek MacKay crowing about them, but when it shows a negative position they are actually pretty rubbish after all. I know the answer, it's because they are politicians, they all do it.

[Fife-Hibee]

Well I said it because they are factually correct, as far as I know. There I said it again.

Why when they showed a positive position were Nicola Sturgeon and Derek MacKay crowing about them, but when it shows a negative position they are actually pretty rubbish after all. I know the answer, it's because they are politicians, they all do it.

Likewise when GERS was showing Scotland in a surplus (based on the same set of assumptions), UK politicians attacked the figures as being "political, not statistical".

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12432586.gers-was-conceived-as-a-political-exercise/

Now it's the holy grail for shutting down any independence debate.

[James310]

Likewise when GERS was showing Scotland in a surplus (based on the same set of assumptions), UK politicians attacked the figures as being "political, not statistical".

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12432586.gers-was-conceived-as-a-political-exercise/

Now it's the holy grail for shutting down any independence debate.

So shock and horror, politicians use stats to their advantage when they further their cause, and when they don't convey a message they want they say they are worthless.

[marinello59]

Likewise when GERS was showing Scotland in a surplus (based on the same set of assumptions), UK politicians attacked the figures as being "political, not statistical".

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12432586.gers-was-conceived-as-a-political-exercise/

Now it's the holy grail for shutting down any independence debate.

We can whinge and whine about the spin put on the figures and claim it shuts down debate.
Or we can use them as the starting point for an argument for Independence. How about we stop wasting energy on the former? It achieves nothing.

[Fife-Hibee]

We can whinge and whine about the spin put on the figures and claim it shuts down debate.
Or we can use them as the starting point for an argument for Independence. How about we stop wasting energy on the former? It achieves nothing.

That's the problem marinello. These figures can't be used as a starting point for independence, because they're so easy to spin. The Scottish Government has no real figures it can use as a basis for an independence argument. Those figures reside with Westminster.

What can be said however and it's something that never gets addressed by anyone on any side ever. Is that if Scotlands economic outlook would be anything other than an improvement on what it is now, then why are the real figures such a secret? Why do we need methodology based figures?