Indyref 2

[AndyM_1875]

The Bain Doctrine never quite washes away. There must be folks in the Labour and even some of the Tory ranks, who will be thinking carefully what to do IF a second Indy ref is called.

Labour voters thinking about going Yes?
That decision was well and truly made up for us on the morning of June24.

I won't be surprised if Scottish Labour as a party come out for Yes in IndyRef2.
Several Scottish Cabinet ministers from Blair's 1997 government now favour Independence.
IMHO Labour in Scotland just doesn't have the heart to fight another pro Union campaign organisationally.
Better Together was a disaster for us that resulted in Labour taking the hit. There is no appetite to repeat that.

[JeMeSouviens]

Interesting article in the FT from Sir Nicholas Macpherson, the former Treasury civil service head honcho who (in)famously took the unprecedented step of publishing his advice that the UK gov should reject currency union with an iScotland.


The case for Scottish independence looks stronger post-Brexit
Nicholas Macpherson

The decision to leave the EU changes terms of debate north of the border, writes Nicholas Macpherson

The EU referendum last month has raised existential issues of nationality across the British Isles. Applications for Irish passports are at a record level, with even Ian Paisley Jr, the Democratic Unionist MP, tweeting: “My advice is if you are entitled to [a] second passport then take one.” Meanwhile, the pressure for another referendum on Scottish independence is mounting.

With the UK leaving the EU, there is a golden opportunity for proponents of Scottish independence to reappraise their economic prospectus. Clearly, membership of the EU will lie at the heart of it. That will enable Scotland to have access to the biggest market in the world without the uncertainties that are likely to face the rest of the UK for many years to come. It would also provide a historic opportunity for Edinburgh to develop further as a financial centre, as London-based institutions hedge their bets on the location of staff and activities. If Royal Bank of Scotland, the state-backed bank, relocates its headquarters as part of that process, that would strengthen the long-term sustainability of the Scottish financial sector.

How quickly an independent Scotland could join the EU is of course highly uncertain. Spain is unlikely to agree to automatic membership because of concerns about secessionist pressures in Catalonia. All the same, the EU has a huge interest in fast-tracking membership for a country whose citizens have been members of the bloc for 43 years and have voted to remain by 62 per cent to 38 per cent. Then there is the question of currency. In the run-up to the 2014 independence referendum, the Scottish National party government missed a trick by advocating a unilateral monetary union between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK. The Treasury had had enough problems with fixed currency regimes in the 20th century without wanting to enter into one in the 21st. The history of monetary unions teaches us that they require more political integration rather than less — as the eurozone has discovered to its cost.
In any case, an independent Scotland would have no interest in seeking to tie its currency to a country that wishes to put more distance between itself and the EU. It is surely time, therefore, for the Scottish government to commit to creating a Scottish pound supported by its own central bank. That would not preclude the monetary authorities of an independent Scotland from shadowing sterling, just as the Danish central bank shadows the euro.


In the longer term, there could be a case for tying the Scottish pound to the euro. And a long-term commitment to joining the single currency would almost certainly be a requirement of EU membership. But that does not mean Scotland would have to adopt the euro — at least not straight away. Sweden is theoretically obliged to join the single currency. But more than 20 years on from joining the EU, the prospects of its giving up the krona seem vanishingly remote.
One of the Treasury’s worries in 2014 about the putative monetary union between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK was the impact of the oil price cycle. With its own currency, Scotland would be much better placed to respond to an oil shock on the scale of the one that has taken place in the past two years. Interest rates and the Scottish pound could take the strain smoothing any adjustment in the real economy.

The fall in the oil price from $100 a barrel to under $40 earlier this year is a reminder of the importance of sound public finances. There is no reason why small countries cannot be very successful economically. But generally those that are — Norway and Singapore come to mind — put great effort into establishing fiscal credibility. That generally means running fiscal surpluses in the good times, the better to insure against shocks in the bad times.
The Treasury was concerned in 2014 that the Scottish government’s prospectus relied on over-optimistic oil price projections. But First Minister Nicola Sturgeon’s administration has since worked to bolster its fiscal credibility.
John Swinney, Scottish finance secretary until earlier this year, was cautious about using the borrowing powers available under the existing fiscal arrangements. More importantly, he has taken steps to set up Scotland’s own independent fiscal council. There is now a much better opportunity for informed debate about public finances, taking into account changing North Sea oil production levels and wider demographic trends. The Scottish government can strengthen its credibility by setting out long-term plans for public services, public investment and social security, in particular pensions.

It also has a chance to set out a tax policy for the longer term. An independent Scotland committed to the EU would have an extraordinary opportunity to attract inward investment as well as highly skilled migrants. But, since it will be competing with Ireland, it needs a tax system that is equally competitive. That points to low corporate taxes and keeping marginal rates of income tax down. It may also point to a smaller, more efficient state.
The aftermath of the EU referendum contains many lessons. Perhaps the most important is that without a plan for what happens next you risk months, if not years, of uncertainty and drift. The Scottish government is in a unique position to take a more far-sighted approach. If it can develop a clear and coherent economic strategy ahead of any future referendum, it not only stands a better chance of winning it will also increase the probability that an independent Scotland inside the EU can hit the ground running.

The writer was permanent secretary to the Treasury and is now visiting professor at King’s College London

[JeMeSouviens]

Labour voters thinking about going Yes?
That decision was well and truly made up for us on the morning of June24.

I won't be surprised if Scottish Labour as a party come out for Yes in IndyRef2.
Several Scottish Cabinet ministers from Blair's 1997 government now favour Independence.
IMHO Labour in Scotland just doesn't have the heart to fight another pro Union campaign organisationally.
Better Together was a disaster for us that resulted in Labour taking the hit. There is no appetite to repeat that.

Interesting. They're certainly hedging their bets under cover of "tentative" federalism where Scotland is inside the UK with its own EU membership. Can't see that position holding for long, it's surely impossible for a multitude of reasons?

I would think they're more likely to jump towards the post-Brexit UK but you never know I suppose. Hope I'm wrong.

[JeMeSouviens]

Speaking of tentative federalism: a cross (Unionist) party group suggests a new federal settlement for the UK.

Members include Lord Salisbury, the former Tory cabinet minister, former Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell, former Labour MP and House of Commons leader Peter Hain, and Labour MP Gisela Stuart.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/federal-uk-union-brexit-cross-party-group-says-lord-sailsbury-a7129781.html

Where were these guys 5 years ago? Horses, stables, locks, etc. :rolleyes:

[RyeSloan]

Interesting article in the FT from Sir Nicholas Macpherson, the former Treasury civil service head honcho who (in)famously took the unprecedented step of publishing his advice that the UK gov should reject currency union with an iScotland.

It was interesting and probably as close to the reality of a true independent Scotland as could be envisaged at this point.

It was interesting to see the SNP response though. Accepting his points on one hand but dismissing the suggestion of significantly lower central spending on the other. Until they come around to the very real possibility of such an outcome then I'm not sure we will ever have a real debate on the costs of independence as well as the benefits.

[steakbake]

Speaking of tentative federalism: a cross (Unionist) party group suggests a new federal settlement for the UK.

Members include Lord Salisbury, the former Tory cabinet minister, former Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell, former Labour MP and House of Commons leader Peter Hain, and Labour MP Gisela Stuart.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/federal-uk-union-brexit-cross-party-group-says-lord-sailsbury-a7129781.html

Where were these guys 5 years ago? Horses, stables, locks, etc. :rolleyes:

Gordon Brown's vow was supposed to deliver "Devo Max" which would be "as close to federlism as is possible".

Why now, is a committee currently proposing something which we apparently already have?

Somewhere in Westminster is the gentle sound of the last dice being rolled.

[JeMeSouviens]

It was interesting and probably as close to the reality of a true independent Scotland as could be envisaged at this point.

It was interesting to see the SNP response though. Accepting his points on one hand but dismissing the suggestion of significantly lower central spending on the other. Until they come around to the very real possibility of such an outcome then I'm not sure we will ever have a real debate on the costs of independence as well as the benefits.

Tend to agree. While matching the economic output of comparably sized EU countries should certainly be our aspiration, I personally favour a hard headed rather than airy fairy sunlit uplands prospectus this time. eg. I thought the commitment to maintain "defence" spending at UK levels would be utterly ridiculous for a country like iScotland. We should be looking at Ireland for a more realistic comparison. Big savings to be had there.

It's not like the economic prospects for rUK look particularly healthy in the short-mid term either, so fronting up that it might be bumpy for a few years in terms of higher tax and lower spend until we're up and running isn't necessarily the gloomier side of the comparison.

[JeMeSouviens]

Gordon Brown's vow was supposed to deliver "Devo Max" which would be "as close to federlism as is possible".

Why now, is a committee currently proposing something which we apparently already have?

Somewhere in Westminster is the gentle sound of the last dice being rolled.

No, no you've clearly missed the point. Instead of Westminster deciding it wants to hang onto defence, foreign policy, corporate taxation, immigration etc and devolving the rest, we're all going to come together and decide we want to pool our defence, foreign policy, corporate taxation, immigration etc. but we'll keep hold of the rest.

Totally different, see? :agree:

It's pretty clear from their website it's a desperate last Unionist heave ... :rolleyes:

http://www.constitutionreformgroup.co.uk/about/

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Tend to agree. While matching the economic output of comparably sized EU countries should certainly be our aspiration, I personally favour a hard headed rather than airy fairy sunlit uplands prospectus this time. eg. I thought the commitment to maintain "defence" spending at UK levels would be utterly ridiculous for a country like iScotland. We should be looking at Ireland for a more realistic comparison. Big savings to be had there.

It's not like the economic prospects for rUK look particularly healthy in the short-mid term either, so fronting up that it might be bumpy for a few years in terms of higher tax and lower spend until we're up and running isn't necessarily the gloomier side of the comparison.


I agree we need a more realistic appraisal of the situation. Ive always found it a bit pathetic that the snp fight so hard to maintain the no detriment principle while railing against that system.

Independence would not be some socialist utopia, simple because we couldnt afford it, and faced with the reality of high taxes, im not surr that is wjat most scots want. Despite what the more ridiculous elements of the indy movement believe (often encouraged by the snp).

[High-On-Hibs]

I agree we need a more realistic appraisal of the situation. Ive always found it a bit pathetic that the snp fight so hard to maintain the no detriment principle while railing against that system.

Independence would not be some socialist utopia, simple because we couldnt afford it, and faced with the reality of high taxes, im not surr that is wjat most scots want. Despite what the more ridiculous elements of the indy movement believe (often encouraged by the snp).

Where did the myth come from that the SNP were trying to promote some kind of "Socialist Utopia"? Oh yeah, that's right. The NO campaign!

[ronaldo7]

I hope "when" we have Indyref2, the Europeans living in Scotland follow the lead of their countrymen/women.:greengrin



https://t.co/j6XiamFqXS

[Hannah_hfc]

Where did the myth come from that the SNP were trying to promote some kind of "Socialist Utopia"? Oh yeah, that's right. The NO campaign!
That was the impression I got far more from nationalists rather than the no campaign.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[High-On-Hibs]

That was the impression I got far more from nationalists rather than the no campaign.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

That's exactly what I would expect avid supporters of British unionism (or is it nationalism?) to say.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Where did the myth come from that the SNP were trying to promote some kind of "Socialist Utopia"? Oh yeah, that's right. The NO campaign!

Are you being serious?

The yes campaign increasingly became oneabout class as the demographics of the indyref became clear.

That they have swept away labour in west central scotland and attracted lots of young idealists like yourself.

That the most affluent areas of scotlabd were moat strongly no and rhe converse is evidence of this?

This was, amd is an explicit electoal ploy by the nats - increasingly so as their centre of gravity moves to west central scotland away from their traditional east /north east base.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

That's exactly what I would expect avid supporters of British unionism (or is it nationalism?) to say.

Eh? Not for the first time, i dont understand your logic?

[Hannah_hfc]

That's exactly what I would expect avid supporters of British unionism (or is it nationalism?) to say.
Because it's true?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[lord bunberry]

If Scottish labour oppose independence, they're finished. The tories have established themselves as the party of the union. It all depends on whether labour fight for what they want or whether they do as London tells them.

[snooky]

Can we not just have a referendum asking the peoples of Scotland if they want another referendum?

[Canon Hannan]

Eh? Not for the first time, i dont understand your logic?

The Unionists use Nationalism in a derogatory format. In effect Labour, Tories and No voters are British Nationalists.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

The Unionists use Nationalism in a derogatory format. In effect Labour, Tories and No voters are British Nationalists.

Some will be, but very few.

A huge chunk of the no vote was pragmatism - it was the less risky, more sensible and logical approach. It doesnt nevessarily imply some flag waving british nationalism.

Likewise much of the suppory for the snp at holyrood.

[marinello59]

The Unionists use Nationalism in a derogatory format. In effect Labour, Tories and No voters are British Nationalists.

That's simply not true. If somebody is a member of the Scottish Nationalist Party how is calling them a Nationalist deragatory, it's what they are? Unless they are ashamed of it. The SNP has members whose views probably straddle the entire political spectrum but what bonds them together is their belief that the single most important iussue facing us is the method of Government and there is nothing wrong with that.
On the other hand the term Unionist has only come in to common useage since the referendum and if not intended to be deragatory it is certainly used to dismiss the views of those who did not vote Yes no matter what issue is being discussed. It is deliberately divisive . Your use of the term British Nationalist isn't the best given the association that term has with extreme right wing politics but I'll assume that was unintended. The other parties main reason for existence is not to protect the Union, many people in the Labour movement in particular would see themselves as Internationalist.

[Glory Lurker]

If the independence referendum result was the other way round, wouldn't Scotland have been out of the EU when it became independent?
It seems that the argument for another referendum is that we are leaving the EU following a democratic vote, albeit with a much lower turn out, when the majority of those that did vote in Scotland elected to remain.

Is that right?

Would we have been out of the EU? Some said yes, some said no. Who knows?

We voted "no"' so we'll never know.

By a far bigger percentage, Scotland voted to remain in the EU which we know will not happen.

We were told continuously by Better Together that voting "Yes" would see us lose EU membership, yet this is happening when we voted "no".

Turnout is neither here nor there. We voted to stay in the EU big style but are getting dragged out due to the inherent democratic deficit within the UK.

[Beefster]

The Unionists use Nationalism in a derogatory format. In effect Labour, Tories and No voters are British Nationalists.

I really wanted to post to tell you how wrong you were but m59 beat me to it.

[steakbake]

Some will be, but very few.

A huge chunk of the no vote was pragmatism - it was the less risky, more sensible and logical approach. It doesnt nevessarily imply some flag waving british nationalism.

Likewise much of the suppory for the snp at holyrood.

I agree with this. Personally, I think the only meaningful and democratic way to organise our politics in Scotland in the future is through independence. Brexit and now Trident will only confirm that view to me. However, I am by no means a Scottish nationalist.

It does a disservice to the Yes cause for people who argue for that position to see it as being a binary choice between two opposing nationalisms.

I'd encourage anyone else who is in favour of an independent Scotland to tread carefully with throwing those labels around.

[AndyM_1875]

Interesting. They're certainly hedging their bets under cover of "tentative" federalism where Scotland is inside the UK with its own EU membership. Can't see that position holding for long, it's surely impossible for a multitude of reasons?

I would think they're more likely to jump towards the post-Brexit UK but you never know I suppose. Hope I'm wrong.

Federalism is a position the Lib Dems (remember them?:wink:) have backed for years. Some may say it's the only way to deal with a post Brexit UK that seems to be saying different things depending on where you are. FWIW I think it could work but under some new Act of Union which loosens everything but the Tories might think its too much like hard work.

As for Labour, Kez has slammed her dagger into Corbyn's back this morning so who honestly knows what will happen now. As I said earlier, I would not be surprised if she backs Indy given a second referendum although I think she'd choose federalism first.

[jacomo]

That's exactly what I would expect avid supporters of British unionism (or is it nationalism?) to say.

Wow. You really are a piece of work.

[Glory Lurker]

I think you are mixing the two to get the answer you want.

voting 'No' didn't take us out of the EU. The vote in the other referendum did that. The independence referendum was about more than the EU.
The turnout is indicative of those who care. Quite a few don't.

You'll see that I said that we are leaving the EU despite voting no, rather than say "no" caused it. Thanks for pointing out that there was another referendum on the EU point, and that the independence ref was about more than the EU, though. :rolleyes::greengrin

So, should a glaring democratic failure be ignored as it might be the case that more folk didn't care about the outcome than didn't care about indyref? If that's what you are arguing then fair enough as far as it goes, but folk who do care aren't just going to accept it and shouldn't be dissuaded from doing so just in the interests of apathy.

[steakbake]

You'll see that I said that we are leaving the EU despite voting no, rather than say "no" caused it. Thanks for pointing out that there was another referendum on the EU point, and that the independence ref was about more than the EU, though. :rolleyes::greengrin

So, should a glaring democratic failure be ignored as it might be the case that more folk didn't care about the outcome than didn't care about indyref? If that's what you are arguing then fair enough as far as it goes, but folk who do care aren't just going to accept it and shouldn't be dissuaded from doing so just in the interests of apathy.

You can't count the votes that weren't made. Part of post-truth politics is the artificial setting of boundaries that logically don't exist.

For example, maybe we shouldn't accept the indyref result because less than half the registered electorate voted for the winning side.

[RyeSloan]

You'll see that I said that we are leaving the EU despite voting no, rather than say "no" caused it. Thanks for pointing out that there was another referendum on the EU point, and that the independence ref was about more than the EU, though. :rolleyes::greengrin So, should a glaring democratic failure be ignored as it might be the case that more folk didn't care about the outcome than didn't care about indyref? If that's what you are arguing then fair enough as far as it goes, but folk who do care aren't just going to accept it and shouldn't be dissuaded from doing so just in the interests of apathy.

I know I'm being thick but what glaring democratic failure do you mean?

[RyeSloan]

I see the SNP are turning up the heat with the Scotland voted different so respect our wishes rhetoric. Appeared today again on Trident, despite the vote happening in Westminster in the UK Parliament their response was "the government must respect Scotland's clear decision against Trident renewal and remove these nuclear weapons of mass destruction from the Clyde"

It's an interesting tactic which I think we will see repeated quite frequently.

On a personal level I find it a bit weird to be honest, I accept they are there due to substantial popular vote and therefore are Scotland representatives I'm not sure they can claim to speak for all of Scotland in such absolutes all the time. They are employing the tactic in the EU chat but in doing so completely ignore the 1m that voted leave, and in this case are wilfully ignoring a large portion of Scotland that may well support the deterrent. I get both of these bodies of people are the minority (I read one poll that showed near 50% were against Trident and 30% in favour) so majority rules and all that but none the less the FPTP westminster process sure produces some skewed representation...something the ever canny SNP are not failing to use to their perceived advantage.

[steakbake]

I see the SNP are turning up the heat with the Scotland voted different so respect our wishes rhetoric. Appeared today again on Trident, despite the vote happening in Westminster in the UK Parliament their response was "the government must respect Scotland's clear decision against Trident renewal and remove these nuclear weapons of mass destruction from the Clyde"

It's an interesting tactic which I think we will see repeated quite frequently.

On a personal level I find it a bit weird to be honest, I accept they are there due to substantial popular vote and therefore are Scotland representatives I'm not sure they can claim to speak for all of Scotland in such absolutes all the time. They are employing the tactic in the EU chat but in doing so completely ignore the 1m that voted leave, and in this case are wilfully ignoring a large portion of Scotland that may well support the deterrent. I get both of these bodies of people are the minority (I read one poll that showed near 50% were against Trident and 30% in favour) so majority rules and all that but none the less the FPTP westminster process sure produces some skewed representation...something the ever canny SNP are not failing to use to their perceived advantage.

I get your point. I think they need to be careful how far they push that line.

How do we square the circle that democracy contains winners and losers? if 10 people vote to paint a fence and 7 people vote white and 3 vote red, is a pink fence the only reasonable outcome?

[goosano]

Have you checked the size of the UK deficit in any of the last few years? Hint - it hasn't been below 3% for a decade.

Why do people just make things up?

I'm not making anything up. I've been away for a while but these are important points so I'd like to come back to them. My politics are that I would like to see an independent Scotland but would only vote so if I can be convinced of the economic argument

To enter the EEC Scotland does have to have a budget deficit of <3%. From the EEC's own site
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/euro/adoption/who_can_join/index_en.htm

Yes, the UK's deficit has been outside of the 3% since the crisis. It was within it before then. Latitude will be given to countries in the EEC in difficult times but I can't see any being given to new entrants
https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=https://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/net-borrowing-percent-gdp-600x471.png&imgrefurl=http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/&h=471&w=600&tbnid=VbqljyTTKaD8RM:&tbnh=160&tbnw=203&docid=gC9ukCkG5KciHM&usg=__QSS2iCZ0Rb_r-b8br5lBLxPXgjM=&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjdopWX6P7NAhXkD8AKHVloB6MQ9QEIIDAA

The Scottish governments own GERS figures(economic data produced independently for the government) show the British deficit as 4.9% of GDP and Scottish deficit as 9.7% of GDP in 2014-15. In fairness oil prices are subdued and a rise would reduce the deficit. However to get to 3% means a reduction in spending in Scotland of 10.29 billion based on the GERS figures. This equates to £2000 for every person in Scotland per year, a truly staggering figure. To impose such austerity would of course be political suicide. However i don't see any plans to deal with this and that really concerns me

[easty]

I get your point. I think they need to be careful how far they push that line.

How do we square the circle that democracy contains winners and losers? if 10 people vote to paint a fence and 7 people vote white and 3 vote red, is a pink fence the only reasonable outcome?

If people living on one side of the fence want to paint it all white, and the people on the other side of the fence like it just the way it is, and think painting it's just going to ruin it, then what? Should the people who like it how it is just let them go ahead and paint it because there's more people over that side?

[Geo_1875]

I'm not making anything up. I've been away for a while but these are important points so I'd like to come back to them. My politics are that I would like to see an independent Scotland but would only vote so if I can be convinced of the economic argument

To enter the EEC Scotland does have to have a budget deficit of <3%. From the EEC's own site
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/euro/adoption/who_can_join/index_en.htm

Yes, the UK's deficit has been outside of the 3% since the crisis. It was within it before then. Latitude will be given to countries in the EEC in difficult times but I can't see any being given to new entrants
https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=https://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/net-borrowing-percent-gdp-600x471.png&imgrefurl=http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/&h=471&w=600&tbnid=VbqljyTTKaD8RM:&tbnh=160&tbnw=203&docid=gC9ukCkG5KciHM&usg=__QSS2iCZ0Rb_r-b8br5lBLxPXgjM=&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjdopWX6P7NAhXkD8AKHVloB6MQ9QEIIDAA

The Scottish governments own GERS figures(economic data produced independently for the government) show the British deficit as 4.9% of GDP and Scottish deficit as 9.7% of GDP in 2014-15. In fairness oil prices are subdued and a rise would reduce the deficit. However to get to 3% means a reduction in spending in Scotland of 10.29 billion based on the GERS figures. This equates to £2000 for every person in Scotland per year, a truly staggering figure. To impose such austerity would of course be political suicide. However i don't see any plans to deal with this and that really concerns me

What level of budget deficit is acceptable if Scotland decides to stay in the EEC?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I get your point. I think they need to be careful how far they push that line.

How do we square the circle that democracy contains winners and losers? if 10 people vote to paint a fence and 7 people vote white and 3 vote red, is a pink fence the only reasonable outcome?

The nats are generally strategicallu brilliant, so im surr they are aware that overpkaying their hand is a risk.

Personally i think they are being a bit craven, but of course i undrstand why.

However i personally dont agree with the endless grievance politics that are going on at the moment. So 'scotland' voted against trident? We all know thats not how voting works.

Whay woulld happen if say edinburfh council started to use the same tactic evertime a vote at holyrood happened that just over half of Edinburgh / lothian msps didnt like, or councillors?

[steakbake]

The nats are generally strategicallu brilliant, so im surr they are aware that overpkaying their hand is a risk.

Personally i think they are being a bit craven, but of course i undrstand why.

However i personally dont agree with the endless grievance politics that are going on at the moment. So 'scotland' voted against trident? We all know thats not how voting works.

Whay woulld happen if say edinburfh council started to use the same tactic evertime a vote at holyrood happened that just over half of Edinburgh / lothian msps didnt like, or councillors?

Well indeed, but the issue here is that in Scotland, Remain won quite convincingly. I know your position is that the UK is a unitary state but that's increasingly a hollow position. I don't think the electorate see it that way, not since devolution.

In the scenario you outline, unless councils have far more devolved power (which I think they should), I don't think people would see why their council was getting involved in that way. Scotland as a political entity, is an entirely different prospect from a council.

For that reason, I think that the Scottish Government's approach on the response to the vote is democratically legitimate. I think the SNP at Westminster needs to tread carefully on Trident, but again, they are the elected representatives of all but a couple of Scottish constituencies.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Well indeed, but the issue here is that in Scotland, Remain won quite convincingly. I know your position is that the UK is a unitary state but that's increasingly a hollow position. I don't think the electorate see it that way, not since devolution.

In the scenario you outline, unless councils have far more devolved power (which I think they should), I don't think people would see why their council was getting involved in that way. Scotland as a political entity, is an entirely different prospect from a council.

For that reason, I think that the Scottish Government's approach on the response to the vote is democratically legitimate. I think the SNP at Westminster needs to tread carefully on Trident, but again, they are the elected representatives of all but a couple of Scottish constituencies.

Yeah its a unitary state, although i think the best settlement for all is a federal structure, because i think that is where most people's opinions lie.

Although that would likely still leavr trident as a uk issue.

Youre right on councils, although one of the reasons we have 32 was to break-up sttathclyde which was deemed as too powerful. So maybe not the greatest analogy. I wonder if in an indy scotland the same would be true though.

It already irks me that my wee boy will get considerably less money spent on him in edinburgh than he would if he lived in Glasgow - but thats a whole different debate i supppse...

Ad i said i do understand why they do it. My othet fear with this, and this goes back to the referendum, is that the are setting up independence to fail with unrealistically high ecpectations - indy scotland wouldn'tneed trident of course, and probably wouldnt need much of a military at all, but that will mean big job losses in military familieis and connected industries. Im not saying that is wrong per se, but to pretend it wont is to do exactly what brexiteers did, which would handicap our nascent country from the outset.

[JeMeSouviens]

I'm not making anything up. I've been away for a while but these are important points so I'd like to come back to them. My politics are that I would like to see an independent Scotland but would only vote so if I can be convinced of the economic argument

To enter the EEC Scotland does have to have a budget deficit of <3%. From the EEC's own site
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/euro/adoption/who_can_join/index_en.htm

Yes, the UK's deficit has been outside of the 3% since the crisis. It was within it before then. Latitude will be given to countries in the EEC in difficult times but I can't see any being given to new entrants
https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=https://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/net-borrowing-percent-gdp-600x471.png&imgrefurl=http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/&h=471&w=600&tbnid=VbqljyTTKaD8RM:&tbnh=160&tbnw=203&docid=gC9ukCkG5KciHM&usg=__QSS2iCZ0Rb_r-b8br5lBLxPXgjM=&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjdopWX6P7NAhXkD8AKHVloB6MQ9QEIIDAA

The Scottish governments own GERS figures(economic data produced independently for the government) show the British deficit as 4.9% of GDP and Scottish deficit as 9.7% of GDP in 2014-15. In fairness oil prices are subdued and a rise would reduce the deficit. However to get to 3% means a reduction in spending in Scotland of 10.29 billion based on the GERS figures. This equates to £2000 for every person in Scotland per year, a truly staggering figure. To impose such austerity would of course be political suicide. However i don't see any plans to deal with this and that really concerns me


Well if you weren't making it up, you're certainly confused. The 3% deficit as % of gdp is one of the convergence criteria for joining the Eurozone, not the EU.

Not meeting the criteria does not bar accession to the EU and may or may not bar entry to the Euro depending on the whim of the ECB.

eg, Lithuania - joined the EU in 2004 with full intention to adopt the Euro asap but wasn't allowed in until 2015. The rules were super strictly applied as the ECB was desperate to avoid another state struggling as per Greece, Ireland,etc.

Compare and contrast to the original Eurozone members where some or all of the criteria were waived for practically all of them.

I would not imagine that an iScotland would attempt to join the Euro in the near term for political reasons as much as anything. However, (as I said above) I do agree with you that Scotland-in-the-UK's public finances are pretty desperate and make the starting position for iScotland pretty rocky to say the least.

[goosano]

Well if you weren't making it up, you're certainly confused. The 3% deficit as % of gdp is one of the convergence criteria for joining the Eurozone, not the EU.

Not meeting the criteria does not bar accession to the EU and may or may not bar entry to the Euro depending on the whim of the ECB.

eg, Lithuania - joined the EU in 2004 with full intention to adopt the Euro asap but wasn't allowed in until 2015. The rules were super strictly applied as the ECB was desperate to avoid another state struggling as per Greece, Ireland,etc.

Compare and contrast to the original Eurozone members where some or all of the criteria were waived for practically all of them.

I would not imagine that an iScotland would attempt to join the Euro in the near term for political reasons as much as anything. However, (as I said above) I do agree with you that Scotland-in-the-UK's public finances are pretty desperate and make the starting position for iScotland pretty rocky to say the least.

OK, sorry for the loose wording, thanks for correcting. Lithuania is a good example and if Scotland were to join the Eurozone from scratch it would be tough to meet full criteria. Even if we took 11 years like Lithuania it would mean an awful lot of austerity. I like a lot of the SNP's politics but feel distinctly uneasy at any credible plan to tackle these issues and reach these goals

[goosano]

Interesting to see that one SNP MP has stuck his head above the parapet to start to discuss some of the financial implications of Brexit/Independence

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independence-would-bring-five-years-of-cuts-says-snp-mp-1-4181483

[#FromTheCapital]

Interesting to see that one SNP MP has stuck his head above the parapet to start to discuss some of the financial implications of Brexit/Independence

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independence-would-bring-five-years-of-cuts-says-snp-mp-1-4181483

I do find it funny how some people are getting their knickers in a twist about tough times ahead for the economy in light of Brexit, then cry for Independance as if it's the solution to that problem.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I do find it funny how some people are getting their knickers in a twist about tough times ahead for the economy in light of Brexit, then cry for Independance as if it's the solution to that problem.

Kerevan will be getting his knuckles wrapped for that.

I love how the scottish government claim their record of opposing austerity is impeccable.

They opposed it yes, but they havent used the powers of the scottish parliament to do anything about it. The scottish government are not an opposition.

[RyeSloan]

Kerevan will be getting his knuckles wrapped for that. I love how the scottish government claim their record of opposing austerity is impeccable. They opposed it yes, but they havent used the powers of the scottish parliament to do anything about it. The scottish government are not an opposition.

Tis finally some honesty though. Quite what Brexit has to do with it I'm not sure as Brexit or no Brexit a new Scottish currency was always going to result in something like this. The 5 year timeline may also be rather optimistic, I would have thought significant structural change to the economy may well take longer to show through and that's without any shocks or pressures that may come along to a pegged currency.

It's honestly good to see that they are finally putting some effort into analysing the currency question. But as we see the answer is probably not pretty for a party that simply can't seem to contemplate that Scotland won't be able to run the same size of deficit as it does just now and does not have enough higher tax payers to soak for the difference.

To me this is the core point though. Will an Indy2 be run with an honest and real assessment of the potential pain Indy will bring. Personally I may well still be in favour if the pain can be shown to be worthwhile in the long run but I find it very hard to believe that the electorate would be persuaded as a whole.

[steakbake]

Tis finally some honesty though. Quite what Brexit has to do with it I'm not sure as Brexit or no Brexit a new Scottish currency was always going to result in something like this. The 5 year timeline may also be rather optimistic, I would have thought significant structural change to the economy may well take longer to show through and that's without any shocks or pressures that may come along to a pegged currency.

It's honestly good to see that they are finally putting some effort into analysing the currency question. But as we see the answer is probably not pretty for a party that simply can't seem to contemplate that Scotland won't be able to run the same size of deficit as it does just now and does not have enough higher tax payers to soak for the difference.

To me this is the core point though. Will an Indy2 be run with an honest and real assessment of the potential pain Indy will bring. Personally I may well still be in favour if the pain can be shown to be worthwhile in the long run but I find it very hard to believe that the electorate would be persuaded as a whole.

I think it depends how they go about it. Honesty is very precious commodity in politics.

[JeMeSouviens]

Kerevan will be getting his knuckles wrapped for that.

I love how the scottish government claim their record of opposing austerity is impeccable.

They opposed it yes, but they havent used the powers of the scottish parliament to do anything about it. The scottish government are not an opposition.

Rapped! (personal bugbear).

[Moulin Yarns]

Rapped! (personal bugbear).

this.

http://www.wikihow.com/Start-Rapping

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Rapped! (personal bugbear).

Ha ha, no bother, im not above a bit of grammar pedantry myself.

I did actually ponder that before i typed it

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Tis finally some honesty though. Quite what Brexit has to do with it I'm not sure as Brexit or no Brexit a new Scottish currency was always going to result in something like this. The 5 year timeline may also be rather optimistic, I would have thought significant structural change to the economy may well take longer to show through and that's without any shocks or pressures that may come along to a pegged currency.

It's honestly good to see that they are finally putting some effort into analysing the currency question. But as we see the answer is probably not pretty for a party that simply can't seem to contemplate that Scotland won't be able to run the same size of deficit as it does just now and does not have enough higher tax payers to soak for the difference.

To me this is the core point though. Will an Indy2 be run with an honest and real assessment of the potential pain Indy will bring. Personally I may well still be in favour if the pain can be shown to be worthwhile in the long run but I find it very hard to believe that the electorate would be persuaded as a whole.


It will be fascinating to see. The paralells between the yes campaign last time (dismissing experts, making policy choices that were not in their gift) and brexit campaign are striking.

It will be a tough sell, but i hope they approach ot soberly and honestly. I think we all know they wont, amd all sides will be slinilging mud and making outlandish claims if it happens again.

The whole scandinavian thing always intriguede although i dont know a lot about personally, my understanding was that they had eye-wateringly high taxes.

[RyeSloan]

It will be fascinating to see. The paralells between the yes campaign last time (dismissing experts, making policy choices that were not in their gift) and brexit campaign are striking. It will be a tough sell, but i hope they approach ot soberly and honestly. I think we all know they wont, amd all sides will be slinilging mud and making outlandish claims if it happens again. The whole scandinavian thing always intriguede although i dont know a lot about personally, my understanding was that they had eye-wateringly high taxes.

Well I see Kerevan has been telt already so I think you are correct on the mud slinging and outlandish claims thought...

[Glory Lurker]

Well I see Kerevan has been telt already so I think you are correct on the mud slinging and outlandish claims thought...

I didn't read the Kerevan thing, but know it has caused a bit of a stooshie but also with suggestion the piece emphasises certain comments over others? At the risk of being told the side of the story I don't want to hear (:greengrin) - what did he say?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I didn't read the Kerevan thing, but know it has caused a bit of a stooshie but also with suggestion the piece emphasises certain comments over others? At the risk of being told the side of the story I don't want to hear (:greengrin) - what did he say?

That an independent scotland would be in a difficult financial situation for five years.

[JeMeSouviens]

I didn't read the Kerevan thing, but know it has caused a bit of a stooshie but also with suggestion the piece emphasises certain comments over others? At the risk of being told the side of the story I don't want to hear (:greengrin) - what did he say?

This is the actual article rather than the Scotsman's report of it:

http://www.cityam.com/245697/independent-scotland-inside-eu-would-economic-powerhouse



Some people seem surprised that Theresa May flew to Edinburgh to parley with Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s First Minister, only three days after arriving at Number 10.

Britain’s new Prime Minister is acutely aware that Scotland voted decisively (62:38) to stay in the EU. Brexit is precisely the “material change of circumstance” cited in the SNP’s recent Scottish Parliament manifesto that could trigger a second referendum on Scottish independence.

For the moment, Sturgeon says she only wants a deal to maintain Scotland’s existing links with the EU and the Single Market. But if Brexit minister David Davis can’t or won’t deliver, another independence referendum is the likely option. This time with support from anti-Brexit groups who voted No to independence in 2014: Edinburgh’s middle class, farmers and swathes of Scotland’s business and financial community.

Yet is now a propitious time for Scotland to go it alone, with the price of oil down from $112 in June 2014 to under $50 today? How would Scotland fund its fiscal deficit? As a City A.M. editorial asked last week, are the economics of independence viable unless newfound sovereignty “goes hand in hand with shrinking the state and cutting taxes”? That’s hardly good news for an avowedly left of centre, anti-austerity SNP.

And what of the vexed currency question? The SNP did not convince voters in 2014 on its plan to remain in a common sterling currency zone with the UK. A post-Brexit Tory government will be even less in the mood to accommodate a common pound.

Is there a Plan B? Joining the euro is a non-starter. At best, it’s a long-term project. Which leaves establishing a new Scottish pound (or whatever name gains favour). To avoid disruption to trade, contracts and pensions, it would need to exchange at parity with the pound sterling. That limits Scottish interest rate flexibility, but think of the advantages for City-based institutions of Scotland’s bank passporting rights as a continuing member of the EU.


Setting up a new currency in a small, democratic state is perfectly possible: the Baltic States did it expeditiously after they declared independence from the old Soviet Union in 1991. Scotland is better supplied with the banking expertise to create the necessary new financial institutions. It would require a central bank as lender of last resort and (probably) a currency board. Where would the necessary foreign currency reserves come from to peg? In the short run, from Scotland’s share of Bank of England assets supplemented by monetising her legacy share of UK state assets.

However, a separate Scottish currency pegged to sterling would necessitate fiscal consolidation to assuage the foreign exchange markets. It would certainly be doable, but would require independent Scotland to cut its budget coat to fit its fiscal means. Here we come to the central argument for seeking Scottish sovereignty over its economic affairs: having the levers to boost productivity and growth.

Experience proves that episodes of economic uncertainty and crisis – and what is Brexit if not that? – are best managed by small, independent nation states. These are nimbler when it comes to making necessary adjustments (e.g. boosting productivity and exports) and exhibit greater social solidarity when it comes to sharing any economic pain – and thus minimising the time taken to get back on a growth path. Iceland, Norway and Sweden powered out of the 2009 global recession faster than the UK. Even battered Ireland has seen an export and productivity miracle.

Scotland’s post-independence fiscal consolidation should take only five years (one parliamentary cycle), lifting her economy on to a high productivity, high growth path by shifting resources from consumption to investment. That’s painful in the immediate short term but will allow Scotland to escape the ball and chain of the UK’s endemic low productivity. I doubt if the larger UK could consolidate as quickly – it never has. By contrast, look at Finland in the 1990s following the collapse of the Soviet Union, its main trading partner. Between 1990 and 1993, Finnish output declined by 13 per cent. Yet by 1997, output had fully recovered while the budget was headed to a consistent surplus.

Besides, the economic status quo is no longer an option for Scotland. Britain’s likely expulsion from the Single Market implies inward investment to the UK will drift away, something that will hurt Scotland hard. An independent Scotland inside the EU would be better positioned to craft the incentives needed to retain this inward investment. Scotland doesn’t want independence to live beyond its means. It wants sovereignty to turn itself into an economic powerhouse.

[JeMeSouviens]

... and to (sort of) back up Kerevan's argument, a City based Scot involved in financial services writes ...

http://www.cityam.com/244356/farewell-london-hello-edinburgh-financial-services-find-new


But just as the referendum decision was about economics, it was also about identity. For many of us, Sturgeon’s words will have resonated last week with both head and heart. And since the beginning of the week when I wrote in the Scottish press about similar issues, firms at the highest level want to start a fresh conversation with the Scottish government. They still have huge reservations about independence itself but they now want the SNP to do some harder work on their economic plans. They are wanting to hear more about how Single Market access from Scotland might be achievable.

So I am off to talk to the Scottish government about just that and how finance should go about the conversation with Brussels right now.

[Glory Lurker]

Thanks, JMS.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

... and to (sort of) back up Kerevan's argument, a City based Scot involved in financial services writes ...

http://www.cityam.com/244356/farewell-london-hello-edinburgh-financial-services-find-new

I kind of agree that it is an approach that could work, amd is definitely worth exploring.

But it will only work if the scottish government, and scotland are seen as business friendly and create a pro- business environment. Unfortunately that sort of approach doesnt sit well with many on the left of the snp and the yes campaign.

It would also require scottosh enterprise to significantly up its game.

All of which is possible. I would like to think that we would be up there competing with dublin amd anywhere else in this scenario.

[steakbake]

I kind of agree that it is an approach that could work, amd is definitely worth exploring.

But it will only work if the scottish government, and scotland are seen as business friendly and create a pro- business environment. Unfortunately that sort of approach doesnt sit well with many on the left of the snp and the yes campaign.

It would also require scottosh enterprise to significantly up its game.

All of which is possible. I would like to think that we would be up there competing with dublin amd anywhere else in this scenario.

It's an interesting point and one I kind of agree with. The last White Paper that was on independence was kind of a political manifesto of how the SNP would approach a post-independence government.


I've said on another thread, that independence is - in pretty much every single example you can find in the world - a decision separate to how the actual and eventual governments of that independent state will run the country. This is about the construction of a new state, not how it will be run. At that time, I was responding to someone who was saying they'd only vote for independence if there was immediate nationalisation of various industries, X kind of tax system and so on. None of that is a decision for independence, but is a decision for the future governments of the political entity.

If there is going to be a next referendum, the Yes side will do well to approach how independence will work with a much more open mind - focussing on how the state would be constructed and a wider sweep of perspectives on how various governments might use those constructs to pursue various policy agendas.

Tying it almost to a manifesto is deeply problematic: the state has to function, regardless of who is running it.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

It's an interesting point and one I kind of agree with. The last White Paper that was on independence was kind of a political manifesto of how the SNP would approach a post-independence government.


I've said on another thread, that independence is - in pretty much every single example you can find in the world - a decision separate to how the actual and eventual governments of that independent state will run the country. This is about the construction of a new state, not how it will be run. At that time, I was responding to someone who was saying they'd only vote for independence if there was immediate nationalisation of various industries, X kind of tax system and so on. None of that is a decision for independence, but is a decision for the future governments of the political entity.

If there is going to be a next referendum, the Yes side will do well to approach how independence will work with a much more open mind - focussing on how the state would be constructed and a wider sweep of perspectives on how various governments might use those constructs to pursue various policy agendas.

Tying it almost to a manifesto is deeply problematic: the state has to function, regardless of who is running it.

Couldnt agree more, and i suspect that some in the snpay regret politicising a decision which, as you say is about governance, not policies.

My points about pro business were more aimed at a scenario wherre the curreny government were still in charge.

[SHODAN]

It will be fascinating to see. The paralells between the yes campaign last time (dismissing experts, making policy choices that were not in their gift) and brexit campaign are striking.

It will be a tough sell, but i hope they approach ot soberly and honestly. I think we all know they wont, amd all sides will be slinilging mud and making outlandish claims if it happens again.

The whole scandinavian thing always intriguede although i dont know a lot about personally, my understanding was that they had eye-wateringly high taxes.

They do, but they also have extremely high wages and excellent public services as a result of their taxes. It also helps that they recognise the value of paying tax over there and the taxman isn't portrayed as a demonic entity whom it's seen as morally right to get one over.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

They do, but they also have extremely high wages and excellent public services as a result of their taxes. It also helps that they recognise the value of paying tax over there and the taxman isn't portrayed as a demonic entity whom it's seen as morally right to get one over.

Is there any obvious downside? (leaving tax issue to the side as that is a moot point)

[SHODAN]

Is there any obvious downside? (leaving tax issue to the side as that is a moot point)

Costs of services/goods are considerably higher but again this is offset by higher wages. Society is more equal but there's less chance of standing out/being filthy rich. Depends on what your priorities/ideal way of life is.

[ronaldo7]

That's simply not true. If somebody is a member of the Scottish Nationalist Party how is calling them a Nationalist deragatory, it's what they are? Unless they are ashamed of it. The SNP has members whose views probably straddle the entire political spectrum but what bonds them together is their belief that the single most important iussue facing us is the method of Government and there is nothing wrong with that.
On the other hand the term Unionist has only come in to common useage since the referendum and if not intended to be deragatory it is certainly used to dismiss the views of those who did not vote Yes no matter what issue is being discussed. It is deliberately divisive . Your use of the term British Nationalist isn't the best given the association that term has with extreme right wing politics but I'll assume that was unintended. The other parties main reason for existence is not to protect the Union, many people in the Labour movement in particular would see themselves as Internationalist.

Oh dear, you've been listening to too many Tories from Westminster:greengrin

It's the Scottish National Party:greengrin

[marinello59]

Oh dear, you've been listening to too many Tories from Westminster:greengrin

It's the Scottish National Party:greengrin

I'll not blame the Tories for my typos, that's all down to myself. Thanks for correcting me. 
It doesn't in any way change the point I was (badly) trying to make though.

[ronaldo7]

I'll not blame the Tories for my typos, that's all down to myself. Thanks for correcting me. 
It doesn''t in any way change the point I was (badly) trying to make though.


:agree:

[ronaldo7]

Some work already done on the currency issue which plagued the Yes campaign last time. Interesting times ahead. Oh and no borders in Ireland means the same for Scotland and England...Right.:greengrin

https://t.co/8Rd9F25HZ6

[RyeSloan]

Some work already done on the currency issue which plagued the Yes campaign last time. Interesting times ahead. Oh and no borders in Ireland means the same for Scotland and England...Right.:greengrin https://t.co/8Rd9F25HZ6

And not before time! Interesting to note that the stance taken in 2014 is now seen as unworkable...I think more than a few knew that at the time but were dismissed as part of project fear. Maybe this time some proper thought will be put into what a post Indy Scotland will need to survive rather than blithe assurances that everything will be just fine...if there is then I'm sure a lot of folk will be happy to listen.

[ronaldo7]

And not before time! Interesting to note that the stance taken in 2014 is now seen as unworkable...I think more than a few knew that at the time but were dismissed as part of project fear. Maybe this time some proper thought will be put into what a post Indy Scotland will need to survive rather than blithe assurances that everything will be just fine...if there is then I'm sure a lot of folk will be happy to listen.

The Yes campaign might just come out and say we're going to "Take back control", and that'll be job done. Some folk still think we could have used the pound back then, http://stv.tv/news/politics/1346145-independent-scotland-can-use-the-pound-unofficially-says-former-bank-chief/

However we move on.

A lot has changed since 2014, not least Brexit, and Better Together won't get the better of us next time. Bring it on.:greengrin

[#FromTheCapital]

Sturgeon in the news yesterday warning of 'hard brexit'... She seems to think Brexit is going to be a nightmare but Independence will be the promised land. What planet is she on? If she thinks Brexit will be bad, then surely cutting ties with a trading partner 5 times that of the EU will be suicide?

[HappyAsHellas]

I would be highly surprised if anyone cut ties with anyone.

[#FromTheCapital]

I would be highly surprised if anyone cut ties with anyone.

I'll be surprised if Sturgeon doesn't get found out to be a complete amateur in the years ahead. Makes me laugh how some view her as a great politician when she's simply riding the wave created by her predecessor. She is interested in one thing only and the job she is supposed to be doing is well and truly on the back burner in her quest for Independance.

[ronaldo7]

Sturgeon in the news yesterday warning of 'hard brexit'... She seems to think Brexit is going to be a nightmare but Independence will be the promised land. What planet is she on? If she thinks Brexit will be bad, then surely cutting ties with a trading partner 5 times that of the EU will be suicide?

Can you provide evidence of where she mentions "Hard Brexit", and what that actually means.

:aok:

[lord bunberry]

I would be highly surprised if anyone cut ties with anyone.
:agree: And if ties were cut between Europe and the U.K. Scotland would be in a very good position to take up the trade that the U.K couldn't supply. It won't happen though as the British government know it would be suicide to stop trading with the EU.

[#FromTheCapital]

Can you provide evidence of where she mentions "Hard Brexit", and what that actually means.

:aok:

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/politics/sturgeon-warns-britain-is-on-course-for-hard-brexit-1-4186782

She is quoted as saying the UK is headed for hard rather than soft Brexit and this means a future outside the single market.

All sounds very grim Nicola. But what happens if/when we go Independant and restrictions are placed with our biggest trading partner?

[#FromTheCapital]

:agree: And if ties were cut between Europe and the U.K. Scotland would be in a very good position to take up the trade that the U.K couldn't supply. It won't happen though as the British government know it would be suicide to stop trading with the EU.

Don't think anyone has said that Britain is going to stop trading with the EU.

[Mr Grieves]

Don't think anyone has said that Britain is going to stop trading with the EU.

So an independent Scotland within the EU would still be able to trade with the rest of the U.K. then?

[ronaldo7]

I'll be surprised if Sturgeon doesn't get found out to be a complete amateur in the years ahead. Makes me laugh how some view her as a great politician when she's simply riding the wave created by her predecessor. She is interested in one thing only and the job she is supposed to be doing is well and truly on the back burner in her quest for Independance.

She seems to be steering a steady path through all that's come her way.

trust in the Scottish Government to act in Scotland’s long-term interests is higher today (73%) than it has been at any time since the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 (81%), and it is more than three times higher than trust in the UK government (23%).

Riding the wave indeed.:rolleyes:

[Hibbyradge]

I'll be surprised if Sturgeon doesn't get found out to be a complete amateur in the years ahead. Makes me laugh how some view her as a great politician when she's simply riding the wave created by her predecessor. She is interested in one thing only and the job she is supposed to be doing is well and truly on the back burner in her quest for Independance.

I see it quite differently.

Sturgeon is no amateur. She has been an MP since 1999, the depute SNP Leader since 2004, and depute First Minster and cabinet secretary since 2007.

Alex Salmond did not create a wave of popularity. He was very much a marmite politician and I didn't like him at all.

When Sturgeon took over, the dislike/distrust of Salmond, which had kept people voting Labour, vanished, and allegiances started to change.

2015 was the first time I'd ever voted for the SNP, and Mrs Radge, who is English and opposed to Scottish independence, did the same.

Sturgeon makes no secret of the fact that she's pursuing independence. She's the leader of the SNP, after all, so it's to be expected and Salmond was exactly the same.

Sturgeon comes across as one of the most competent, down to earth and honest politicians in the UK.

She is, however, a politician, not a nun, and politics is a brutal game.

If I still lived in Scotland, I'd be behind her.

[#FromTheCapital]

So an independent Scotland within the EU would still be able to trade with the rest of the U.K. then?

Of course it would yes. And the UK will be able to do the same with the EU. The point being that Sturgeon is painting a picture of hard times ahead with Brexit, but none of that seems to matter when it comes to Scottish independence.

[#FromTheCapital]

I see it quite differently.

Sturgeon is no amateur. She has been an MP since 1999, the depute SNP Leader since 2004, and depute First Minster and cabinet secretary since 2007.

Alex Salmond did not create a wave of popularity. He was very much a marmite politician and I didn't like him at all.

When Sturgeon took over, the dislike/distrust of Salmond, which had kept people voting Labour, vanished, and allegiances started to change.

2015 was the first time I'd ever voted for the SNP, and Mrs Radge, who is English and opposed to Scottish independebce, did the same.

Sturgeon makes no secret of the fact that she's pursuing independence. She's the leader of the SNP, after all, so it's to be expected and Salmond was exactly the same.

Sturgeon comes across as one of the most competent, down to earth and honest politicians in the UK.

She is, however, a politician, not a nun, and politics is a brutal game.

If I still lived in Scotland, I'd be behind her.

Fair enough, everyone entitled to their view.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

So an independent Scotland within the EU would still be able to trade with the rest of the U.K. then?

Yeah, in exactly the same way as the uk out of the eu will still trade with europe surely?

[Ozymandias]

Yeah, in exactly the same way as the uk out of the eu will still trade with europe surely?

Pretty much everywhere can trade with everywhere else - it is the terms of that trade that are key. A Scotland/UK deal would be very similar to an Eire/UK deal with respect to border controls etc. Pragamtism would suggest that no physical controls could exist between England and Scotland, and it would not be impossible to think that the terms of much trade would be similar.

The advantage Scotland could have would be unrestricted access to a much bigger market as well, which could give some significant advantage.

[lord bunberry]

Of course it would yes. And the UK will be able to do the same with the EU. The point being that Sturgeon is painting a picture of hard times ahead with Brexit, but none of that seems to matter when it comes to Scottish independence.

The U.K. wont be able to trade freely with the EU unless it negotiates a trade agreement

[steakbake]

My olds - stick on no voters - had some friends round the other day, also no voters. They were horrified by Brexit. The subject came on to indyref2. All four of them in agreement that with Salmond out the picture/less prominent and the though of Brexit and a PM May government, they'd rethink their position on iScotland.

[#FromTheCapital]

The U.K. wont be able to trade freely with the EU unless it negotiates a trade agreement

Yes and that works both ways surely? For example, Germany won't be able to trade freely with post Brexit Uk? If so, the same could apply for Independant Scotland trading with the Uk.

[#FromTheCapital]

No mention here of today's Supreme Court ruling on the named persons legislation that Sturgeon and the SNP are trying to push through.

Quote from the Supreme Court "the first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get at the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their familes and indoctrinate them in their rulers view of the world"

[lord bunberry]

Yes and that works both ways surely? For example, Germany won't be able to trade freely with post Brexit Uk? If so, the same could apply for Independant Scotland trading with the Uk.
It does and it would leave us in a very strong position to move in on the trade that used to be done with the U.K. It I'll be very simple for English companies to move up to Scotland in order to continue to trade with the EU.

[#FromTheCapital]

It does and it would leave us in a very strong position to move in on the trade that used to be done with the U.K. It I'll be very simple for English companies to move up to Scotland in order to continue to trade with the EU.

Fair point although I'm not convinced it would be as simple as you suggest and it doesn't change the fact that we currently do 4-5 times more trade with the U.K. than we do the EU.

[Glory Lurker]

No mention here of today's Supreme Court ruling on the named persons legislation that Sturgeon and the SNP are trying to push through.

Quote from the Supreme Court "the first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get at the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their familes and indoctrinate them in their rulers view of the world"

Is that really a quote from the Court? Could you link to it please?

[marinello59]

No mention here of today's Supreme Court ruling on the named persons legislation that Sturgeon and the SNP are trying to push through.

Quote from the Supreme Court "the first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get at the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their familes and indoctrinate them in their rulers view of the world"

That's not a real quote. The court said it was well intentioned or something like that.
Glad to see this flawed legislation chucked back at the Government though.

[#FromTheCapital]

Is that really a quote from the Court? Could you link to it please?

Can link to a report on it - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/28/supreme-court-blocks-snps-controversial-named-person-scheme/

[#FromTheCapital]

That's not a real quote. The court said it was well intentioned or something like that.
Glad to see this flawed legislation chucked back at the Government though.

They also say something along the lines of the scheme being legitimate and benign, but as far as I can see it is a real quote.

I agree that it is flawed, although I'd go further and say that it's ****ing ridiculous.

[Glory Lurker]

Can link to a report on it - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/28/supreme-court-blocks-snps-controversial-named-person-scheme/

Thanks, but I won't click through to that paper. I don't think there is a chance that a judge said that, though, sorry.

EDIT: I might owe you an apology here. Looking in to it.

EDIT 2: I do owe you an apology. Sorry!

[CapitalGreen]

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0216-judgment.pdf

Page 33

[Moulin Yarns]

The only thing wrong with the Named Person proposal was the data sharing. Minor changes and it will pass. Right or wrong it is going to happen.

[Glory Lurker]

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0216-judgment.pdf

Page 33

Thanks, yes #FTC is right.

However.... :greengrin

That is one brief comment in a 48 page judgement. It is not a comment on either the scheme itself or the Scottish Government, rather on the overall human rights considerations that apply to the particular aspect that was ruled illegal. I think it is being taken a bit out of context by the Telegraph (I have seen the article without giving them any traffic).

The Scottish Government will obviously need to get the offending provisions sorted, but I am glad that the scheme will be going ahead when it is done.

I appreciate that some reasonable people have their reasons for objecting to the scheme, but the noise against it is being drummed up by a rag bag of Tories and fundamentalist Christians. Between them and the Scottish Government, I know who I trust with human rights!

[#FromTheCapital]

Thanks, yes #FTC is right.

However.... :greengrin

That is one brief comment in a 48 page judgement. It is not a comment on either the scheme itself or the Scottish Government, rather on the overall human rights considerations that apply to the particular aspect that was ruled illegal. I think it is being taken a bit out of context by the Telegraph (I have seen the article without giving them any traffic).

The Scottish Government will obviously need to get the offending provisions sorted, but I am glad that the scheme will be going ahead when it is done.

I appreciate that some reasonable people have their reasons for objecting to the scheme, but the noise against it is being drummed up by a rag bag of Tories and fundamentalist Christians. Between them and the Scottish Government, I know who I trust with human rights!

I agree that it's been twisted by the media, however the mere fact that the SC has put it in there is newsworthy imo.

Regarding the scheme itself; it may very well have good intentions but I'm firmly against it. It's interfering with people's personal lives and no government should have the right to do that.

[Glory Lurker]

Regarding the scheme itself; it may very well have good intentions but I'm firmly against it. It's interfering with people's personal lives and no government should have the right to do that.

Fair do's :aok:

[Mr Grieves]

The hysteria surrounding named person is astonishing. The scheme has been running in Edinburgh for years, not once has the state interfered in the upbringing of my 5 year old son.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[#FromTheCapital]

The hysteria surrounding named person is astonishing. The scheme has been running in Edinburgh for years, not once has the state intervened in the upbringing of my 5 year old son.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I can't talk from personal experience as I don't have any kids. Regardless, you are talking of your personal experience on a trial of this scheme and i'd expect people to be a lot more critical in the long run...Especially when you consider that the government want this all the way up till a 'child' is 18 years old.

[Mr Grieves]

I can't talk from personal experience as I don't have any kids. Regardless, you are talking of your personal experience on a trial of this scheme and i'd expect people to be a lot more critical in the long run...Especially when you consider that the government want this all the way up till a 'child' is 18 years old.

Yeah, but I think I'll also trust the experts on this.

Based on evidence from pilot schemes that have run in highland council for 7 years and 4 other local authorities for 5 years, named person is supported by a number of major children's charities( barnardos, nspcc, children 1st) groups representing nurses, social workers, teachers and police, and received cross party support in the Scottish Parliament.

One party have made a political football out of this, and their leader's media pals have lapped it up. Also, the SNP could have done better in explaining the scheme.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

Yeah, but I think I'll also trust the experts on this.

Based on evidence from pilot schemes that have run in highland council for 7 years and 4 other local authorities for 5 years, named person is supported by a number of major children's charities( barnardos, nspcc, children 1st) groups representing nurses, social workers, teachers and police, and received cross party support in the Scottish Parliament.

One party have made a political football out of this, and their leader's media pals have lapped it up. Also, the SNP could have done better in explaining the scheme.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


:agree:

The appellants wanted the NP scheme scrapped...They failed. The SG will now look at the data sharing within the scheme and strengthen.

The Scheme has been deemed "Legitimate and Benign" by the court.

This will then be rolled out to support children and families throughout Scotland.

https://t.co/0hbSry0y8p

17237

[High-On-Hibs]

It's the SNP's fault really for not explaining this policy in greater clarity. Opposition parties were always going to kick up a big fuss about this (despite supporting it initially). They really need to work on their legislative processes. Don't give the opposition a chance to stir up hyperbole, because with the full backing of the MSM, it is almost certainly going to fool people into believing the policy is something that it's not.

Saw that "big angry mob" on the BBC yesterday, which must have been about 6 people. They all did their best to hide their UJ tattoos, but you could still see them.

[ronaldo7]

Scottish Government welcomes new Scottish Stock Exchange. Another small step along the way.

https://t.co/npTnNo3BIO

[Hibbyradge]

Scottish Government welcomes new Scottish Stock Exchange. Another small step along the way.

https://t.co/npTnNo3BIO

That won't be a small step, if it comes off.

It'll be huge and will have the city of London shoiting themselves.

[johnbc70]

The latest YouGov polls don't make for good reading for the SNP. More Scots want to remain in the UK and outside Europe than they want an independent Scotland in Europe.

A straight forward Yes/No to independence also has No in the lead.

Would she call another Referendum without certainty of winning, if she lost then she would be finished and would the SNP not have to seriously reconsider their ultimate aim if they lost 2 votes.

[marinello59]

The latest YouGov polls don't make for good reading for the SNP. More Scots want to remain in the UK and outside Europe than they want an independent Scotland in Europe.

A straight forward Yes/No to independence also has No in the lead.

Would she call another Referendum without certainty of winning, if she lost then she would be finished and would the SNP not have to seriously reconsider their ultimate aim if they lost 2 votes.

Ideally there will be no second referundum until Yes is consistently polling at 60%. There has been not nearly enough work down to win over those required to get Yes over the line. Brexit on its own is not enough.

[#FromTheCapital]

The latest YouGov polls don't make for good reading for the SNP. More Scots want to remain in the UK and outside Europe than they want an independent Scotland in Europe.

A straight forward Yes/No to independence also has No in the lead.

Would she call another Referendum without certainty of winning, if she lost then she would be finished and would the SNP not have to seriously reconsider their ultimate aim if they lost 2 votes.

Surprised that Brexit has had such a minimal effect if that poll is to be believed. The way some were banging on, Brexit was the final nail in the coffin, so hopefully this shuts them up. Although it will be interesting to see a similar poll once the terms of Brexit are clear and we actually leave the EU.

As M59 has pointed out, they still have a lot of work to do... But at what cost? The running of the country can only take a back seat for so long while they run their mouths about independence.

[ronaldo7]

Surprised that Brexit has had such a minimal effect if that poll is to be believed. The way some were banging on, Brexit was the final nail in the coffin, so hopefully this shuts them up. Although it will be interesting to see a similar poll once the terms of Brexit are clear and we actually leave the EU.

As M59 has pointed out, they still have a lot of work to do... But at what cost? The running of the country can only take a back seat for so long while they run their mouths about independence.

These guys are doing such a great job of being "shut up":faf::faf:

https://t.co/ZkYeg9Zv6M

[#FromTheCapital]

These guys are doing such a great job of being "shut up":faf::faf:

https://t.co/ZkYeg9Zv6M

Can you explain how that article is relevant to anything I said? I can't be arsed reading through the whole, undoubtedly biased, article.

[ronaldo7]

The latest YouGov polls don't make for good reading for the SNP. More Scots want to remain in the UK and outside Europe than they want an independent Scotland in Europe.

A straight forward Yes/No to independence also has No in the lead.

Would she call another Referendum without certainty of winning, if she lost then she would be finished and would the SNP not have to seriously reconsider their ultimate aim if they lost 2 votes.

Interesting that no 16 or 17 year olds polled:greengrin

[ronaldo7]

Can you explain how that article is relevant to anything I said? I can't be arsed reading through the whole, undoubtedly biased, article.

It just makes clear, that, nobody is being shut down or shut up by a yougov poll. Something that you want to happen. Free speech in Scotland is still allowed.:wink:

[#FromTheCapital]

It just makes clear, that, nobody is being shut down or shut up by a yougov poll. Something that you want to happen. Free speech in Scotland is still allowed.:wink:

Does it mention the Yougov poll anywhere? Very unlikely seeing as the results were just reported this morning. So in other words it's just another article from a pro independence media outlet, talking about.... Independence.

[ronaldo7]

Does it mention the Yougov poll anywhere? Very unlikely seeing as the results were just reported this morning. So in other words it's just another article from a pro independence media outlet, talking about.... Independence.

It makes reference to people building bridges in Europe with Scotland.

You could always read it, it might open your ears to other views on why we should stay in the EU. On the other hand you could cling to your you gov poll excluding 16 and 17 yr olds.:greengrin

[Glory Lurker]

You have to compare like with like. The YouGov poll shows a slight rise in support for independence compared to the last YouGov poll. Still behind, but no evidence of support stalling.

[degenerated]

The latest YouGov polls don't make for good reading for the SNP. More Scots want to remain in the UK and outside Europe than they want an independent Scotland in Europe.

A straight forward Yes/No to independence also has No in the lead.

Would she call another Referendum without certainty of winning, if she lost then she would be finished and would the SNP not have to seriously reconsider their ultimate aim if they lost 2 votes.
To add some context to that this was the Scotland in Union commissioned poll with a sample of just over 1000 and excluded 16/17 year olds. It also showed an increase of 1% for yes and decrease of same for no.

It does show that it's the 65+ age group who are the most against independence still and that, if my memory serves me correctly, the 50-64 age group are slightly less against the idea than they were previously.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

[#FromTheCapital]

It makes reference to people building bridges in Europe with Scotland.

You could always read it, it might open your ears to other views on why we should stay in the EU. On the other hand you could cling to your you gov poll excluding 16 and 17 yr olds.:greengrin

No my mind is well and truly made up on the independence debate. I'm pretty sure you'd be the same if I asked you to read pro Union articles.

And nobody is clinging to anything, it's just interesting to see that Brexit has not swayed the debate as much as some make out.

[snooky]

Ideally there will be no second referundum until Yes is consistently polling at 60%. There has been not nearly enough work down to win over those required to get Yes over the line. Brexit on its own is not enough.

Personally I would rather that figure was higher (70-75%). The higher the no. the less disgruntled people there will be on the losing side. We don't want a country divided as it was before, during & after the last indy referendum.
I'm a patient man. I'll wait.

[RyeSloan]

Personally I would rather that figure was higher (70-75%). The higher the no. the less disgruntled people there will be on the losing side. We don't want a country divided as it was before, during & after the last indy referendum. I'm a patient man. I'll wait.

I'm not sure what circumstances would need to prevail for such a majority to support Indy.

In my opinion the SNP would be much better off focussing on domestic policies and letting Brexit play out. From my perspective most people who were not already solidly Indy are more than comfortable to see what transpires there before deciding if another Indy ref is even needed no matter how they would vote.

I know they won't though so this Indy2 stuff will rumble on and on and on and on while the SNP demand the majority of Scots are listened to on Brexit while conveniently ignoring the irony of that position when compared to the result on their Indy vote.

[ronaldo7]

No my mind is well and truly made up on the independence debate. I'm pretty sure you'd be the same if I asked you to read pro Union articles.

And nobody is clinging to anything, it's just interesting to see that Brexit has not swayed the debate as much as some make out.

I'm happy that your minds made up. I just wish you'd allow some others to at least make their case instead of telling them to SHUT UP.

It's just not cricket old chap:wink:

[ronaldo7]

March for Independence in Glasgow today.

17248 17249

Flags of many countries just to keep everyone happy.:wink:

[#FromTheCapital]

I'm happy that your minds made up. I just wish you'd allow some others to at least make their case instead of telling them to SHUT UP.

It's just not cricket old chap:wink:

What the hell are you slavering on about now? I didn't tell anyone to shut up, you're talking pish.

[Moulin Yarns]

Surprised that Brexit has had such a minimal effect if that poll is to be believed. The way some were banging on, Brexit was the final nail in the coffin, so hopefully this shuts them up. Although it will be interesting to see a similar poll once the terms of Brexit are clear and we actually leave the EU.

As M59 has pointed out, they still have a lot of work to do... But at what cost? The running of the country can only take a back seat for so long while they run their mouths about independence.


What the hell are you slavering on about now? I didn't tell anyone to shut up, you're talking pish.


I think he means that bit in bold

[#FromTheCapital]

I think he means that bit in bold

Obviously, but where did I tell anyone to shut up? That post was referencing people banging on about Brexit being the final nail in the coffin and me hoping that the yougov poll shuts them up.

[ronaldo7]

What the hell are you slavering on about now? I didn't tell anyone to shut up, you're talking pish.

You seem to be getting in a bit of a rage with this one FTC.

GF has mentioned above where your shut up comments come from.

I'm sure you can see, there are many views, from many different stances on Indyref 2, but their really is no need for the bit in bold...is there?

FWIW, IMO this subject will go for many months and years until Indyref2 happens, hopefully within the Brexit negotiation period so we have a chance to build for Indy.

Have a nice night...I'm out...On the Pish:wink:

[#FromTheCapital]

You seem to be getting in a bit of a rage with this one FTC.

GF has mentioned above where your shut up comments come from.

I'm sure you can see, there are many views, from many different stances on Indyref 2, but their really is no need for the bit in bold...is there?

FWIW, IMO this subject will go for many months and years until Indyref2 happens, hopefully within the Brexit negotiation period so we have a chance to build for Indy.

Have a nice night...I'm out...On the Pish:wink:

It's quite frustrating when someone claims you said something you didn't, but perhaps I overreacted, so my apologies if you took offence. Have a good night, please don't slaver pish to any angry people like myself ;-)

[ronaldo7]

Possibly the best piece I've seen written on the Named Person Scheme. Balanced and Fair.

https://t.co/30gkuTCX1a

[RyeSloan]

Possibly the best piece I've seen written on the Named Person Scheme. Balanced and Fair. https://t.co/30gkuTCX1a


Agree. It's not a piece of legislation I have too much interest in but there is no doubt that children are amongst the most vulnerable in our society and suffer the most when let down by the authorities / parents so looking to help and protect them is surely a laudable aim.

A few thoughts do spring to mind tho..

Why the Tories voted for it then quite suddenly became rather vociferous opponents?

Why it has to cover ALL children, to me this does smell of over reach. I'm not sure why it can't be enacted by some sort of trigger... A child's first involvement with social work or questions raised by the school or a relative etc. Seems to me that a lot of Children simply won't need to be covered by the scheme yet a large minority may well benefit so the one size fits all approach looks weighty and has maybe contributed to the noise around it.

Back to the article though and have to say it's calls for a less hostile approach from all, consideration as to why the law failed it's examination from the bench and a reminder of what the ultimate aim of the laws were was a rather refreshingly balanced view that would be well served to be replicated by our MSM and our politicians.

[Mr Grieves]

Possibly the best piece I've seen written on the Named Person Scheme. Balanced and Fair.

https://t.co/30gkuTCX1a

Yep, this is good too.

http://bit.ly/2aczlcN


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

Yep, this is good too.

http://bit.ly/2aczlcN


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

:agree:

[heretoday]

The named person thingy seems like a pretty good idea to me.

A lot of people shouldn't have kids at all. They are passing on their ghastly attitudes to the new generation.

[snooky]

Totally against this named person issue.
Definitely a bad move by the SNP no matter what the good intentions.
Think again!!!!!!

[cabbageandribs1875]

[QUOTE=ronaldo7;4775214]March for Independence in Glasgow today.

17248 17249

Flags of many countries just to keep everyone happy.:wink:[/QUOT



what a braw sight indeed :agree:

[Dashing Bob S]

I think it will be a more boring, right wing, pro business, status quo Yes campaign this time around, and I think it will be successful.

It's difficult to see anybody who isn't a right wing fascistic type seriously arguing that Scotland should move out of Europe to attach itself to a maverick, Tory dominated English nationalist state, as a branch economy and intolerated minority within that state.

[johnbc70]

The named person thingy seems like a pretty good idea to me.

A lot of people shouldn't have kids at all. They are passing on their ghastly attitudes to the new generation.
Is that in general, or are you saying if you oppose the scheme and don't agree with your view then that's a ghastly attitude?