Indy Ref 2

[grunt]

We would be back into Europe within a few years should that be what want or from my point of view somewhere in between rather than a your coming with us whether you like it or not attitude permeating from the Westminster government.By then it might be too late - we may have lost our fishing fleet or our farms, if we can't stop them being given away in May's "negotiations" - i.e. great British giveaway.

[Bristolhibby]

Referendum debate shouldn't be put back but I'm comfortable enough to leave a referendum till later to know exactly what we are voting ourselves into or rather out of. That means months after a Brexit deal becomes known rather than years.
We would be back into Europe within a few years should that be what want or from my point of view somewhere in between rather than a your coming with us whether you like it or not attitude permeating from the Westminster government.

Thing is the time table is tight, there's a small window where the deal is known and Scotland is still in the EU. In theory this is the best time to call it as it opens the negotiations back up with the EU and gives Scots the chance to assess both options.

It makes sense IMHO to set up all the necessary governance before any referendum, hence the vote next week in Holyrood.

Incidently I believe the Tories will make a total arse of the "deal" and it won't really be a choice for Scots to make as the remain (in U.K.) option will be so *****.

J

[TheReg!]

No! It's just what I think, I did say that in my previous post and the polls seem to back what I am saying.

Correct 👍🏻

[ronaldo7]

So Theresa thinks it would be unfair to ask us to vote on Independence without knowing what the Brexit deal is...I thought we done that in June last year.

[ronaldo7]

We're already in a horrid place, and not from our own choice.


Exactly. One key reason why May wants to hang on to Scotland during her Brexit negotiations is so she can use our assets in exchange for favours from the EU. She doesn't care for the Scottish people, just what she can use us for. More bargaining chips for her.

There's also the issue that if she waits until we're out of the EU before she "allows" our referendum, then those EU people in Scotland will no longer have a vote in the referendum. This is gerrymandering, I think.

SNP Conference this week end. Some branches are ahead of the game.:aok:

18233

[Bristolhibby]

SNP Conference this week end. Some branches are ahead of the game.:aok:

18233

Excellent. How can this be made law?

It's right and proper that all people who call Scotland their home should be allowed to vote.

J

[ronaldo7]

Excellent. How can this be made law?

It's right and proper that all people who call Scotland their home should be allowed to vote.

J

Change the franchise, although lots of water to go under the bridge.

[Jack]

Quite happy with that call from May. I want to know what I am voting for in terms of EU membership in the next referendum, not ifs buts and maybes and on the say so of some Spanish dude nobody has heard of.

Thing is the Scottish Government have called the referendum in 18 to 24 months.

Article 50 is due to be called in the next week or so.

Two years from that date the negotiations must be CONCLUDED. That basically means 18 months negotiations done and dusted and 6 months within the 24 to go through the EU stuff or no deal.

The Scottish Parliament will ask next Wednesday for a referendum in that final 6 months. That is when we know what the deal is if there is to be one.

If it is not agreed by Westminster all sorts of international law kicks in.

Self determination needn't be sorted out by bombs and bullets before the international community gets twitchy.

[ronaldo7]

Thing is the Scottish Government have called the referendum in 18 to 24 months.

Article 50 is due to be called in the next week or so.

Two years from that date the negotiations must be CONCLUDED. That basically means 18 months negotiations done and dusted and 6 months within the 24 to go through the EU stuff or no deal.

The Scottish Parliament will ask next Wednesday for a referendum in that final 6 months. That is when we know what the deal is if there is to be one.

If it is not agreed by Westminster all sorts of international law kicks in.

Self determination needn't be sorted out by bombs and bullets before the international community gets twitchy.


The right to self determination.

Article 1 (2) establishes that one of the main purposes of the United Nations, and thus the Security Council, is to develop friendly international relations based on respect for the “principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”. The case studies in this section cover instances where the Security Council has discussed situations with a bearing on the principle of self-determination and the right of peoples to decide their own government, which may relate to the questions of independence, autonomy, referenda, elections, and the legitimacy of governments.

[Jack]

The right to self determination.

Article 1 (2) establishes that one of the main purposes of the United Nations, and thus the Security Council, is to develop friendly international relations based on respect for the “principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”. The case studies in this section cover instances where the Security Council has discussed situations with a bearing on the principle of self-determination and the right of peoples to decide their own government, which may relate to the questions of independence, autonomy, referenda, elections, and the legitimacy of governments.

Call in the big boys 😂

[hibs0666]

SNP Conference this week end. Some branches are ahead of the game.:aok:

18233

Why stop there? Why should Scots living in other parts of the UK not get a vote too?

[hibs0666]

Thing is the Scottish Government have called the referendum in 18 to 24 months.

Article 50 is due to be called in the next week or so.

Two years from that date the negotiations must be CONCLUDED. That basically means 18 months negotiations done and dusted and 6 months within the 24 to go through the EU stuff or no deal.

The Scottish Parliament will ask next Wednesday for a referendum in that final 6 months. That is when we know what the deal is if there is to be one.

If it is not agreed by Westminster all sorts of international law kicks in.

Self determination needn't be sorted out by bombs and bullets before the international community gets twitchy.

I would concede that campaigning for a referendum could start in the final 6 months at the earliest. A referendum could then be held around September 2020.

[JeMeSouviens]

Why stop there? Why should Scots living in other parts of the UK not get a vote too?

They have made their lives somewhere else. The obvious corollary to your question would be that all non-Scots resident in Scotland should be denied a vote which would obviously be completely ridiculous.

[Bristolhibby]

They have made their lives somewhere else. The obvious corollary to your question would be that all non-Scots resident in Scotland should be denied a vote which would obviously be completely ridiculous.

This, no vote for me, my brother, Mum or Dad. We all live down in England. I'm totally cool with that. Equally my cousins English husband and other cousins Polish wife should get the vote.

J

[hibs0666]

They have made their lives somewhere else. The obvious corollary to your question would be that all non-Scots resident in Scotland should be denied a vote which would obviously be completely ridiculous.

All these people have done is make their lives in another part of the same country. There is an argument to say that Scottish people living in the same country should be allowed a vote.

[JeMeSouviens]

All these people have done is make their lives in another part of the same country. There is an argument to say that Scottish people living in the same country should be allowed a vote.

No, there really isn't. Elections and referenda (CWG - I've decided to alternate) should be decided by the people who will live with the result. None of your blood and soil stuff please.

[ronaldo7]

Why stop there? Why should Scots living in other parts of the UK not get a vote too?


Ah, I'm off your ignore list.:greengrin

The vote is in Scotland, it's for the residents of Scotland to vote IMO.

[Jack]

Why stop there? Why should Scots living in other parts of the UK not get a vote too?

They're not on the electoral role. It's simple, it always has been.

They can vote for their local Mayor though!

[RyeSloan]

The right to self determination.

Article 1 (2) establishes that one of the main purposes of the United Nations, and thus the Security Council, is to develop friendly international relations based on respect for the “principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”. The case studies in this section cover instances where the Security Council has discussed situations with a bearing on the principle of self-determination and the right of peoples to decide their own government, which may relate to the questions of independence, autonomy, referenda, elections, and the legitimacy of governments.

Aka Scotland's Independence referendum in the year of our lord 2014 [emoji57]

[Colr]

All these people have done is make their lives in another part of the same country. There is an argument to say that Scottish people living in the same country should be allowed a vote.

That wouldn't be right - its about place not race. Different kind of nationalism all together.

I should definitely not have a vote in this.

[Moulin Yarns]

All these people have done is make their lives in another part of the same country. There is an argument to say that Scottish people living in the same country should be allowed a vote.

Am I missing something in your post?

Scots and people of other nationalities resident in Scotland can vote, but Scots and people of other nationalities not resident in Scotland can't vote. Surely that is fair.

[G B Young]

I mean most Scots will welcome her putting indyref2 on the back burner until Brexit has been dealt with.

Absolutely. The PM has an exceptionally capable leader of the Scottish Conservatives in Ruth Davidson, somebody who has her finger on the pulse of Scottish public opinion and I believe she will have correctly advised the PM that a 'not never, just not now' response to the SNP's demand for another referendum is in accord with the majority view among voters in Scotland.

If Sturgeon had been allowed to fire the starting gun on another independence referendum we'd have had two years of her stoking the flames of perceived injustice and muddying the waters of the Brexit negotiations to paint any prospective deal as bad for Scotland ie to suit the SNP's independence agenda. Sadly, we'll still get the two years of whinging but thankfully without another referendum at the end of it - and hopefully by then an increasing majority will have tired of the SNP's incessant negativity.

As things stand, there's nothing to say Scotland won't emerge from Brexit with a good deal and the UK's energies should be focused on that above all else.

[grunt]

... I believe she will have correctly advised the PM that a 'not never, just not now' response to the SNP's demand for another referendum is in accord with the majority view among voters in Scotland.I think her actual phrase was, "now is not the time". In fact I believe she said it 6 times in the interview. Really, this woman should not be leading the country.

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-03-16/may-rules-out-sturgeons-call-for-second-scottish-referendum-saying-now-is-not-the-time/


As things stand, there's nothing to say Scotland won't emerge from Brexit with a good deal and the UK's energies should be focused on that above all else.Nothing to say this?? Really????

[Peevemor]

Am I missing something in your post?

Scots and people of other nationalities resident in Scotland can vote, but Scots and people of other nationalities not resident in Scotland can't vote. Surely that is fair.

As and expat (and therefore can't vote) I find that totally fair and wouldn't have it any other way.

[G B Young]

Nothing to say this?? Really????

What evidence to you have that we won't get a satisfactory deal? Fishing rights and farming rights for example could be devolved to Scotland from Brussels. They're not reserved to Westminster and under Parliamentary legislation anything not reserved to Westminster will go to Holyrood.

Without knowing what's in store it seems irresponsible to try and sow further division on an already unsettled landscape by demanding a referendum that is not presently wanted by a majority of Scottish voters.

[ronaldo7]

What evidence to you have that we won't get a satisfactory deal? Fishing rights and farming rights for example could be devolved to Scotland from Brussels. They're not reserved to Westminster and under Parliamentary legislation anything not reserved to Westminster will go to Holyrood.

Without knowing what's in store it seems irresponsible to try and sow further division on an already unsettled landscape by demanding a referendum that is not presently wanted by a majority of Scottish voters.

You're right, nobody knows what the deal, if any, is going to be, however when our MP's have asked, particularly about Fishing, and Farming, they've not had an answer, so how can you say powers will come to Holyrood?

I notice you said COULD be devolved.:wink:

[grunt]

What evidence to you have that we won't get a satisfactory deal? Fishing rights and farming rights for example could be devolved to Scotland from Brussels. They're not reserved to Westminster and under Parliamentary legislation anything not reserved to Westminster will go to Holyrood.

Without knowing what's in store it seems irresponsible to try and sow further division on an already unsettled landscape by demanding a referendum that is not presently wanted by a majority of Scottish voters.There's too many reasons to indicate why we won't get a good deal and I don't have time just now. Let's just start from the position that any deal we do get - if we indeed get one - will be inferior to what we've already got. The EU have stated that and why wouldn't they? It's not in their interest to have countries leaving the EU on better terms than they had staying in.

Not only are we leaving the EU, but - without consultation - May has stated we're also leaving the single market and the Customs Union. So not only will we have inferior deals, but all the non trade benefits will be removed as well.

May has refused to confirm that fishing rights and farming rights *will* be devolved to Scotland. Like everything else, she's holding onto those as a possible bargaining chip. And she may even give them up to the EU if she needs to barter them for something more important to England such as financial passporting rights.

And if you remember Davis' pathetic performance earlier this week, we shouldn't be looking to "no deal" as being a possible solution. Even the Leave campaign said that having no deal would be disastrous. They said before the referendum that "One can say, unequivocally, that the UK could not survive as a trading nation by relying on the WTO Option. It would be an unmitigated disaster, and no responsible government should allow it."

It's not the Scottish Government that is being irresponsible.

[Kavinho]

What evidence to you have that we won't get a satisfactory deal? Fishing rights and farming rights for example could be devolved to Scotland from Brussels. They're not reserved to Westminster and under Parliamentary legislation anything not reserved to Westminster will go to Holyrood.

Without knowing what's in store it seems irresponsible to try and sow further division on an already unsettled landscape by demanding a referendum that is not presently wanted by a majority of Scottish voters.



No one has any evidence of a future event, mate...

Is your point something that you feel should apply to all, yourself included?

[ronaldo7]

SNP Conference photobombed by Scotland in union this morning. Someone should tell them the meaning of Dumb.

18236

[Bristolhibby]

You're right, nobody knows what the deal, if any, is going to be, however when our MP's have asked, particularly about Fishing, and Farming, they've not had an answer, so how can you say powers will come to Holyrood?

I notice you said COULD be devolved.:wink:

Thing is we will know the shape of the deal pretty quickly. If Tory Westminster gets concessions for the city of London by in effect selling off Scotlands Fisheries and agriculture, then we will know quite quickly what's going on.

J

[ronaldo7]

Thing is we will know the shape of the deal pretty quickly. If Tory Westminster gets concessions for the city of London by in effect selling off Scotlands Fisheries and agriculture, then we will know quite quickly what's going on.

J

We'll know the deal hopefully after the 18 months of negotiations, and yes, Fishing may have been sold out again. We've already asked the UK gov the guarantee that all powers currently devolved should remain so, and not be grabbed by Westminster. They've not answered yet.

[G B Young]

You're right, nobody knows what the deal, if any, is going to be, however when our MP's have asked, particularly about Fishing, and Farming, they've not had an answer, so how can you say powers will come to Holyrood?

I notice you said COULD be devolved.:wink:

I can't say for sure the powers will come to Holyrood. As you say, nobody knows that yet. Which is why I feel there needs to be some breathing space given to the Brexit negotiations. The issue has already illustrated just how complicated a business it is to extricate ourselves from a union of nations so to pin a divisive Scottish referendum on the coat tails of Brexit seems plain reckless.

Had the PM waved through the SNP demands for a referendum you can be sure any attempt to offer something positive to Scotland during the Brexit negotiations would be painted in a negative light by the Nicola Sturgeon & co in a bid to undermine any genuine progress. They will still try to do so without a referendum in the offing but the hope must be that the wider public will see their efforts as little more than divisive and increasingly desperate, particularly if we do see positive signs for Scotland emerging from the negotiations.

As George Galloway once put it, Scotland is not an occupied territory. It is a nation in its own right with extensive devolved parliamentary powers. The pity is that the SNP's lamentable record in actually governing the country means these powers to a large extent go to waste while they prioritise at all costs their independence obsession.

[G B Young]

No one has any evidence of a future event, mate...

Is your point something that you feel should apply to all, yourself included?

If you're suggesting I'm using divisive rhetoric I would disagree. I like to think it's reasoned debate and I hope all on here are able to express their views in a respectful and rational mannter.

[ronaldo7]

Excellent. How can this be made law?

It's right and proper that all people who call Scotland their home should be allowed to vote.

J

Resolution carried at conference. Onto the next stage.

[ronaldo7]

I can't say for sure the powers will come to Holyrood. As you say, nobody knows that yet. Which is why I feel there needs to be some breathing space given to the Brexit negotiations. The issue has already illustrated just how complicated a business it is to extricate ourselves from a union of nations so to pin a divisive Scottish referendum on the coat tails of Brexit seems plain reckless.

Had the PM waved through the SNP demands for a referendum you can be sure any attempt to offer something positive to Scotland during the Brexit negotiations would be painted in a negative light by the Nicola Sturgeon & co in a bid to undermine any genuine progress. They will still try to do so without a referendum in the offing but the hope must be that the wider public will see their efforts as little more than divisive and increasingly desperate, particularly if we do see positive signs for Scotland emerging from the negotiations.

As George Galloway once put it, Scotland is not an occupied territory. It is a nation in its own right with extensive devolved parliamentary powers. The pity is that the SNP's lamentable record in actually governing the country means these powers to a large extent go to waste while they prioritise at all costs their independence obsession.

Thanks for that. Just as I thought. With regards to the timescale and the breathing space you ask for, is 18 months not enough?

Second bit in bold. You're doing it again, how can you be sure?

[snooky]

I can't say for sure the powers will come to Holyrood. As you say, nobody knows that yet. Which is why I feel there needs to be some breathing space given to the Brexit negotiations. The issue has already illustrated just how complicated a business it is to extricate ourselves from a union of nations so to pin a divisive Scottish referendum on the coat tails of Brexit seems plain reckless.

Had the PM waved through the SNP demands for a referendum you can be sure any attempt to offer something positive to Scotland during the Brexit negotiations would be painted in a negative light by the Nicola Sturgeon & co in a bid to undermine any genuine progress. They will still try to do so without a referendum in the offing but the hope must be that the wider public will see their efforts as little more than divisive and increasingly desperate, particularly if we do see positive signs for Scotland emerging from the negotiations.

As George Galloway once put it, Scotland is not an occupied territory. It is a nation in its own right with extensive devolved parliamentary powers. The pity is that the SNP's lamentable record in actually governing the country means these powers to a large extent go to waste while they prioritise at all costs their independence obsession.

While I agree there are things I don't like regarding the Holyrood government's performance, I think we have to keep in mind the analogy of a greyhound getting slagged off for not winning the race in which its master kept it on the lead. :wink:

[JeMeSouviens]

]I can't say for sure the powers will come to Holyrood. As you say, nobody knows that yet.[/B] Which is why I feel there needs to be some breathing space given to the Brexit negotiations. The issue has already illustrated just how complicated a business it is to extricate ourselves from a union of nations so to pin a divisive Scottish referendum on the coat tails of Brexit seems plain reckless.

Had the PM waved through the SNP demands for a referendum you can be sure any attempt to offer something positive to Scotland during the Brexit negotiations would be painted in a negative light by the Nicola Sturgeon & co in a bid to undermine any genuine progress. They will still try to do so without a referendum in the offing but the hope must be that the wider public will see their efforts as little more than divisive and increasingly desperate, particularly if we do see positive signs for Scotland emerging from the negotiations.

As George Galloway once put it, Scotland is not an occupied territory. It is a nation in its own right with extensive devolved parliamentary powers. The pity is that the SNP's lamentable record in actually governing the country means these powers to a large extent go to waste while they prioritise at all costs their independence obsession.

1. on ag and fish - what we do know is that as you already said, neither are reserved powers, so it will take specific new legislation to stop them coming under the control of the Scottish parliament. There is no way the Scot gov will say anything other than that they want them, so the UK gov will have to ride roughshod over the top.

2. Bit in bold - Then why not try and compromise? Most people regard the Scot gov proposals for a differentiated solution as a brave try but unlikely to be entertained in Euroland. Why didn't the UK gov promise to take them forward anyway? It wouldn't be their fault if the EU27 won't go for them. Instead we get a crass, arrogant completely blank non-response to the proposals, presumably either because the UK gov is actually crass and arrogant or because they're **** scared of the Mail and the Telegraph.

3. While the state of Scotland's public services might not be great, they seem to be a little better than England's and a good bit better than Wales'. If you think our government is lamentable, what does that say about the UK Tories and Welsh Labour?

[JeMeSouviens]

btw, UJ waving Tory quotes Galloway - are we at peak surreal yet? :confused:

[grunt]

As George Galloway once put it, Scotland is not an occupied territory. It is a nation in its own right with extensive devolved parliamentary powers. The pity is that the SNP's lamentable record in actually governing the country means these powers to a large extent go to waste while they prioritise at all costs their independence obsession.I'm sorry but I'm not paying any attention to anything said by that halfwit.

[ACLeith]

I'm sorry but I'm not paying any attention to anything said by that halfwit.

I object to your use of the term "halfwit". He isn't nearly as bright as that 🙄

[Mikey]

It's likely to be a few years off yet, but if/when the time comes I'll want the answer to these questions.....

What currency will we use?

Do the sums add up without oil?

How long will it take to get Scotland back into the EU?


In the meantime I'll just kick back and watch the pointscoring :greengrin

[southfieldhibby]

Absolutely. The PM has an exceptionally capable leader of the Scottish Conservatives in Ruth Davidson, somebody who has her finger on the pulse of Scottish public opinion and I believe she will have correctly advised the PM that a 'not never, just not now' response to the SNP's demand for another referendum is in accord with the majority view among voters in Scotland.



I think her abilities and leadership are significantly over estimated, propped up by a fawning media happy there's someone with even a gram of personality. She's sways in the wind and only managed to get into Parliament on the back of Edinburgh folk voting Green.

She's clearly aiming for a job down south. A career politician from the same mould as Jim Murphy.

[G B Young]

Thanks for that. Just as I thought. With regards to the timescale and the breathing space you ask for, is 18 months not enough?

Second bit in bold. You're doing it again, how can you be sure?

I'm not coming on here claiming to have some sort of inside knowledge, just expressing my opinion. I can't be sure any of what I suggest will come to pass but I think it's a reasonable guess to assume the SNP will pour cold water on anything that undermines their agenda.

[G B Young]

I think her abilities and leadership are significantly over estimated, propped up by a fawning media happy there's someone with even a gram of personality. She's sways in the wind and only managed to get into Parliament on the back of Edinburgh folk voting Green.

She's clearly aiming for a job down south. A career politician from the same mould as Jim Murphy.

She took Edinburgh Central from the SNP, increasing the Conservative vote by 15% in a constituency where they previously finished fourth. That's impressive.

[G B Young]

btw, UJ waving Tory quotes Galloway - are we at peak surreal yet? :confused:

Galloway was a very fine orator at his best. I agree he's gone off the rails but I was impressed by the way he spoke during both the Iraq conflict and the 2014 referendum.

It's not forbidden to respect those of a different political persuasion. Witness Mhairi Black of the SNP who said of Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg: "I could sit and listen to him all day. I disagree with him 99.9% of the time but I love listening to him, his knowledge is incredible and he's so polite."

[Moulin Yarns]

I think her abilities and leadership are significantly over estimated, propped up by a fawning media happy there's someone with even a gram of personality. She's sways in the wind and only managed to get into Parliament on the back of Edinburgh folk voting Green.

She's clearly aiming for a job down south. A career politician from the same mould as Jim Murphy.

How does voting Green elect a Conservative MSP? Those voting Green elected 2 Green MSPs.

[southfieldhibby]

She took Edinburgh Central from the SNP, increasing the Conservative vote by 15% in a constituency where they previously finished fourth. That's impressive.

She did all of the above. She managed it thru an increase of tory voters and other parts of the electorate- previously SNP voters- opting to vote ( as is their right obviously) for The Green candidate. Won with a margin of 610 votes, so hardly spectacular in that respect.

[northstandhibby]

She took Edinburgh Central from the SNP, increasing the Conservative vote by 15% in a constituency where they previously finished fourth. That's impressive.

To be honest I don't think she has the political guile required to have advised the PM on this particular strategy of not now but not never. I accept she is a clever person however she appears straight-forwardly gormless to me which appeals to some, but then again could be part of her act but I doubt it very much. I think the adopted strategy was developed in cabinet meetings on how to approach the issue of indy ref 2 with the more machiavellian type idea of not now but not never winning. I detest the tories but cede it was a brilliant strategy by appearing both in control and diplomatic.

glory glory

[Beefster]

A career politician from the same mould as Jim Murphy.

I'm not sure you know what 'career politician' means. In any case, Davidson isn't one.

[ronaldo7]

I'm not coming on here claiming to have some sort of inside knowledge, just expressing my opinion. I can't be sure any of what I suggest will come to pass but I think it's a reasonable guess to assume the SNP will pour cold water on anything that undermines their agenda.

Care to answer the question.

[southfieldhibby]

I'm not sure you know what 'career politician' means. In any case, Davidson isn't one.

You might be right. I was under the impression she went from university, had a year or so at the BBC before failing a couple of times to get elected, became a special advisor then got elected. She'll be drawn by the calls of Westminster soon enough, furthering her political career.

[JeMeSouviens]

We will maintain that a referendum should not take place unless there is clear public consent for it to happen.

A majority of the public's parliamentary representatives voting for a policy proposed in the governing party's manifesto is *exactly* that. Isn't it? :confused:

[Moulin Yarns]

A majority of the public's parliamentary representatives voting for a policy proposed in the governing party's manifesto is *exactly* that. Isn't it? :confused:

That's what they don't get. It is always seen, even by some on Hibs.net, as only the SNP, and I hope that the lead is taken by the likes of Common Weal rather than political parties

[johnbc70]

It's likely to be a few years off yet, but if/when the time comes I'll want the answer to these questions.....

What currency will we use?

Do the sums add up without oil?

How long will it take to get Scotland back into the EU?


In the meantime I'll just kick back and watch the pointscoring :greengrin

Ssssshhhhh don't ask difficult questions, it's not allowed.

[ronaldo7]

Ssssshhhhh don't ask difficult questions, it's not allowed.

Brexit means Brexit.:wink:

[Slavers]

Ssssshhhhh don't ask difficult questions, it's not allowed.

How many long years have the SNP had to produce a plan that works for iScotland and yet they still don't want to commit to any details, they are not even sure if they want in the EU now whilst slating the UK for voting to leave.

They have the brass neck to complain about Brexit whilst there own plans for iScotland are clear as mud.

[ronaldo7]

How many long years have the SNP had to produce a plan that works for iScotland and yet they still don't want to commit to any details, they are not even sure if they want in the EU now whilst slating the UK for voting to leave.

They have the brass neck to complain about Brexit whilst there own plans for iScotland are clear as mud.

Evidence please.

And while I've got your attention, could you answer the questions I asked of you on the Brexit thread post 852 You may have missed it. Cheers.

[Moulin Yarns]

How many long years have the SNP had to produce a plan that works for iScotland and yet they still don't want to commit to any details, they are not even sure if they want in the EU now whilst slating the UK for voting to leave.

They have the brass neck to complain about Brexit whilst there own plans for iScotland are clear as mud.

My Post just above yours, and still the mistake is made!


That's what they don't get. It is always seen, even by some on Hibs.net, as only the SNP, and I hope that the lead is taken by the likes of Common Weal rather than political parties

[JeMeSouviens]

How many long years have the SNP had to produce a plan that works for iScotland and yet they still don't want to commit to any details, they are not even sure if they want in the EU now whilst slating the UK for voting to leave.

They have the brass neck to complain about Brexit whilst there own plans for iScotland are clear as mud.

Don't think so. I think they are deciding whether to offer a confirmation referendum on the EU post indy to get pro-indy leavers onside but SNP policy will definitely be full EU membership.

Mind you, I admit they are so far making a pig's arse of articulating this.

[northstandhibby]

Evidence please.

And while I've got your attention, could you answer the questions I asked of you on the Brexit thread post 852 You may have missed it. Cheers.

As there's no referenced authoritative sources accompanying the post/s its quite obvious its his or her opinion probably based on their perception. Quite similar to the majority of us.

glory glory

[grunt]

How many long years have the SNP had to produce a plan that works for iScotland and yet they still don't want to commit to any details, they are not even sure if they want in the EU now whilst slating the UK for voting to leave.

Here's some quotes from the Scottish Government White Paper called "Scotland's Place in Europe".

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/12/9234


On 23 June, the people of Scotland voted categorically and decisively to remain within the European Union (EU).

Although the concerns of those who voted to leave must be listened to and addressed, there is clearly a strong desire in Scotland to be a full and active member of the European family of nations. The Scottish Government shares that desire.



At the heart of the proposals in this document, and our proposals for any EU negotiations, we are determined to maintain Scotland's current position in the European Single Market.

The Scottish people did not vote for Brexit, and a "hard Brexit" would severely damage Scotland's economic, social and cultural interests. It will hit jobs and living standards - deeply and permanently. That is why we are so determined to avoid it.

[ronaldo7]

As there's no referenced authoritative sources accompanying the post/s its quite obvious its his or her opinion probably based on their perception. Quite similar to the majority of us.

glory glory

Cheers.

What is the SNP’s position on the EU?
The SNP believe that EU membership delivers many social, economic and cultural benefits for individuals, business and communities across Scotland. We believe that the best way to build a more prosperous and equal Scotland is to be a full independent member of the EU.*

On 23 June Scotland voted emphatically to remain in the EU. The SNP’s priority now is to protect Scotland’s interests. *We are considering all possible options to ensure Scotland’s continuing relationship with Europe, and published our paper*Scotland’s Place in Europe*in December to set out our proposals.

At the heart of the proposals is a framework to keep Scotland’s place in the European Single Market. A Tory hard Brexit, outside the single market, threatens to cost Scotland 80,000 jobs over a decade and cost people an average of £2,000 in wages. Retaining our place in the Single Market would avoid that. You can read more about these proposals*here.

The SNP doesn’t believe the EU is perfect and agree that it needs reform, however we want Scotland to have a louder voice in Europe, an increased contribution to EU policy making and an opportunity to be part of discussions about reform, rather than becoming even more distant by removing ourselves altogether.

[northstandhibby]

Cheers.

What is the SNP’s position on the EU?
The SNP believe that EU membership delivers many social, economic and cultural benefits for individuals, business and communities across Scotland. We believe that the best way to build a more prosperous and equal Scotland is to be a full independent member of the EU.*

On 23 June Scotland voted emphatically to remain in the EU. The SNP’s priority now is to protect Scotland’s interests. *We are considering all possible options to ensure Scotland’s continuing relationship with Europe, and published our paper*Scotland’s Place in Europe*in December to set out our proposals.

At the heart of the proposals is a framework to keep Scotland’s place in the European Single Market. A Tory hard Brexit, outside the single market, threatens to cost Scotland 80,000 jobs over a decade and cost people an average of £2,000 in wages. Retaining our place in the Single Market would avoid that. You can read more about these proposals*here.

The SNP doesn’t believe the EU is perfect and agree that it needs reform, however we want Scotland to have a louder voice in Europe, an increased contribution to EU policy making and an opportunity to be part of discussions about reform, rather than becoming even more distant by removing ourselves altogether.

Your'e welcome!

However, it doesn't mean one has to believe the referenced authoritative sources. Its still the readers choice whether or not to use their own judgement and perception in order to form a view and their own opinion of course.

:greengrin

glory glory

[grunt]

However, it doesn't mean one has to believe the referenced authoritative sources. Its still the readers choice whether or not to use their own judgement and perception in order to form a view and their own opinion of course.

:greengrin

glory gloryInteresting viewpoint. However, I might suggest that when the "authoritative source" is the Scottish Government's own publication, then having your own, different, view on what the Scottish Government's position is, would be a difficult opinion to justify.

[ronaldo7]

Your'e welcome!

However, it doesn't mean one has to believe the referenced authoritative sources. Its still the readers choice whether or not to use their own judgement and perception in order to form a view and their own opinion of course.

:greengrin

glory glory

My post is referenced from the SNP policy handbook.

You're welcome.:aok::greengrin

[G B Young]

Care to answer the question.

Sorry, been logged out for a few hours. Remind me which question that was?

[johnbc70]

SNP supporters quite rightly criticise UK Gov for having no supposed Brexit plan so why is it an issue when SNP get criticised for not having a currency plan for example? Dont tell me there is a plan, if there is tell me the currency we will use in iScotland? A plan for a plan is not the same.

[ronaldo7]

Sorry, been logged out for a few hours. Remind me which question that was?

Post 535

[G B Young]

Post 535

Do I think 18 months is enough?

Personally no. As I said in an earlier post, I think with the SNP now lobbying for a referendum it will disrupt already complex and divisive negotiations yet further and muddy the waters when it comes to trying to thrash out an acceptable deal. Coupled with the fact that EU-related debate or negotiations often go down to the wire I would predict that Scottish voters won't have a full picture of the exit terms until very late in the process. Not time enough to make an informed choice.

Just my opinion, nothing more concrete than that.

[northstandhibby]

Interesting viewpoint. However, I might suggest that when the "authoritative source" is the Scottish Government's own publication, then having your own, different, view on what the Scottish Government's position is, would be a difficult opinion to justify.

Folk are entitled to form their own view of just about anything they wish to.

glory glory

[grunt]

Folk are entitled to form their own view of just about anything they wish to.

glory glory
I agree. Which is why I said it would be difficult to justify.

[northstandhibby]

I agree. Which is why I said it would be difficult to justify.

Not really as its up to whoever is reading their formed opinions whether to give it credence or not.

glory glory

[grunt]

Not really as its up to whoever is reading their formed opinions whether to give it credence or not.

glory glory
Ok. If you say so.

[ronaldo7]

Do I think 18 months is enough?

Personally no. As I said in an earlier post, I think with the SNP now lobbying for a referendum it will disrupt already complex and divisive negotiations yet further and muddy the waters when it comes to trying to thrash out an acceptable deal. Coupled with the fact that EU-related debate or negotiations often go down to the wire I would predict that Scottish voters won't have a full picture of the exit terms until very late in the process. Not time enough to make an informed choice.

Just my opinion, nothing more concrete than that.

Thanks for that,

So 18 months breathing space not being enough for the Scottish Electorate to follow what the UK gov and the EU are discussing. A deal has to be reached at the end of that period to enable all other parliaments to vote on the deal, unless the UK Gov walk away.

We have a 6 month window for the Scottish Electorate who will have seen the deal to then be able to vote in our Referendum.

What's wrong with that?

[northstandhibby]

Ok. If you say so.

:greengrin

Fair dos mate. I'm not looking to argue or come across as a smart erchie so no probs bud, we're all hi bees so its all good.

:flag:

glory glory

[G B Young]

Thanks for that,

So 18 months breathing space not being enough for the Scottish Electorate to follow what the UK gov and the EU are discussing. A deal has to be reached at the end of that period to enable all other parliaments to vote on the deal, unless the UK Gov walk away.

We have a 6 month window for the Scottish Electorate who will have seen the deal to then be able to vote in our Referendum.

What's wrong with that?

Nothing wrong with that if that's your view. I just don't happen to agree. But then I'm against a second referendum full stop so we'd probably struggle to find a lot of common ground on when it should be held.

Anyway, it's past 5pm on a Friday so time to log off and focus on the finer things in life like the Hibees...have a good weekend.

[ronaldo7]

Nothing wrong with that if that's your view. I just don't happen to agree. But then I'm against a second referendum full stop so we'd probably struggle to find a lot of common ground on when it should be held.

Anyway, it's past 5pm on a Friday so time to log off and focus on the finer things in life like the Hibees...have a good weekend.

:aok:

[Bristolhibby]

Can I just say

Glory, Glory to the Hibees!

Thanks

J

[JeMeSouviens]

Can I just say

Glory, Glory to the Hibees!

Thanks

J

We're all Pat Stanton's bairns? :wink:

[CropleyWasGod]

We're all Pat Stanton's bairns? :wink:

Statistically, more likely to be Leigh Griffiths' bairns, no?

[JeMeSouviens]

Statistically, more likely to be Leigh Griffiths' bairns, no?

At my age, not so much.

[Peevemor]

SNP supporters quite rightly criticise UK Gov for having no supposed Brexit plan so why is it an issue when SNP get criticised for not having a currency plan for example? Dont tell me there is a plan, if there is tell me the currency we will use in iScotland? A plan for a plan is not the same.
In 2014 the SNP favoured continuing with the pound. Westminster said no you can't do that (even though the pound isn't exclusively their's). This time round it'll be our of the question for an iScotland to be in a currency union with a non EU rUK, therefore we can expect a more definite plan for a post independence currency.

I can't believe people are already knocking the SNP for a lack of plans/information. Indyref 2 has yet to be rubber stamped by Holyrood.

[snooky]

Do I think 18 months is enough?

Personally no. As I said in an earlier post, I think with the SNP now lobbying for a referendum it will disrupt already complex and divisive negotiations yet further and muddy the waters when it comes to trying to thrash out an acceptable deal. Coupled with the fact that EU-related debate or negotiations often go down to the wire I would predict that Scottish voters won't have a full picture of the exit terms until very late in the process. Not time enough to make an informed choice.

Just my opinion, nothing more concrete than that.

I agree with you, GBY.
This is the wrong time and the for the wrong reason however, if the house is on fire and you're standing on the window ledge you don't have many options.

[lucky]

I'm against holding another referendum but respect the right of the Scottish parliament to call one. If Holyrood vote for it Westminster can't refuse the will of our parliament. I also believe such action will drive more people to vote leave/no.

[JeMeSouviens]

I'm against holding another referendum but respect the right of the Scottish parliament to call one. If Holyrood vote for it Westminster can't refuse the will of our parliament. I also believe such action will drive more people to vote leave/no.

Fair dos. Hope you're telling Dugdale & co. (and you're wrong about long term effect.)

[allmodcons]

In 2014 the SNP favoured continuing with the pound. Westminster said no you can't do that (even though the pound isn't exclusively their's). This time round it'll be our of the question for an iScotland to be in a currency union with a non EU rUK, therefore we can expect a more definite plan for a post independence currency.

I can't believe people are already knocking the SNP for a lack of plans/information. Indyref 2 has yet to be rubber stamped by Holyrood.

This is a big issue.

For John Swinney to go on BBC radio and not be able to tell listeners what currency w'ed use in an iScotland is bad news. Actually, it's worse than that because he basically said we have a plan but we're not telling the electorate what it is!!!!

The SNP need to get this sorted and quick! I am more than comfortable with all other aspects of the argument, but not being able to tell a floating voter what currency we'd use is just plain daft.

[greenlex]

This is a big issue.

For John Swinney to go on BBC radio and not be able to tell listeners what currency w'ed use in an iScotland is bad news. Actually, it's worse than that because he basically said we have a plan but we're not telling the electorate what it is!!!!

The SNP need to get this sorted and quick! I am more than comfortable with all other aspects of the argument, but not being able to tell a floating voter what currency we'd use is just plain daft.
I don't get the.currency debate. It will be whatever it will be. Our own currency I'm fine with. The Euro I'm fine with. The pound I'm fine with. FFS the US Dollar I'd be fine with. There really isn't an issue. What's the big deal?

[Bristolhibby]

This is a big issue.

For John Swinney to go on BBC radio and not be able to tell listeners what currency w'ed use in an iScotland is bad news. Actually, it's worse than that because he basically said we have a plan but we're not telling the electorate what it is!!!!

The SNP need to get this sorted and quick! I am more than comfortable with all other aspects of the argument, but not being able to tell a floating voter what currency we'd use is just plain daft.

Sterling for a bit and then the Scottish pound.

That's the currency issue according to Bristolhibby.

J

[Bristolhibby]

I don't get the.currency debate. It will be shared it will be. Our own currency I'm fine with. The Euro I'm fine with. The pound I'm fine with. FFS the US Dollar I'd be fine with. There really isn't an issue. What's the big deal?

IMHO, people become very attached to the money in their bank and what they can buy with it. Yes have to convince people that whatever currency is used you can still buy the same amount of stuff.

That said, we still have not had the Brexit effect on Sterling yet. It already tanked from the Brexit vote and the news of a hard Brexit, God knows what it will be like after Brexit proper.

That's the message I'd be getting across.

J

[allmodcons]

I don't get the.currency debate. It will be whatever it will be. Our own currency I'm fine with. The Euro I'm fine with. The pound I'm fine with. FFS the US Dollar I'd be fine with. There really isn't an issue. What's the big deal?

I agree with this but it's a real issue for those we're trying to move from No to Yes. They're the crucial ones. You can't just tell them any currency will do, they want clarity.

I'd argue that any currency is only as strong as the economy that underpins it but, at the risk of sounding patronising, your average voter wants clarity.

[snooky]

This is a big issue.

For John Swinney to go on BBC radio and not be able to tell listeners what currency w'ed use in an iScotland is bad news. Actually, it's worse than that because he basically said we have a plan but we're not telling the electorate what it is!!!!

The SNP need to get this sorted and quick! I am more than comfortable with all other aspects of the argument, but not being able to tell a floating voter what currency we'd use is just plain daft.

A lot should have been learned from Indyref1. Currency was a big card in the game.
If there is to be an Indyref2 then that is one aspect that should be made clear and fixed hard and fast.

I wonder what's skeltons will be dragged out of the cupboard should a second Vow be required.
I think most of us are sick up to the back teeth of the B-brown stuff.

[JeMeSouviens]

This is a big issue.

For John Swinney to go on BBC radio and not be able to tell listeners what currency w'ed use in an iScotland is bad news. Actually, it's worse than that because he basically said we have a plan but we're not telling the electorate what it is!!!!

The SNP need to get this sorted and quick! I am more than comfortable with all other aspects of the argument, but not being able to tell a floating voter what currency we'd use is just plain daft.

Totally agree. Same with strategy on eu membership. I get you need to work on details but get on with it and make sure you can articulate a clear position. It's not like currency and eu are new issues coming out of the blue ffs!

[greenlex]

IMHO, people become very attached to the money in their bank and what they can buy with it. Yes have to convince people that whatever currency is used you can still buy the same amount of stuff.

That said, we still have not had the Brexit effect on Sterling yet. It already tanked from the Brexit vote and the news of a hard Brexit, God knows what it will be like after Brexit proper.

That's the message I'd be getting across.

J
Once the deal is settled and the Euro has parity with the pound or better the rUK will want to ditch the pound for it.

[Jack]

This is a big issue.

For John Swinney to go on BBC radio and not be able to tell listeners what currency w'ed use in an iScotland is bad news. Actually, it's worse than that because he basically said we have a plan but we're not telling the electorate what it is!!!!

The SNP need to get this sorted and quick! I am more than comfortable with all other aspects of the argument, but not being able to tell a floating voter what currency we'd use is just plain daft.

I agree it's a big issue. But "now is not the time" for it to become part of the debate.

[grunt]

Same with strategy on eu membership. I get you need to work on details but get on with it and make sure you can articulate a clear position. It's not like currency and eu are new issues coming out of the blue ffs!The problem with EU membership is that it's not all in our hands. The EU will have a view - potentially 27 different views - on how Scotland can interact with the EU. Or not, as the case may be. So we may well have a strategy, but it's not all in our gift.

[JeMeSouviens]

The problem with EU membership is that it's not all in our hands. The EU will have a view - potentially 27 different views - on how Scotland can interact with the EU. Or not, as the case may be. So we may well have a strategy, but it's not all in our gift.

True. So you say:

- in all likelihood we'll be torn out by the ******* Tories
- we'll pursue continuing membership but the ******* Tories policy makes this really difficult
- our fall back plan is to secure single market membership while our application is considered and negotiations for terms of new membership take place
- we'll seek the endorsement of that new negotiated full membership in a referendum of the Scottish people. This will cement our place among the nations of Europe

[grunt]

True. So you say:

- in all likelihood we'll be torn out by the ******* Tories
- we'll pursue continuing membership but the ******* Tories policy makes this really difficult
- our fall back plan is to secure single market membership while our application is considered and negotiations for terms of new membership take place
- we'll seek the endorsement of that new negotiated full membership in a referendum of the Scottish people. This will cement our place among the nations of Europe
Interesting times.

[JeMeSouviens]

On currency you say a sterling zone was the best solution in 2014 but now the ******* Tories have torn us out of Europe we have had to reassess. We are working on establishing our own independent currency asap. Although we recognise the good intentions of the Eurozone, we will make no practical move towards joining the Euro unless and until we are certain it is in our national interest. This might be years or decades away but might never be possible.

[johnbc70]

I don't get the.currency debate. It will be whatever it will be. Our own currency I'm fine with. The Euro I'm fine with. The pound I'm fine with. FFS the US Dollar I'd be fine with. There really isn't an issue. What's the big deal?

Imagine if you are saving to buy a house or you have a sum that represents your life savings. If you had £10,000 in Savings today it's about €11,500, but a few years ago it was worth €14,500. That's a lot of money to have lost through no fault of your own.

You might not care but lots do.

[Dinkydoo]

I voted Yes before and will very likely be a Yes again since, for me, the main reason why I want an independant country is so that we can shape the place as we see fit and not be an after-thought in a democratic system that frankly, doesn't work for us - how many times has the Scottish electorate voted for a Tory government over the last 30 years....

What I will say though is that the SNP really need to come up with better answers around the currency issue and granted, we can't possibly predict every aspect of an iScotland's economy however, we pay these guys to give it a bloody good try so it will be criminal for them to put the country through this again without having some of the details thought out - otherwise, I can't see the result being much different than last time. We also need to look at Scandinavian countries and analyse what works for them, what can we learn from their education systems...etc. etc.

I've really not got an appetite for 2/3 years of folk slagging off Sturgeon and May's haircut...like we get it, they should both club together and get themselves a better barnet but ffs, that adds absolutely no validity to an arguement and if that's the level of some people's debating skills then honestly I'm not sure I want to share a country with them - can we vote for the Jezza Kyle lot to leave as well?

I know, its Saturday, I should be cheerier :greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

Imagine if you are saving to buy a house or you have a sum that represents your life savings. If you had £10,000 in Savings today it's about €11,500, but a few years ago it was worth €14,500. That's a lot of money to have lost through no fault of your own.

You might not care but lots do.


That only matters if you are saving in the UK where the pound has sunk since the Brexit vote and intending to buy in a country where the currency is stronger. If you are saving in the UK and buying in the UK there is little difference.

Buy anything from abroad just now and you will find the cost has increased due to the exchange rate.

[CropleyWasGod]

Imagine if you are saving to buy a house or you have a sum that represents your life savings. If you had £10,000 in Savings today it's about €11,500, but a few years ago it was worth €14,500. That's a lot of money to have lost through no fault of your own.

You might not care but lots do.
You haven't lost anything though. Your purchasing power in the UK is still the same.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[northstandhibby]

You haven't lost anything though. Your purchasing power in the UK is still the same.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Depreciation of a currency normally directly causes rising inflation driving costs upwards for businesses and consumers alike. However it does have a net benefit for rising exports that may or may not go some way to cancelling out the negative factor of rising inflation.

glory glory

[CropleyWasGod]

Depreciation of a currency normally directly causes rising inflation driving costs upwards for businesses and consumers alike. However it does have a net benefit for rising exports that may or may not go some way to cancelling out the negative factor of rising inflation.

glory glory
It wouldn't affect the housing market though in the way suggested.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[johnbc70]

You haven't lost anything though. Your purchasing power in the UK is still the same.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

What if we voted Yes and we switched to the Euro? Would my money not be worth much less?

Point is its a critical issue.

[CropleyWasGod]

What if we voted Yes and we switched to the Euro? Would my money not be worth much less?

Point is its a critical issue.
Your money wouldn't be worth less in the UK property market. You would still get the same property for the same cost, whether that was in Euros or sterling.

It's not that critical in those terms. The important issue IMO is the emotional one of giving up a familiar currency for one less so.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[northstandhibby]

It wouldn't affect the housing market though in the way suggested.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Agreed.

Inflation while affecting a persons disposable income would not necessarily immediately cause a property bust and lowering of house prices.

glory glory

[RyeSloan]

It wouldn't affect the housing market though in the way suggested.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Currency discussions...brilliant [emoji12]

The crucial point here I think is that iScotland will continue to do most of its trade (in and out) with rUK. Therefore having a different currency to that market will impact iScotland in a large number of ways. Not all of them negative all of the time but none the less it would create some very interesting dynamics.

You then need to add in who is in control of that currency and who sets the cost of it...so even keeping sterling brings a number of factors into play. Easy example here is the Irish real estate boom and bust, a classic example of what happens when a country uses a currency but does not set its own interest rates.

Then you have all the problems associated with debt issuance not just for the government but for the economy at large. What happens to all the sterling denominated debt if we look to use a different currency?

I'm sure we could fill up pages and pages on currencies and the use of one when outside a political union or when you have no central bank of your own or when you use a different currency to what the economy trades it's output for or he implications of being in a currency union that no longer has fiscal transfers etc etc etc so I'll stop here but the long and short of it is that to suggest (as others have done) that somehow this doesn't matter is absolutely bonkers.

[johnbc70]

Your money wouldn't be worth less in the UK property market. You would still get the same property for the same cost, whether that was in Euros or sterling.

It's not that critical in those terms. The important issue IMO is the emotional one of giving up a familiar currency for one less so.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

I was not talking about property? Cash in the bank.

[greenlex]

Imagine if you are saving to buy a house or you have a sum that represents your life savings. If you had £10,000 in Savings today it's about €11,500, but a few years ago it was worth €14,500. That's a lot of money to have lost through no fault of your own.

You might not care but lots do. but whatever it converts to on the day of the new currency it will be worth exactly the same. Granted what it will be worth in a few years time is anyone's guess but that's true if any currency including the pound. What your pound, euro, dollar or groat buys today might not buy you the same tomorrow. It could buy you less it could buy you more.

[greenlex]

Currency discussions...brilliant [emoji12]

The crucial point here I think is that iScotland will continue to do most of its trade (in and out) with rUK. Therefore having a different currency to that market will impact iScotland in a large number of ways. Not all of them negative all of the time but none the less it would create some very interesting dynamics.

You then need to add in who is in control of that currency and who sets the cost of it...so even keeping sterling brings a number of factors into play. Easy example here is the Irish real estate boom and bust, a classic example of what happens when a country uses a currency but does not set its own interest rates.

Then you have all the problems associated with debt issuance not just for the government but for the economy at large. What happens to all the sterling denominated debt if we look to use a different currency?

I'm sure we could fill up pages and pages on currencies and the use of one when outside a political union or when you have no central bank of your own or when you use a different currency to what the economy trades it's output for or he implications of being in a currency union that no longer has fiscal transfers etc etc etc so I'll stop here but the long and short of it is that to suggest (as others have done) that somehow this doesn't matter is absolutely bonkers.
Don't stop I'm interested. Make sure to highlight the positives too tho.

[northstandhibby]

Currency discussions...brilliant [emoji12]

The crucial point here I think is that iScotland will continue to do most of its trade (in and out) with rUK. Therefore having a different currency to that market will impact iScotland in a large number of ways. Not all of them negative all of the time but none the less it would create some very interesting dynamics.

You then need to add in who is in control of that currency and who sets the cost of it...so even keeping sterling brings a number of factors into play. Easy example here is the Irish real estate boom and bust, a classic example of what happens when a country uses a currency but does not set its own interest rates.

Then you have all the problems associated with debt issuance not just for the government but for the economy at large. What happens to all the sterling denominated debt if we look to use a different currency?

I'm sure we could fill up pages and pages on currencies and the use of one when outside a political union or when you have no central bank of your own or when you use a different currency to what the economy trades it's output for or he implications of being in a currency union that no longer has fiscal transfers etc etc etc so I'll stop here but the long and short of it is that to suggest (as others have done) that somehow this doesn't matter is absolutely bonkers.

While I'm no SNP supporter I cannot see why an independent Scotland would not be able to set up the infrastructure required with institutions set up specifically to deal with the currency/banking/wider economy issues. There are plenty of very clever and able folk situated in Scotland who are very capable of setting in place the necessary mechanisms.

I may not be an SNP supporter but they're not stupid folk.

glory glory

[CropleyWasGod]

I was not talking about property? Cash in the bank.
You spoke about saving money for a house.

The principle is the same. When you decide to withdraw it, you will get the same property for your money, whether that's priced in Euros or £

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

Imagine if you are saving to buy a house or you have a sum that represents your life savings. If you had £10,000 in Savings today it's about €11,500, but a few years ago it was worth €14,500. That's a lot of money to have lost through no fault of your own.

You might not care but lots do.

Aye but that's because the £ has lost value compared to the €. My €s go a lot further today than they did 7 years ago and the trend won't end any time soon. Great argument for joining the €.

[RyeSloan]

While I'm no SNP supporter I cannot see why an independent Scotland would not be able to set up the infrastructure required with institutions set up specifically to deal with the currency/banking/wider economy issues. There are plenty of very clever and able folk situated in Scotland who are very capable of setting in place the necessary mechanisms.

I may not be an SNP supporter but they're not stupid folk.

glory glory

I agree it's possible and that it's not really a political issue.

However the challenges should not be underestimated.

A simple example would be if a new scots pound was created to be implemented at the same time as Indy. Would that pound be pegged to sterling or not? If not then it could be safely assumed that it would probably be a weaker currency (at least at first)...therefore in day one any assets held in Scotland previously denominated in Sterling would become denominated in Scots pounds and therefore immediately start devaluing compared to sterling (and most likely a whole basket of major currencies). Quite simply if you had any liquid assets you would shift them out of the country before that happens so you may well see massive capital outflows up to and after that point. Capital flight almost certainly makes a country poorer due to the decrease in purchasing power and increase in import costs.

Just one example of the hazards the currency question brings and smart people or not the route to currency Independence is a difficult one.


On the flip side sharing a currency when there is no political union to enact fiscal transfers is possibly just as difficult and brings a whole host of its own issues or you can find plenty of examples where currency pegs blow up in the nations face (just ask John Major how the ERM went...)

I appreciate the cause and effect of currency unions, pegs and free floating exchange rates is not exactly exciting chat and I'm no expert that's for sure but I know enough that it's clear this stuff is absolutely fundamental to a nations wealth and well being.

I therefore massively struggle to understand how a case for independence can be put forward and taken seriously if the proponents of that do not have a very clear and considered approach to this issue. Of course I'm not expecting every voter to need or want to grasp all the intricacies but the people leading the charge damn well should or you could be forgiven in thinking they were being either extremely reckless or just down right foolish.

[RyeSloan]

Don't stop I'm interested. Make sure to highlight the positives too tho.

I'm not sure there are too many positives, at least in the short to medium term...just a hell of a lot of risk and uncertainty!

My post above gives a small flavour of the issues but I'm trying to stay out of this round of Indy chat as really I've said my piece at length before and until there is a material advancement of some of the key issues that were raised the last time I'm not sure I have much else to say.

Others have suggested to me the SNP are working on it and will produce a better and clearer picture of how they would see Indy working this time around. I've not seen much evidence of that so far so I'll wait patiently (and quietly!) for that to come to fruition before re-assessing.

[northstandhibby]

I agree it's possible and that it's not really a political issue.

However the challenges should not be underestimated.

A simple example would be if a new scots pound was created to be implemented at the same time as Indy. Would that pound be pegged to sterling or not? If not then it could be safely assumed that it would probably be a weaker currency (at least at first)...therefore in day one any assets held in Scotland previously denominated in Sterling would become denominated in Scots pounds and therefore immediately start devaluing compared to sterling (and most likely a whole basket of major currencies). Quite simply if you had any liquid assets you would shift them out of the country before that happens so you may well see massive capital outflows up to and after that point. Capital flight almost certainly makes a country poorer due to the decrease in purchasing power and increase in import costs.

Just one example of the hazards the currency question brings and smart people or not the route to currency Independence is a difficult one.


On the flip side sharing a currency when there is no political union to enact fiscal transfers is possibly just as difficult and brings a whole host of its own issues or you can find plenty of examples where currency pegs blow up in the nations face (just ask John Major how the ERM went...)

I appreciate the cause and effect of currency unions, pegs and free floating exchange rates is not exactly exciting chat and I'm no expert that's for sure but I know enough that it's clear this stuff is absolutely fundamental to a nations wealth and well being.

I therefore massively struggle to understand how a case for independence can be put forward and taken seriously if the proponents of that do not have a very clear and considered approach to this issue. Of course I'm not expecting every voter to need or want to grasp all the intricacies but the people leading the charge damn well should or you could be forgiven in thinking they were being either extremely reckless or just down right foolish.

Have to admire the intellectual points you put forward Si mar.

I agree it is fraught with uncertainty and independence may well frighten shrewd moneyed folk and chase away foreigh investment. Putting up walls between neighbours hopefully metaphorically speaking is not a particularly attractive one. There will be trade wars between what was the UK too of course.

However brexit was always likely to cause SNP nationalism to re appear in light of a hard brexit and we'll have to get on with it if independence wins out.

glory glory

[Moulin Yarns]

I agree it's possible and that it's not really a political issue.

However the challenges should not be underestimated.

A simple example would be if a new scots pound was created to be implemented at the same time as Indy. Would that pound be pegged to sterling or not? If not then it could be safely assumed that it would probably be a weaker currency (at least at first)...therefore in day one any assets held in Scotland previously denominated in Sterling would become denominated in Scots pounds and therefore immediately start devaluing compared to sterling (and most likely a whole basket of major currencies). Quite simply if you had any liquid assets you would shift them out of the country before that happens so you may well see massive capital outflows up to and after that point. Capital flight almost certainly makes a country poorer due to the decrease in purchasing power and increase in import costs.

Just one example of the hazards the currency question brings and smart people or not the route to currency Independence is a difficult one.


On the flip side sharing a currency when there is no political union to enact fiscal transfers is possibly just as difficult and brings a whole host of its own issues or you can find plenty of examples where currency pegs blow up in the nations face (just ask John Major how the ERM went...)

I appreciate the cause and effect of currency unions, pegs and free floating exchange rates is not exactly exciting chat and I'm no expert that's for sure but I know enough that it's clear this stuff is absolutely fundamental to a nations wealth and well being.

I therefore massively struggle to understand how a case for independence can be put forward and taken seriously if the proponents of that do not have a very clear and considered approach to this issue. Of course I'm not expecting every voter to need or want to grasp all the intricacies but the people leading the charge damn well should or you could be forgiven in thinking they were being either extremely reckless or just down right foolish.


Excuse me for copy and pasting this from a think tank with cross party (except Tory) members and support.

This is a summary.



It is widely acknowledged that one of the weaker aspectsof the 2012-14 Scottish independence campaign was thedebate around currency. The strategy of adopting a Sterlingunion with the rest of the UK, even after such a union hadbeen publicly dismissed by the pro-Union advocates, wasdeeply damaging in terms of both confidence in the proindependencecampaign itself and in uncertainty about thefuture of an independent Scotland.

Key Points:-
• Countries rarely have full control overall aspects of currency management simultaneously.Compromises must often be made, though differentcountries arrive at different solutions to those compromises.
• Setting up a new currency, if anindependent Scotland chooses to do so, will involveplanning but the steps involved are well understood andopportunities arise for public involvement in some of them,particularly design of new notes and coins.
• Currency options discussed include aformal currency union with either Sterling or the Eurozone;Unilateral use of either currency; or a new Scottish currency,dubbed the £Scot, managed under various options of fixed,flexible or floated pegs.
• Whilst, economically, no single option islikely to be significantly better or worse than any other —merely different — the political weight tends towards therecommendation of a newly independent Scotland adoptingan independent £Scot, initially pegged to Sterling but withthe option of moving, changing or floating the peg as andwhen required or desired.

[RyeSloan]

Excuse me for copy and pasting this from a think tank with cross party (except Tory) members and support.

This is a summary.

I disagree with the suggestion that any and all options will end up with largely the same economic impact...I simply can't see how that could be the case.

To be fair though I'm proposing one way or the other it's just that ANY way has significant implications and I think these are largely not understood by the public and the risks deliberately played down by the pro Indy vanguard, which as I said does make me wonder why.

Anyway I'm going to try and stick to my word and largely watch the debate from the sidelines...it's been an interesting read on here so far!

[Jack]

I disagree with the suggestion that any and all options will end up with largely the same economic impact...I simply can't see how that could be the case.

To be fair though I'm proposing one way or the other it's just that ANY way has significant implications and I think these are largely not understood by the public and the risks deliberately played down by the pro Indy vanguard, which as I said does make me wonder why.

Anyway I'm going to try and stick to my word and largely watch the debate from the sidelines...it's been an interesting read on here so far!

To be fair I think the answer is that the general public don't understand a personal bank account never mind the complications of international finance!

[steakbake]

To be fair I think the answer is that the general public don't understand a personal bank account never mind the complications of international finance!

Very true. There's a large level of debate which is somewhere between "I don't like Nippy so I can't wait to see her torn pus" and "*** Tories - freedom".

No one likes to hear it but a big section of voters haven't got a scooby either way.

[greenginger]

Can anyone tell me when the SNP got so all lovey with being a member of the European Union.

I seem to remember them campaigning to leave the European Union in the previous membership referendum.

The Labour Party campaigned to leave too IIRC.

[Glory Lurker]

Can anyone tell me when the SNP got so all lovey with being a member of the European Union.

I seem to remember them campaigning to leave the European Union in the previous membership referendum.

The Labour Party campaigned to leave too IIRC.

"Independence in Europe" was adopted as party policy circa 1990.

[Moulin Yarns]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39327209

[xyz23jc]

I think her abilities and leadership are significantly over estimated, propped up by a fawning media happy there's someone with even a gram of personality. She's sways in the wind and only managed to get into Parliament on the back of Edinburgh folk voting Green.

She's clearly aiming for a job down south. A career politician from the same mould as Jim Murphy.

This 1 million percent! Sir! I salute your indefatigability! :top marks

[snooky]

To be fair I think the answer is that the general public don't understand a personal bank account never mind the complications of international finance!

Billy Connolly said he knew a man who wouldn't vote for Neil Kinnock because he had red hair.
Nothing wrong with that, IMO. :cb


:wink:

[ronaldo7]

A good piece by James Kelly on Theresa May subverting democracy.

https://t.co/RP7d3X38UN

[ronaldo7]

Patrick Harvie getting another Tory, telt.

https://t.co/oeAgBwutYr

[hibs0666]

A good piece by James Kelly on Theresa May subverting democracy.

https://t.co/RP7d3X38UN

Who's James Kelly? Not an ardent nationalist by any chance?

[Moulin Yarns]

Who's James Kelly? Not an ardent nationalist by any chance?

Not too difficult to track down, if you can be bothered.



I write the blog 'Scot Goes Pop!', voted one of Scotland's top ten political websites

[G B Young]

Billy Connolly said he knew a man who wouldn't vote for Neil Kinnock because he had red hair.
Nothing wrong with that, IMO. :cb


:wink:

Billy Connolly also described Holyrood as a "wee pretendy parliament" which is very much what it has looked like this week as they spend two utterly pointless days 'debating' whether to request a Section 30 order. Thanks to Patrick Harvie's toadying we already know the result of tonight's vote, while we've known for a week now that the Section 30 request will be knocked back by Westminster. A total waste of time and symptomatic of the SNP's childish attitude when they don't get their own way. When did they ever spend two days debating something actually related to governing the country? In some ways I hope they do try to stage a huffy wee 'pretenderendum' of their own once the Section 30 request is turned down as it really would bring down a whole heap of ridicule on their heads.

[CropleyWasGod]

Billy Connolly also described Holyrood as a "wee pretendy parliament" which is very much what it has looked like this week as they spend two utterly pointless days 'debating' whether to request a Section 30 order. Thanks to Patrick Harvie's toadying we already know the result of tonight's vote, while we've known for a week now that the Section 30 request will be knocked back by Westminster. A total waste of time and symptomatic of the SNP's childish attitude when they don't get their own way. When did they ever spend two days debating something actually related to governing the country? In some ways I hope they do try to stage a huffy wee 'pretenderendum' of their own once the Section 30 request is turned down as it really would bring down a whole heap of ridicule on their heads.

A democratically-elected group of representatives, who were elected on the basis of a manifesto pledge to support independence, decide to stick by that pledge.

That's toadying?

[hibs0666]

Billy Connolly also described Holyrood as a "wee pretendy parliament" which is very much what it has looked like this week as they spend two utterly pointless days 'debating' whether to request a Section 30 order. Thanks to Patrick Harvie's toadying we already know the result of tonight's vote, while we've known for a week now that the Section 30 request will be knocked back by Westminster. A total waste of time and symptomatic of the SNP's childish attitude when they don't get their own way. When did they ever spend two days debating something actually related to governing the country? In some ways I hope they do try to stage a huffy wee 'pretenderendum' of their own once the Section 30 request is turned down as it really would bring down a whole heap of ridicule on their heads.

I'm sure there will be two-day debates on economic growth, the NHS and education coming down the tracks, if they are as core to government policy as constitutional change.

[hibs0666]

A democratically-elected group of representatives, who were elected on the basis of a manifesto pledge to support independence, decide to stick by that pledge.

That's toadying?

They made a number of manifesto pledges. But we all know there is only one real policy of interest to the snp and the greens.

[hibs0666]

Not too difficult to track down, if you can be bothered.

Nah, no interest in tracking him down. I had a look at his article and got as far as his sentence... 'Even glossing over the fact that the 2014 decision was made on the demonstrably bogus basis that it would keep Scotland within the EU...' and knew at that point that I would get nothing of any note from the guy.

[G B Young]

A democratically-elected group of representatives, who were elected on the basis of a manifesto pledge to support independence, decide to stick by that pledge.

That's toadying?

Harvie leads a party which prior to last year's Scottish Parliamentary elections called for a 'citizen's initiative' signed by a million people before another referendum could be considered.

He gets called out for his manifesto u-turn in this article which I think sums up the needlessness of the ongoing 'debate':

http://www.scotsman.com/news/ross-mccafferty-scottish-parliament-debate-not-worthy-of-indyref2-hype-1-4399233

[allmodcons]

Billy Connolly also described Holyrood as a "wee pretendy parliament" which is very much what it has looked like this week as they spend two utterly pointless days 'debating' whether to request a Section 30 order. Thanks to Patrick Harvie's toadying we already know the result of tonight's vote, while we've known for a week now that the Section 30 request will be knocked back by Westminster. A total waste of time and symptomatic of the SNP's childish attitude when they don't get their own way. When did they ever spend two days debating something actually related to governing the country? In some ways I hope they do try to stage a huffy wee 'pretenderendum' of their own once the Section 30 request is turned down as it really would bring down a whole heap of ridicule on their heads.

My understanding is that the two day debate was requested by the pro Union parties and, in answer to your question, the SG spending budget.

[allmodcons]

Harvie leads a party which prior to last year's Scottish Parliamentary elections called for a 'citizen's initiative' signed by a million people before another referendum could be considered.

He gets called out for his manifesto u-turn in this article which I think sums up the needlessness of the ongoing 'debate':

http://www.scotsman.com/news/ross-mccafferty-scottish-parliament-debate-not-worthy-of-indyref2-hype-1-4399233

What nonsense, even if the Greens were to abstain the SNP Government would still have a majority.

Are you seriously suggesting the Greens should vote against the Government when they clearly support the concept of an Independent Scotland?

[allmodcons]

They made a number of manifesto pledges. But we all know there is only one real policy of interest to the snp and the greens.

Here's the SNP's manifesto pledge. Could not be clearer. If a majority in the Scottish Parliament vote to support the pledge surely that is democractic?


We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of
the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.
.

[Geo_1875]

My understanding is that the two day debate was requested by the pro Union parties and, in answer to your question, the SG spending budget.

Ah but.... That's just facts. Doesn't make you right.

[Moulin Yarns]

Here's the SNP's manifesto pledge. Could not be clearer. If a majority in the Scottish Parliament vote to support the pledge surely that is democractic?


We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of
the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.
.



And the Scottish Green Party.




In a second referendum the Scottish Greens will campaign for independence. Until then we can build a bolder democracy, and open up our institutions for greater citizen participation while pushing for stronger powers for Holyrood.

[ronaldo7]

Who's James Kelly? Not an ardent nationalist by any chance?

Sorry, you won't find him in the SUN. :aok:

[ronaldo7]

Billy Connolly also described Holyrood as a "wee pretendy parliament" which is very much what it has looked like this week as they spend two utterly pointless days 'debating' whether to request a Section 30 order. Thanks to Patrick Harvie's toadying we already know the result of tonight's vote, while we've known for a week now that the Section 30 request will be knocked back by Westminster. A total waste of time and symptomatic of the SNP's childish attitude when they don't get their own way. When did they ever spend two days debating something actually related to governing the country? In some ways I hope they do try to stage a huffy wee 'pretenderendum' of their own once the Section 30 request is turned down as it really would bring down a whole heap of ridicule on their heads.

The 2nd day was requested by Labour and your Tories. Don't let the facts get in the way of an SNP rant though.:wink:

[hibs0666]

Sorry, you won't find him in the SUN. :aok:

No need to apologise to me xx.

[ronaldo7]

No need to apologise to me xx.

I wasn't. Just saving you looking for him.:greengrin

[G B Young]

And the Scottish Green Party.

I'm guessing this is a hastily added amendment to their manifesto which clearly states:

If a new referendum is to happen, it should come about by the will of the people, and not be driven by calculations of party political advantage.

I'm actually not too unhappy that Harvie has hitched a ride on the SNP's coat tails as I suspect he'll be a hindrance rather than a help to them. He's got one of those demeanors which has you reaching to change the channel, similar to the oily Angus Robertson.

Talking of politicians trying to reinvent what they once said, Alex Salmond was in fine from trying to explain away his 'once in a lifetime' comment about the 2014 referendum earlier this week:

https://www.indy100.com/article/alex-salmond-snp-scottish-independence-once-in-a-lifetime-opportunity-7638311

His tweet that 'It was not some writ that a referedum is for life but an observation that perhaps an opportunity which might occur once in a lifetime' is positively Catrho-eque!

[G B Young]

The 2nd day was requested by Labour and your Tories. Don't let the facts get in the way of an SNP rant though.:wink:

I thought it was the Lib Dems who secured the extended time, but OK, I'll qualify my contention that the SNP rarely devote such time to more important matters by saying that it's the Scottish parliament which makes it look 'pretendy' by devoting so much time to a debate whose outcome we already know.

[G B Young]

What nonsense, even if the Greens were to abstain the SNP Government would still have a majority.

Are you seriously suggesting the Greens should vote against the Government when they clearly support the concept of an Independent Scotland?

Why is it nonsense to query a party's decision to go against their manifesto pledge? And yes, I know the Conservatives back-tracked on their budget proposals for that very reason but at least there was an admission they were headed down the wrong road and hence the u-turn. Harvie simply airbrushes such inconsistencies away in the hope of currying favour in a future Scottish government when he probably calculates he might help to form a coalition.

[Bristolhibby]

I'm guessing this is a hastily added amendment to their manifesto which clearly states:

If a new referendum is to happen, it should come about by the will of the people, and not be driven by calculations of party political advantage.

I'm actually not too unhappy that Harvie has hitched a ride on the SNP's coat tails as I suspect he'll be a hindrance rather than a help to them. He's got one of those demeanors which has you reaching to change the channel, similar to the oily Angus Robertson.

Talking of politicians trying to reinvent what they once said, Alex Salmond was in fine from trying to explain away his 'once in a lifetime' comment about the 2014 referendum earlier this week:

https://www.indy100.com/article/alex-salmond-snp-scottish-independence-once-in-a-lifetime-opportunity-7638311

His tweet that 'It was not some writ that a referedum is for life but an observation that perhaps an opportunity which might occur once in a lifetime' is positively Catrho-eque!











Wow! Houses for courses. I guess.

I found (and still do) Patrick Harvey one of the most refreshing, honest and sincere politicians going. I thought he was a revaluation in the 2014 referendum. Certainly opened my eyes to some of the Green issues down here in the South West, specifically fracking in the Mendips.

J

[northstandhibby]

I wasn't. Just saving you looking for him.:greengrin

You make some bald claims regarding every other party save for the SNP.

I would like you to explain what is your expectation of post indy Scotland being such an avid defender of the SNP. For example would you expect UK national authorities such the NHS and Judiciary etc to be replaced and started again from scratch? Otherwise what is the point of independence when the same peepul would be in charge anyhow? There would have to be root and branch emptying out of the authorities, boards, commissions etc etc etc or its pointless isn't it?

glory glory

[ronaldo7]

I thought it was the Lib Dems who secured the extended time, but OK, I'll qualify my contention that the SNP rarely devote such time to more important matters by saying that it's the Scottish parliament which makes it look 'pretendy' by devoting so much time to a debate whose outcome we already know.

They are CURRENTLY discussing poverty, and social housing at this moment. If you're interested you could always take a look. Just getting on with the day job.:aok:

http://www.scottishparliament.tv/

[CropleyWasGod]

I thought it was the Lib Dems who secured the extended time, but OK, I'll qualify my contention that the SNP rarely devote such time to more important matters by saying that it's the Scottish parliament which makes it look 'pretendy' by devoting so much time to a debate whose outcome we already know.

...such is life in any Parliament where one party has a majority.

[Geo_1875]

I thought it was the Lib Dems who secured the extended time, but OK, I'll qualify my contention that the SNP rarely devote such time to more important matters by saying that it's the Scottish parliament which makes it look 'pretendy' by devoting so much time to a debate whose outcome we already know.

Too late. You don't get to retrospectively "qualify my contention". What you said is out there and is in fact what you said.

You know what you meant but we know you didn't mean that so you are a bare-faced liar and we have the evidence.

[ronaldo7]

You make some bald claims regarding every other party save for the SNP.

I would like you to explain what is your expectation of post indy Scotland being such an avid defender of the SNP. For example would you expect UK national authorities such the NHS and Judiciary etc to be replaced and started again from scratch? Otherwise what is the point of independence when the same peepul would be in charge anyhow? There would have to be root and branch emptying out of the authorities, boards, commissions etc etc etc or its pointless isn't it?

glory glory

Where about?

[northstandhibby]

Where about?

Your'e normally dismissive of any other party save for the SNP and Independence. Its entirely up to you if you attempt to answer or avoid the pertinent questions I raised with you.

glory glory

[CropleyWasGod]

You make some bald claims regarding every other party save for the SNP.

I would like you to explain what is your expectation of post indy Scotland being such an avid defender of the SNP. For example would you expect UK national authorities such the NHS and Judiciary etc to be replaced and started again from scratch? Otherwise what is the point of independence when the same peepul would be in charge anyhow? There would have to be root and branch emptying out of the authorities, boards, commissions etc etc etc or its pointless isn't it?

glory glory

The NHS are currently devolved in Scotland, as are the legal and judicial systems.

They're already in place. Maybe reword the question with better examples, as it's a fair point. :greengrin

[allmodcons]

Why is it nonsense to query a party's decision to go against their manifesto pledge? And yes, I know the Conservatives back-tracked on their budget proposals for that very reason but at least there was an admission they were headed down the wrong road and hence the u-turn. Harvie simply airbrushes such inconsistencies away in the hope of currying favour in a future Scottish government when he probably calculates he might help to form a coalition.

As I've already said, if the Greens were to abstain the SNP Government would still hold a majority.

If you're seriously suggesting they vote against the SNP Government on this matter then I think you've lost the plot.

Did the Green manifesto say they'd block another Indyref vote?

[ronaldo7]

Your'e normally dismissive of any other party save for the SNP and Independence. Its entirely up to you if you attempt to answer or avoid the pertinent questions I raised with you.

glory glory

That's just not true. I wholeheartedly support the Green party and their determination to change Land reform in Scotland. They've taken a lead in this area and I fully support that.

Now, if you could provide the evidence I requested, I could maybe answer them for you.

[northstandhibby]

The NHS are currently devolved in Scotland, as are the legal and judicial systems.

They're already in place. Maybe reword the question with better examples, as it's a fair point. :greengrin

:agree:


That's the appearance certainly however its not the reality for me as my experiences have shown they're filled with peepul expected to toe the UK line. Anyone who thinks not is welcome to have that opinion however its not mine and its my opinion that in an indy Scotland there would have to be a complete emptying out of a huge amount of those working at and those leading these authorities and many other authorities if there was to be serious change to occur post indy Scotland. Otherwise its pointless in my opinion. If Scotland does become independent I would advocate a shift from the prior UK wide authorities with an emptying out for real change to materialise.

glory glory

[northstandhibby]

That's just not true. I wholeheartedly support the Green party and their determination to change Land reform in Scotland. They've taken a lead in this area and I fully support that.

Now, if you could provide the evidence I requested, I could maybe answer them for you.

No problem, just forget it.

glory glory

[ronaldo7]

No problem, just forget it.

glory glory

If you're looking for me to be supportive of the Tories, or a Labour party lead by Kez, it's not going to happen. Wee Wullie's not worth mentioning.:aok:

[Moulin Yarns]

I'm guessing this is a hastily added amendment to their manifesto which clearly states:

If a new referendum is to happen, it should come about by the will of the people, and not be driven by calculations of party political advantage.

I'm actually not too unhappy that Harvie has hitched a ride on the SNP's coat tails as I suspect he'll be a hindrance rather than a help to them. He's got one of those demeanors which has you reaching to change the channel, similar to the oily Angus Robertson.

Talking of politicians trying to reinvent what they once said, Alex Salmond was in fine from trying to explain away his 'once in a lifetime' comment about the 2014 referendum earlier this week:

https://www.indy100.com/article/alex-salmond-snp-scottish-independence-once-in-a-lifetime-opportunity-7638311

His tweet that 'It was not some writ that a referedum is for life but an observation that perhaps an opportunity which might occur once in a lifetime' is positively Catrho-eque!




Why is it nonsense to query a party's decision to go against their manifesto pledge? And yes, I know the Conservatives back-tracked on their budget proposals for that very reason but at least there was an admission they were headed down the wrong road and hence the u-turn. Harvie simply airbrushes such inconsistencies away in the hope of currying favour in a future Scottish government when he probably calculates he might help to form a coalition.

Post September 2014 the Scottish Green Party issued the following which clarifies the 'petition' Not a manfesto pledge as you think.

[makaveli1875]

i used to think patrick harvey was on the level , listening to him today has changed that opinion , he's a slaver just like all the other politicians

he says the EU referendum was reckless with an utter lack of a plan , but he wants an independence referendum that is reckless with an utter lack of a plan

he doesnt care about the economy or security , as long as he gets to save a few bumble bee's

[Moulin Yarns]

i used to think patrick harvey was on the level , listening to him today has changed that opinion , he's a slaver just like all the other politicians

he says the EU referendum was reckless with an utter lack of a plan , but he wants an independence referendum that is reckless with an utter lack of a plan

he doesnt care about the economy or security , as long as he gets to save a few bumble bee's

WOW!!! Up to the minute analysis!!!

You have no idea what is happening behind the scenes in preparing or the second referendum.

[makaveli1875]

WOW!!! Up to the minute analysis!!!

You have no idea what is happening behind the scenes in preparing or the second referendum.

Im not the one proposing the referendum , The thing that worries me is Nicola Sturgeon appears to have no idea and is still insisting on it

[Hibrandenburg]

Im not the one proposing the referendum , The thing that worries me is Nicola Sturgeon appears to have no idea and is still insisting on it

She's already pretty much stated the way forward, she's just not published it on the side of a bus yet.

[TrinityHibs]

Here's the SNP's manifesto pledge. Could not be clearer. If a majority in the Scottish Parliament vote to support the pledge surely that is democractic?


We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of
the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.
.



That is not a pledge its a wish. The words believe and should are the give away. The SNP and Greens are merely supporting a wish that the Scottish Parliament has no control over. In 2014 the democratic will of the Scottish electorate confirmed that Scotland would remain part of the UK and as a consequence accepted that the UK government would determine when, or if, another once in a lifetime referendum would take place.

[makaveli1875]

She's already pretty much stated the way forward, she's just not published it on the side of a bus yet.

A former SNP frontbencher has described his party's currency plans for a separate Scotland as “not just lamentable, but laughable”.
The SNP have suggested adopting the Euro, the pound, or a new currency altogether.
Writing in today’s Herald, Kenny MacAskill said that criticism of the nationalists will “turn to scorn” unless they can come up with a proper plan.
Mr MacAskill said:

The fundamental issues that lost the first referendum and undermine the case for a second – the currency and the economy – remain.
Failure to address the currency issue is becoming not just lamentable, but laughable. Action needs taken before criticism turns to scorn

[TrinityHibs]

:agree:


That's the appearance certainly however its not the reality for me as my experiences have shown they're filled with peepul expected to toe the UK line. Anyone who thinks not is welcome to have that opinion however its not mine and its my opinion that in an indy Scotland there would have to be a complete emptying out of a huge amount of those working at and those leading these authorities and many other authorities if there was to be serious change to occur post indy Scotland. Otherwise its pointless in my opinion. If Scotland does become independent I would advocate a shift from the prior UK wide authorities with an emptying out for real change to materialise.

glory glory

That is just incorrect. The point you made about non devolved matters is correct however and worthy of a response

[northstandhibby]

That is just incorrect. The point you made about non devolved matters is correct however and worthy of a response

You say its incorrect without rationale?

glory glory

[hibs0666]

A former SNP frontbencher has described his party's currency plans for a separate Scotland as “not just lamentable, but laughable”.
The SNP have suggested adopting the Euro, the pound, or a new currency altogether.
Writing in today’s Herald, Kenny MacAskill said that criticism of the nationalists will “turn to scorn” unless they can come up with a proper plan.
Mr MacAskill said:

The fundamental issues that lost the first referendum and undermine the case for a second – the currency and the economy – remain.
Failure to address the currency issue is becoming not just lamentable, but laughable. Action needs taken before criticism turns to scorn


No no no it was all about staying in the the EU apparently.

[northstandhibby]

A former SNP frontbencher has described his party's currency plans for a separate Scotland as “not just lamentable, but laughable”.
The SNP have suggested adopting the Euro, the pound, or a new currency altogether.
Writing in today’s Herald, Kenny MacAskill said that criticism of the nationalists will “turn to scorn” unless they can come up with a proper plan.
Mr MacAskill said:
The fundamental issues that lost the first referendum and undermine the case for a second – the currency and the economy – remain.
Failure to address the currency issue is becoming not just lamentable, but laughable. Action needs taken before criticism turns to scorn



MacAskill's correct to criticise 'fudging' of key issues and its up to Sturgeon to take control of them and be honest the Euro will be the end up at some point down the line and the economy will be built up in time.

glory glory

[allmodcons]

That is not a pledge its a wish. The words believe and should are the give away. The SNP and Greens are merely supporting a wish that the Scottish Parliament has no control over. In 2014 the democratic will of the Scottish electorate confirmed that Scotland would remain part of the UK and as a consequence accepted that the UK government would determine when, or if, another once in a lifetime referendum would take place.

The SNP have a right to bring it before the Scottish Parliament and IMO it would be wrong for Westminster to ignore the majority view of the Scottish Parliament.

Like it or not, Brexit is game changer.

[Moulin Yarns]

A former SNP frontbencher has described his party's currency plans for a separate Scotland as “not just lamentable, but laughable”.
The SNP have suggested adopting the Euro, the pound, or a new currency altogether.
Writing in today’s Herald, Kenny MacAskill said that criticism of the nationalists will “turn to scorn” unless they can come up with a proper plan.
Mr MacAskill said:
The fundamental issues that lost the first referendum and undermine the case for a second – the currency and the economy – remain.
Failure to address the currency issue is becoming not just lamentable, but laughable. Action needs taken before criticism turns to scorn



Like your previous post, You are totally unaware of the actions of those working towards independence, not just the SNP, but cross party and non party groups who have independence as their aim. Kenny is outside those circles as well.

[cabbageandribs1875]

A former SNP frontbencher has described his party's currency plans for a separate Scotland as “not just lamentable, but laughable”.
The SNP have suggested adopting the Euro, the pound, or a new currency altogether.
Writing in today’s Herald, Kenny MacAskill said that criticism of the nationalists will “turn to scorn” unless they can come up with a proper plan.
Mr MacAskill said:
The fundamental issues that lost the first referendum and undermine the case for a second – the currency and the economy – remain.Failure to address the currency issue is becoming not just lamentable, but laughable. Action needs taken before criticism turns to scorn




the ex governor of the bank of england has said he doesn't think there would be major problems in terms of currency, but an issue with public finances


oh, and Macaskill is still committed to the independence campaign

[Peevemor]

"Labour MSP Jackie Baillie says it has only been two and half years since the last independence referendum and the promise was it would be once in a generation."

This is growing arms and legs. What started as a soundbite in an interview has now become a promise - worse then a .net "FACT". :greengrin

[northstandhibby]

"Labour MSP Jackie Baillie says it has only been two and half years since the last independence referendum and the promise was it would be once in a generation."

This is growing arms and legs. What started as a soundbite in an interview has now become a promise - worse then a .net "FACT". :greengrin

I don't see why it's seen as a soundbite as a referendum is supposed to be binding not re run just a few years later. However a hard brexit does give scope to revisit the question of the relationship with the UK albeit the SNP could and should have had the patience to wait until the tories crash out of the negotiations with the EU then pointing the finger of blame for the UK economy nosedive with a call for indy ref 2 timing appearing more appropriate.

glory glory

[RyeSloan]

the ex governor of the bank of england has said he doesn't think there would be major problems in terms of currency, but an issue with public finances


oh, and Macaskill is still committed to the independence campaign

He stated that there wouldn't be a problem in using sterling as a currency...in that he is correct in that a country can effectively use any currency it wants.

Critically though he said that the consequences of such a decision can be substantial not least the funding of the deficit and the increased costs of that.

So in other words...no problems using sterling but be aware that it will cost substantially more to fund the spending gap than it does now and that the spending gap itself will be bigger due to the removal of fiscal transfers.

I see so much about 'Tory austerity' but what about the very real prospect of 'Indy austerity' just how honest are the supporters of Indy being in terms of the impact on public spending and the inevitable cuts and or tax rises that will be required?

[greenlex]

We don't have a referendum. There is however a fight for the right to have one. There is no need to produce a post independence plan yet. One step at a time.

[northstandhibby]

He stated that there wouldn't be a problem in using sterling as a currency...in that he is correct in that a country can effectively use any currency it wants.

Critically though he said that the consequences of such a decision can be substantial not least the funding of the deficit and the increased costs of that.

So in other words...no problems using sterling but be aware that it will cost substantially more to fund the spending gap than it does now and that the spending gap itself will be bigger due to the removal of fiscal transfers.

I see so much about 'Tory austerity' but what about the very real prospect of 'Indy austerity' just how honest are the supporters of Indy being in terms of the impact on public spending and the inevitable cuts and or tax rises that will be required?

Very true indeed Si Mar. There will undoubtedly be economic impact felt as there will be a long period of transition and its up to Sturgeon etc to be honest and send out the message while there will be transitional shocks it is a necessary period leading to a building up of the economy which will ultimately be a more balanced and prosperous one.

glory glory

[Hibernia&Alba]

He stated that there wouldn't be a problem in using sterling as a currency...in that he is correct in that a country can effectively use any currency it wants.

Critically though he said that the consequences of such a decision can be substantial not least the funding of the deficit and the increased costs of that.

So in other words...no problems using sterling but be aware that it will cost substantially more to fund the spending gap than it does now and that the spending gap itself will be bigger due to the removal of fiscal transfers.

I see so much about 'Tory austerity' but what about the very real prospect of 'Indy austerity' just how honest are the supporters of Indy being in terms of the impact on public spending and the inevitable cuts and or tax rises that will be required?

Personally I'd be on all in favour of substantial income tax rises to tackle public sector funding and redistribute wealth. I really don't see the point of independence if it merely continues with neoliberalism. The schism between England and Scotland over the past couple of generations is fundamentally about Scotland's repudiation of Thatcherism; so much of it can be traced back to this, so independence SHOULD mean a different type of society. If this had been made explicit in the last campaign, I would probably have voted Yes then. So tax rises would be more likely to make some of us support independence.

[JeMeSouviens]

I agree it's possible and that it's not really a political issue.

However the challenges should not be underestimated.

A simple example would be if a new scots pound was created to be implemented at the same time as Indy. Would that pound be pegged to sterling or not? If not then it could be safely assumed that it would probably be a weaker currency (at least at first)...therefore in day one any assets held in Scotland previously denominated in Sterling would become denominated in Scots pounds and therefore immediately start devaluing compared to sterling (and most likely a whole basket of major currencies). Quite simply if you had any liquid assets you would shift them out of the country before that happens so you may well see massive capital outflows up to and after that point. Capital flight almost certainly makes a country poorer due to the decrease in purchasing power and increase in import costs.

Just one example of the hazards the currency question brings and smart people or not the route to currency Independence is a difficult one.


On the flip side sharing a currency when there is no political union to enact fiscal transfers is possibly just as difficult and brings a whole host of its own issues or you can find plenty of examples where currency pegs blow up in the nations face (just ask John Major how the ERM went...)

I appreciate the cause and effect of currency unions, pegs and free floating exchange rates is not exactly exciting chat and I'm no expert that's for sure but I know enough that it's clear this stuff is absolutely fundamental to a nations wealth and well being.

I therefore massively struggle to understand how a case for independence can be put forward and taken seriously if the proponents of that do not have a very clear and considered approach to this issue. Of course I'm not expecting every voter to need or want to grasp all the intricacies but the people leading the charge damn well should or you could be forgiven in thinking they were being either extremely reckless or just down right foolish.

I have no background in finance or economics but am vaguely numerate (and hey, it never stopped the ubiquitous Kevin Hague ...)

On the question of weaker currency, surely there would be a transitional period using sterling, during which the market would assess the Scottish government, its spending plans, put some value on the country's assets, liabilities and realistic chance of growing the tax base. At the point of actually using the new Scots currency (insert demeaning Unionist moniker of choice) there would be an exchange rate set for it. It would be the relative performance to sterling from this point onwards that would determine the value of people's assets?

A peg gives short-term stability to cross-border trade but obviously requires significant currency reserves to defend. But I'd have thought the flexibility you get from your own currency is worth the effort (ask the Greeks)?

[northstandhibby]

Personally I'd be on all in favour of substantial income tax rises to tackle public sector funding and redistribute wealth. I really don't see the point of independence if it merely continues with neoliberalism. The schism between England and Scotland over the past couple of generations is fundamentally about Scotland's repudiation of Thatcherism; so much of it can be traced back to this, so independence SHOULD mean a different type of society. If this had been made explicit in the last campaign, I would probably have voted Yes then. So tax rises would be more likely to make some of us support independence.

Excessive tax and spend has never led to a balanced long term economic success model and ultimately ends in economic slump and depression. Has to be balanced moderately and smartly with striving to cope within budgets set. Controls over excessive state spending must be adhered to with tax rates set to attract foreign investment.

glory glory

[JeMeSouviens]

An interesting article by former Labour Special Adviser David Clark (he worked for Robin Cook):

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/03/4-ways-second-scottish-independence-campaign-would-be-different

Including a point I've been trying to make regarding the economic opportunity that could be ours:


The UK has for many years been the EU’s top destination for foreign direct investment thanks to a unique combination of advantages, such as the English language, a high quality of life, barrier-free trade with the single market and unimpeded access to the European labour pool. Hard Brexit means that two of these advantages are about to be forfeited. The short-term beneficiary of this may turn out to be the Republic of Ireland, but there is no reason why an independent Scotland couldn’t lay claim to the UK’s role as a magnet for inward investment by guaranteeing continuity in terms of market access.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Excessive tax and spend has never led to a balanced long term economic success model and ultimately ends in economic slump and depression. Has to be balanced moderately and smartly with striving to cope within budgets set. Controls over excessive state spending must be adhered to with tax rates set to attract foreign investment.

glory glory

Depends what you mean by 'excessive'. Give me the German/Scandinavian model over the failed promises of Thatcherism and Reagonomics every time. The American New Deal and post war boom and the German economic miracle were predicated upon steeply progressive taxation and sate spending. Under Roosevelt the top rate of income tax was 93% and it was 81% under Republican Eisenhower: America's era of massive economic expansion.

[JeMeSouviens]

Excessive tax and spend has never led to a balanced long term economic success model and ultimately ends in economic slump and depression. Has to be balanced moderately and smartly with striving to cope within budgets set. Controls over excessive state spending must be adhered to with tax rates set to attract foreign investment.

glory glory

It depends how you do it. The Scandinavian countries are rated the world's happiest. Here's how:

https://taxfoundation.org/how-scandinavian-countries-pay-their-government-spending/

[northstandhibby]

Depends what you mean by 'excessive'. Give me the German/Scandinavian model over the failed promises of Thatcherism and Reagonomics every time. The American New Deal and post war boom and the German economic miracle were predicated upon steeply progressive taxation and sate spending. Under Roosevelt the top rate of income tax was 93% and it was 81% under Republican Eisenhower: America's era of massive economic expansion.

Dearie me, thankfully you'll never have your big grab mitts on the economic levers.

:greengrin

glory glory

[northstandhibby]

It depends how you do it. The Scandinavian countries are rated the world's happiest. Here's how:

https://taxfoundation.org/how-scandinavian-countries-pay-their-government-spending/

I try never to read these types of studies done by researchers who are normally paid to steer such results to appear a certain way so not being ignorant just the way I am.

:greengrin

glory glory

[Hibernia&Alba]

Dearie me, thankfully you'll never have your big grab mitts on the economic levers.

:greengrin

glory glory

My vision of independence would be a democratic socialist Scotland. I'm not interested in independence for any reasons of petty nationalism, jingoism and misty eyed sentimentality.

"National liberation and socialism are inseparable", James Connolly. He was saying you can't have political freedom and economic slavery; it's a waste of time. I subscribe to this view; it has to be for something better.

[hibs0666]

We don't have a referendum. There is however a fight for the right to have one. There is no need to produce a post independence plan yet. One step at a time.

We have had a referendum. If the question to be asked remains remains the same then we have no need for a referendum.

[northstandhibby]

My vision of independence would be a democratic socialist Scotland. I'm not interested in independence for any reasons of petty nationalism, jingoism and misty eyed sentimentality.

"National liberation and socialism are inseparable", James Connolly. He was saying you can't have political freedom and economic slavery; it's a waste of time. I subscribe to this view; it has to be for something better.

Its certainly a viewpoint not without merit.

:agree:

glory glory

[greenlex]

We have had a referendum. If the question to be asked remains remains the same then we have no need for a referendum.
Theres a material change in circumstances that the electorate in Scotland did not vote for that will effect every individual in the country. Even if the question remains the same there should be a right to ask it. The last parliamentary elections were in what 2015? Should we just wait a bit longer before having another General election because the electorate only voted in 2015? How long? The existing 5 year term? 10 years? 15 years 20? Things change and they have done. There should be a referendum. If voters dont want indepemdence then thats what will be voted. I cant see what all the fuss is about. The Scottish people should be able to decide their own path instead of a portion of it trying to block it.

[greenlex]

I try never to read these types of studies done by researchers who are normally paid to steer such results to appear a certain way so not being ignorant just the way I am.

:greengrin

glory glory
How do you form your opinions then? Im alright so the status quo must be the best?

[grunt]

However a hard brexit does give scope to revisit the question of the relationship with the UK albeit the SNP could and should have had the patience to wait until the tories crash out of the negotiations with the EU then pointing the finger of blame for the UK economy nosedive with a call for indy ref 2 timing appearing more appropriate.

glory gloryIt'll be too late by then. The Tories will have bargained away many of Scotland's assets in a bid to obtain favours for the City of London. If we wait until after, many of Scotland's prize economic assets won't be ours to use.

[Peevemor]

We have had a referendum. If the question to be asked remains remains the same then we have no need for a referendum.
If you think the question remains the same, ie. the same criteria apply, then you're obviously far less informed than you make out.

[greenlex]

Scottish Television showing the England game for free whilst having to pay Murdoch if I want to watch Scotland!!!!! Thats reason enough to have a referendum IMO

[Hibernia&Alba]

Scottish Television showing the England game for free whilst having to pay Murdoch if I want to watch Scotland!!!!! Thats reason enough to have a referendum IMO

I wouldnae watch either game :greengrin

[RyeSloan]

I have no background in finance or economics but am vaguely numerate (and hey, it never stopped the ubiquitous Kevin Hague ...)

On the question of weaker currency, surely there would be a transitional period using sterling, during which the market would assess the Scottish government, its spending plans, put some value on the country's assets, liabilities and realistic chance of growing the tax base. At the point of actually using the new Scots currency (insert demeaning Unionist moniker of choice) there would be an exchange rate set for it. It would be the relative performance to sterling from this point onwards that would determine the value of people's assets?

A peg gives short-term stability to cross-border trade but obviously requires significant currency reserves to defend. But I'd have thought the flexibility you get from your own currency is worth the effort (ask the Greeks)?

Well I have no formal training in economics either but I do take a keen (some would say unhealthy!) interest in such matters.

I would actually advocate Scotland using its own currency...I see little sense in Indy otherwise. I would also stay out of the EU though as I think it would be bonkers to rejoin. One thing that stands out in the trade arguments in Brexit is just how restrictive the EU is on trade outside its borders...this convinces me even more that the EU actually restricts trade not promotes it.

However the sheer scale of our trade with rUK would make this a volatile arrangement and really I would say a dispassionate approach would suggest that the best arrangement for Scotland is what we have, a political and monetary union with rUK, I honestly don't think there is many economic arguments that would suggest otherwise and in fact many of the arguments made about Scotland being in the EU are magnified many times when looking at our relationship with rUK especially as that explicitly allows for fiscal transfers.

I get the fact that people suggest an Indy Scotland would be free to grow its economy accordingly but yet I read many people suggesting higher taxes and more government intervention (often under the 'make things fairer' banner)...to put it mildly I've yet to be convinced that is the path to a richer more prosperous nation.

Not sure where that leaves me apart from wholly unconvinced there is any sound economic arguments to be made for Indy in the short or medium term and even if there is it would significantly magnify risk and volatility. Iceland is maybe a good example of what we might expect on that front.

Ultimately I now see this whole shebang being turned into a ideological Tories v Us type argument with little regard to the actual consequences or outcomes.

[RyeSloan]

It depends how you do it. The Scandinavian countries are rated the world's happiest. Here's how:

https://taxfoundation.org/how-scandinavian-countries-pay-their-government-spending/

Yet the UK, merrily cheered on by all political parties has been busy raising the tax free allowance for years now....quite the opposite of the Scandi approach where even those that earn less pay less but still contribute something.

I've said it before that there are too few being asked to pay more and more and that it's not sustainable but I very very much doubt Scotland is any different to most countries where raising tax on those that currently pay little or none (from an income tax perspective) would be massively resisted...even if that makes the system more sustainable and yes maybe even fairer (depends on your definition and viewpoint that one!)

[northstandhibby]

How do you form your opinions then? Im alright so the status quo must be the best?

:greengrin

Maybe sounded a tad arrogant without meaning to. I normally avoid research groups or focus groups who are commissioned by certain parties who want the results to appear the way they want them to.

I read, watch and listen to a variety of various newspapers, news channels and radio stations that satisfies my quest for news and for forming new opinion, albeit one can glean a fair content on here!!!

glory glory

[greenlex]

:greengrin

Maybe sounded a tad arrogant without meaning to. I normally avoid research groups or focus groups who are commissioned by certain parties who want the results to appear the way they want them to.

I read, watch and listen to a variety of various newspapers, news channels and radio stations that satisfies my quest for news and for forming new opinion, albeit one can glean a fair content on here!!!

glory glory
:aok: Be careful tho because newspapers, tv news and newspapers might just give you the paymasters view too. :wink: Best stick to here I reckon.:greengrin

[northstandhibby]

It'll be too late by then. The Tories will have bargained away many of Scotland's assets in a bid to obtain favours for the City of London. If we wait until after, many of Scotland's prize economic assets won't be ours to use.

The brexit repeal bill is repatriating the UK's rights to its fishing/farming etc etc policies back from the EU as I understand it, would it not be the same type of a successful indy ref 2 repeal bill whereby repatriating Scotland's indigenous fishing/farming etc etc? i could be wrong but I would assume it is only fair Scotland would have a similar repeal bill to entangle itself from UK treaties and legal obligations?

glory glory

[northstandhibby]

:aok: Be careful tho because newspapers, tv news and newspapers might just give you the paymasters view too. :wink: Best stick to here I reckon.:greengrin

:agree:

glory glory

[Just Alf]

:aok: Be careful tho because newspapers, tv news and newspapers might just give you the paymasters view too. :wink: Best stick to here I reckon.:greengrin
Indeed!
A few years back I was part of an outside broadcast team, sat in on a press interview and the following day read the papers in disbelief.

The words in quotes were all genuine right enough but the emphasis added (or downplayed in some places) made the report sound like the opposite was actually said.

Eg..... when questioned he blasted "blah blah"
When it was actually a simple "blah blah"

Was.the Sun

:D


Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

Well I have no formal training in economics either but I do take a keen (some would say unhealthy!) interest in such matters.

I would actually advocate Scotland using its own currency...I see little sense in Indy otherwise. I would also stay out of the EU though as I think it would be bonkers to rejoin. One thing that stands out in the trade arguments in Brexit is just how restrictive the EU is on trade outside its borders...this convinces me even more that the EU actually restricts trade not promotes it.

However the sheer scale of our trade with rUK would make this a volatile arrangement and really I would say a dispassionate approach would suggest that the best arrangement for Scotland is what we have, a political and monetary union with rUK, I honestly don't think there is many economic arguments that would suggest otherwise and in fact many of the arguments made about Scotland being in the EU are magnified many times when looking at our relationship with rUK especially as that explicitly allows for fiscal transfers.

I get the fact that people suggest an Indy Scotland would be free to grow its economy accordingly but yet I read many people suggesting higher taxes and more government intervention (often under the 'make things fairer' banner)...to put it mildly I've yet to be convinced that is the path to a richer more prosperous nation.

Not sure where that leaves me apart from wholly unconvinced there is any sound economic arguments to be made for Indy in the short or medium term and even if there is it would significantly magnify risk and volatility. Iceland is maybe a good example of what we might expect on that front.

Ultimately I now see this whole shebang being turned into a ideological Tories v Us type argument with little regard to the actual consequences or outcomes.

You seem to be singing from the same hymm sheet as Nobel prize winner, Professor Jo Stiglitz

This is what he said about the currency a few months ago, and as has been alluded to on this thread, work continues.

THE Scottish Greens yesterday urged the SNP to begin work on a Scottish currency after a Nobel prize-winning economist backed the move.
Joseph Stiglitz, who has advised the Scottish Government and Bill Clinton’s US administration, called plans for a UK currency union a “mistake”, advised an independent Scotland against joining the euro and said a “resurrected” Scottish pound could kickstart growth, reduce the deficit and smooth the transition to the European Union.

[northstandhibby]

You seem to be singing from the same hymm sheet as Nobel prize winner, Professor Jo Stiglitz

This is what he said about the currency a few months ago, and as has been alluded to on this thread, work continues.

THE Scottish Greens yesterday urged the SNP to begin work on a Scottish currency after a Nobel prize-winning economist backed the move.
Joseph Stiglitz, who has advised the Scottish Government and Bill Clinton’s US administration, called plans for a UK currency union a “mistake”, advised an independent Scotland against joining the euro and said a “resurrected” Scottish pound could kickstart growth, reduce the deficit and smooth the transition to the European Union.

A bold statement. Any evidence?

glory glory

[Slavoj Zizek]

I work ocassionally in Govanhill: "Has Govanhill got better in the last 10 years" We had the Greens, Labour, Cons, SSP you name it, we had them and the only convincing answer we had came from the RISE spokesperson. This is Sturgeon's consituency BTW. Same could be said of every deprived consituency I have worked in throughout the Central Belt. When is the rise in Carer's Allowance happening? When are ATOS exams being abolished? When is UC being replaced with a fairer Housing Benefit system and why did the Scottish Government delay the transfer of Social Security Powers despite this being in the Edinburgh Agreement? Not on the electoral register myself for reasons to utterly pointless to go into. These, however, are legit questions I have to deal with on a daily basis...

[ronaldo7]

A bold statement. Any evidence?

glory glory

It is, although, you'd have to ask the guy that made it. Professor Joseph Stiglitz.:aok:

[northstandhibby]

I work ocassionally in Govanhill: "Has Govanhill got better in the last 10 years" We had the Greens, Labour, Cons, SSP you name it, we had them and the only convincing answer we had came from the RISE spokesperson. This is Sturgeon's consituency BTW. Same could be said of every deprived consituency I have worked in throughout the Central Belt. When is the rise in Carer's Allowance happening? When are ATOS exams being abolished? When is UC being replaced with a fairer Housing Benefit system and why did the Scottish Government delay the transfer of Social Security Powers despite this being in the Edinburgh Agreement? Not on the electoral register myself for reasons to utterly pointless to go into. These, however, are legit questions I have to deal with on a daily basis...

Maybe a different Slavoj Zizek but i read a column in the Guardian by you or a namesake yesterday?

glory glory

[northstandhibby]

It is, although, you'd have to ask the guy that made it. Professor Joseph Stiglitz.:aok:

No matter who its made by a statement on its own has no real relevance as the absence of rationale prevents scrutiny.

glory glory

[G B Young]

As I've already said, if the Greens were to abstain the SNP Government would still hold a majority.

If you're seriously suggesting they vote against the SNP Government on this matter then I think you've lost the plot.

Did the Green manifesto say they'd block another Indyref vote?

And if they voted against the motion, the minority SNP Government would lose. Abstaining would seem a strange choice.

My point was simply that in voting with the SNP, the Greens appear to have abandoned their manifesto pledge. No, it doesn't say they'd block another referendum, but it does say that: If a new referendum is to happen, it should come about by the will of the people, and not be driven by calculations of party political advantage.

Given that polling consistently shows a minority of the people in favour of a new referendum I'm suggesting that when it comes to this vote, the Greens are driven by calculations of party political advantage.

Anyway, correct call to postpone the debate today in light of the hideous events in London so I guess we can let this rest a while.

[G B Young]

...such is life in any Parliament where one party has a majority.

The SNP are a minority government.

[northstandhibby]

And if they voted against the motion, the minority SNP Government would lose. Abstaining would seem a strange choice.

My point was simply that in voting with the SNP, the Greens appear to have abandoned their manifesto pledge. No, it doesn't say they'd block another referendum, but it does say that: If a new referendum is to happen, it should come about by the will of the people, and not be driven by calculations of party political advantage.

Given that polling consistently shows a minority of the people in favour of a new referendum I'm suggesting that when it comes to this vote, the Greens are driven by calculations of party political advantage.

Anyway, correct call to postpone the debate today in light of the hideous events in London so I guess we can let this rest a while.

Wouldn't their argument be the will of the people (Scottish) was to remain in the EU whereby triggering the right to a new vote on the relationship with the UK?

glory glory

[ronaldo7]

No matter who its made by a statement on its own has no real relevance as the absence of rationale prevents scrutiny.

glory glory

Crack on chief. Lots of reading here. http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/

[Mon Dieu4]

The SNP are a minority government.

2 seats short in a system that was originally designed so that no one can have an overall majority, it's a one party state in all but name

[Hibernia&Alba]

2 seats short in a system that was originally designed so that no one can have an overall majority, it's a one party state in all but name

And what a scenario, when Labour was the one party of any relevance for so many decades. It seemed to happen so quickly.

[northstandhibby]

Crack on chief. Lots of reading here. http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/

A quick glance at the headings of his theory subjects leaves me with little doubt hes not a fan of the euro so any national currency apart from the euro is bound to excite him. Bill Cash is sure to be a fan of Stiglitz due to his fanatical willingness that the euro ends in failure.

I'm not too fussed about what currency is used if indy ref 2 was a success as there would of course be a prolonged transitional period anyhow however no one should be predicting anything other than a period of uncertainty which has consequences for any economy.

Nice try though.

glory glory

[Mon Dieu4]

And what a scenario, when Labour was the one party of any relevance for so many decades. It seemed to happen so quickly.

Suits my agenda and won't deny it ;)

[greenlex]

A quick glance at the headings of his theory subjects leaves me with little doubt hes not a fan of the euro so any national currency apart from the euro is bound to excite him. Bill Cash is sure to be a fan of Stiglitz due to his fanatical willingness that the euro ends in failure.

I'm not too fussed about what currency is used if indy ref 2 was a success as there would of course be a prolonged transitional period anyhow however no one should be predicting anything other than a period of uncertainty which has consequences for any economy.

Nice try though.

glory glory Uncertainty like now that will get worse in the coming months and years referendum or not.
Ironically watch the pound. I wouldn't be surprised to see parity with the Euro eventually

[northstandhibby]

Uncertainty like now that will get worse in the coming months and years referendum or not.
Ironically watch the pound. I wouldn't be surprised to see parity with the Euro eventually

Totally agree with you. Once the harsh reality of a hard brexit sets in, we'll find out just how right or wrong 'project fear' actually was. There is certain to be a detrimental impact of jobs being moved from the UK to the EU membership areas. The parity with the euro or lower than is sure to occur in the years or even months ahead. I'm not being pessimistic more pragmatically realistic.

glory glory

[CropleyWasGod]

The SNP are a minority government.
On this issue, there is a majority, which is the real point.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

You seem to be singing from the same hymm sheet as Nobel prize winner, Professor Jo Stiglitz

This is what he said about the currency a few months ago, and as has been alluded to on this thread, work continues.

THE Scottish Greens yesterday urged the SNP to begin work on a Scottish currency after a Nobel prize-winning economist backed the move.
Joseph Stiglitz, who has advised the Scottish Government and Bill Clinton’s US administration, called plans for a UK currency union a “mistake”, advised an independent Scotland against joining the euro and said a “resurrected” Scottish pound could kickstart growth, reduce the deficit and smooth the transition to the European Union.

Yeah Stieglitz talks a lot of sense at times and I agree with his view on the Euro...no matter how hard the EU tries to pretend otherwise it's a currency with a fatal flaw and one that has brought hardship to many at the expense of a political ambition.

I've been consistent in my view that if Indy is to happen we should go 'full fat' and have our own currency and stay out of the EU.

However that doesn't mean I agree this such a course of action is desirable.

My main concern is that as a nation we are no where near prepared for what such a course would entail. The wailing and gnashing of teeth over any change or the slightest movement on the economy or people's circumstance shows me that we are unprepared for the types of shocks an Indy Scotland might face and wholly unprepared for the radical change that might be needed in our brace new world.

In addition I see little vision for the country...there is little talk of the modernisation, automation and the huge overhaul of the taxation and spending approach needed to drive productivity I would consider worthy of taking such a huge leap for. Sadly (despite all of the evidence to the contrary) the majority of people still seem to be believe politicians can run and grow economies and know how to spend our money better than the people they take it from.

That's one of the primary reasons I have no political affiliation...I don't believe many (or any!) grasp the fact that their interventions often do more harm than good and when they make promises about growing economies and 'investing' that they actually have zero idea of what they are talking about.

The coming wave of technological change is a great opportunity for the whole world yet we seem stuck in the past, arguing over old arguments and proposing outdated and failed solutions to the wrong problems.

Indy or not I don't see that changing and that's probably one of the main reasons I'm currently pretty much against it...I just can't see it being worth the hassle.

As you can tell I'm on a cheery mood today [emoji23]

[pacoluna]

The SNP are a minority government.
FPTP system is in place to stop there being a majority government, it's not in pace to stop government from pursuing a mandate that's giving through a manifesto that has been democratically voted for.

[northstandhibby]

Yeah Stieglitz talks a lot of sense at times and I agree with his view on the Euro...no matter how hard the EU tries to pretend otherwise it's a currency with a fatal flaw and one that has brought hardship to many at the expense of a political ambition.

I've been consistent in my view that if Indy is to happen we should go 'full fat' and have our own currency and stay out of the EU.

However that doesn't mean I agree this such a course of action is desirable.

My main concern is that as a nation we are no where near prepared for what such a course would entail. The wailing and gnashing of teeth over any change or the slightest movement on the economy or people's circumstance shows me that we are unprepared for the types of shocks an Indy Scotland might face and wholly unprepared for the radical change that might be needed in our brace new world.

In addition I see little vision for the country...there is little talk of the modernisation, automation and the huge overhaul of the taxation and spending approach needed to drive productivity I would consider worthy of taking such a huge leap for. Sadly (despite all of the evidence to the contrary) the majority of people still seem to be believe politicians can run and grow economies and know how to spend our money better than the people they take it from.

That's one of the primary reasons I have no political affiliation...I don't believe many (or any!) grasp the fact that their interventions often do more harm than good and when they make promises about growing economies and 'investing' that they actually have zero idea of what they are talking about.

The coming wave of technological change is a great opportunity for the whole world yet we seem stuck in the past, arguing over old arguments and proposing outdated and failed solutions to the wrong problems.

Indy or not I don't see that changing and that's probably one of the main reasons I'm currently pretty much against it...I just can't see it being worth the hassle.

As you can tell I'm on a cheery mood today [emoji23]

You do seem a bit flummoxed with this Si Mar.

Radical thinkers will always find themselves at odds with established ideals that have been built upon over hundreds if not thousands of years gone by. The old arguments will always re-appear as we try to avoid the worst of humanities failures of naked greed, destruction, dishonesty etc etc etc.

I prefer the EU's values of mixing free trading while protecting groups and individuals rights to life, medicine, fair trials and non torture etc etc etc. A force for good and while its shared currency has its faults they are a collective group of nation states being radical in seeking to portray the best of human attributes.

glory glory

[RyeSloan]

You do seem a bit flummoxed with this Si Mar.

Radical thinkers will always find themselves at odds with established ideals that have been built upon over hundreds if not thousands of years gone by. The old arguments will always re-appear as we try to avoid the worst of humanities failures of naked greed, destruction, dishonesty etc etc etc.

I prefer the EU's values of mixing free trading while protecting groups and individuals rights to life, medicine, fair trials and non torture etc etc etc. A force for good and while its shared currency has its faults they are a collective group of nation states being radical in seeking to portray the best of human attributes.

glory glory

European human rights and the EU are two separate beasts in my eyes and conflating the two does not serve anyone well.

The EU does not encourage free trade, quite the opposite. It only focuses on its members and restricts trade with those outside. There can be no bigger misnomer than 'free trade agreements'...anyway a discussion for another thread / day.

As for Indy I'm not flummoxed by it, just not believing the reasoning and rationale are being fully thought through or considered, especially by the main proponents of it. A personal view of course but a view none the less [emoji12]

[northstandhibby]

European human rights and the EU are two separate beasts in my eyes and conflating the two does not serve anyone well.

The EU does not encourage free trade, quite the opposite. It only focuses on its members and restricts trade with those outside. There can be no bigger misnomer than 'free trade agreements'...anyway a discussion for another thread / day.

As for Indy I'm not flummoxed by it, just not believing the reasoning and rationale are being fully thought through or considered, especially by the main proponents of it. A personal view of course but a view none the less [emoji12]

While I disagree with some of your quite poorly set out points which is surprising for you Si Mar as you are normally articulate and detailed, I too can't be bothered this morning to think too long and hard over contentious issues.

:greengrin

glory glory

[G B Young]

Wouldn't their argument be the will of the people (Scottish) was to remain in the EU whereby triggering the right to a new vote on the relationship with the UK?

glory glory

I imagine that would be an argument they would use to cover themselves. However, where that falls down is that the 'will of the people' cited by their manifesto pledge is not reflected by a surge in support for a post-Brexit independence referendum. It appears that most remain voters living in Scotland (like myself) simply don't see the Brexit as a starting gun for another Scottish referendum.

[Peevemor]

I imagine that would be an argument they would use to cover themselves. However, where that falls down is that the 'will of the people' cited by their manifesto pledge is not reflected by a surge in support for a post-Brexit independence referendum. It appears that most remain voters living in Scotland (like myself) simply don't see the Brexit as a starting gun for another Scottish referendum.

I'd say some, not most.

[allmodcons]

And if they voted against the motion, the minority SNP Government would lose. Abstaining would seem a strange choice.

My point was simply that in voting with the SNP, the Greens appear to have abandoned their manifesto pledge. No, it doesn't say they'd block another referendum, but it does say that: If a new referendum is to happen, it should come about by the will of the people, and not be driven by calculations of party political advantage.

Given that polling consistently shows a minority of the people in favour of a new referendum I'm suggesting that when it comes to this vote, the Greens are driven by calculations of party political advantage.

Anyway, correct call to postpone the debate today in light of the hideous events in London so I guess we can let this rest a while.

Sorry, but "your point" is just pure nonsense.

You're asking the Greens to vote with the pro Union parties to prevent Indyref2. Get real.

What's more, you might want to produce some evidence to support your claim around polling. In the last Panelbase poll 50% wanted to see a second referendum within the next 2 years (i.e. - the SNP timescale).

[G B Young]

Sorry, but "your point" is just pure nonsense.

You're asking the Greens to vote with the pro Union parties to prevent Indyref2. Get real.

What's more, you might want to produce some evidence to support your claim around polling. In the last Panelbase poll 50% wanted to see a second referendum within the next 2 years (i.e. - the SNP timescale).

I'm not 'asking' them to do anything. Just pointing out that their rationale for hanging on to the SNP's coat tails on this issue doesn't square with their manifesto stance.

As for Panelbase polls, the latest one I saw was this: https://www.holyrood.com/articles/news/support-scottish-independence-falls-44-cent-according-panelbase-poll

That's broadly consistent with the majority of polls since the Brexit vote failing to show the sort of rise in support for independence that the SNP had banked on. But then I accept there's only so much we can read into polls. After all, they had us believing that Brexit wouldn't happen, that Clinton would beat Trump, that Labour had a chance of winning the 2015 general election and that that the 2014 referendum would be a close result...

[Moulin Yarns]

And if they voted against the motion, the minority SNP Government would lose. Abstaining would seem a strange choice.

My point was simply that in voting with the SNP, the Greens appear to have abandoned their manifesto pledge. No, it doesn't say they'd block another referendum, but it does say that: If a new referendum is to happen, it should come about by the will of the people, and not be driven by calculations of party political advantage.

Given that polling consistently shows a minority of the people in favour of a new referendum I'm suggesting that when it comes to this vote, the Greens are driven by calculations of party political advantage.

Anyway, correct call to postpone the debate today in light of the hideous events in London so I guess we can let this rest a while.


Sorry, but "your point" is just pure nonsense.

You're asking the Greens to vote with the pro Union parties to prevent Indyref2. Get real.

What's more, you might want to produce some evidence to support your claim around polling. In the last Panelbase poll 50% wanted to see a second referendum within the next 2 years (i.e. - the SNP timescale).

The Scottish Green Party have the same options as the other parties, vote for or against a motion or abstain. The way they will vote on whether to support a referendum will reflect the party policies as outlined in their manifesto. In which case they will vote in favour as they support independence. I'm not sure why GB Young needs to debate this simple fact. If any party is not voting for party political advantage, then they are failing their members and supporters.

[grunt]

It appears that most remain voters living in Scotland (like myself) simply don't see the Brexit as a starting gun for another Scottish referendum.I do.

[Peevemor]

The Scottish Green Party have the same options as the other parties, vote for or against a motion or abstain. The way they will vote on whether to support a referendum will reflect the party policies as outlined in their manifesto. In which case they will vote in favour as they support independence. I'm not sure why GB Young needs to debate this simple fact. If any party is not voting for party political advantage, then they are failing their members and supporters.

This for me is all that counts.

If the other parties are convinced that nobody wants another referendum, then why are they so against having one - surely a "no" result is a foregone conclusion - n'est-ce pas?

Anyone who says that the SNP don't have a mandate is kidding themself on, as are those who deny that Brexit means nothing in the question of Scottish independence.

In addition, the SNP bad/"Krankie" stuff has now gone beyond annoying - it's simply pathetic.

As for the quality of debate in Holyrood over the last couple of days... :rolleyes:

[RyeSloan]

While I disagree with some of your quite poorly set out points which is surprising for you Si Mar as you are normally articulate and detailed, I too can't be bothered this morning to think too long and hard over contentious issues.

:greengrin

glory glory

Ha ha you sound like my old English teacher!

[allmodcons]

I'm not 'asking' them to do anything. Just pointing out that their rationale for hanging on to the SNP's coat tails on this issue doesn't square with their manifesto stance.

As for Panelbase polls, the latest one I saw was this: https://www.holyrood.com/articles/news/support-scottish-independence-falls-44-cent-according-panelbase-poll

That's broadly consistent with the majority of polls since the Brexit vote failing to show the sort of rise in support for independence that the SNP had banked on. But then I accept there's only so much we can read into polls. After all, they had us believing that Brexit wouldn't happen, that Clinton would beat Trump, that Labour had a chance of winning the 2015 general election and that that the 2014 referendum would be a close result...

You should read your own links before posting. In the link you provided 50% are in favour of a second referendum within the next 2 years.

We're not talking voting intentions here. Your words:-

"Given that polling consistently shows a minority of the people in favour of a new referendum".

[allmodcons]

Ha ha you sound like my old English teacher!

Did you go to school ? :greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

You should read your own links before posting. In the link you provided 50% are in favour of a second referendum within the next 2 years.

We're not talking voting intentions here. Your words:-

"Given that polling consistently shows a minority of the people in favour of a new referendum".

I can do better than that. A quote straight from that link....


The Panelbase survey for The Times and LBC showed a majority of Scots back Theresa May’s call for a second vote :wink:

[RyeSloan]

Did you go to school ? :greengrin

Occasionally [emoji23]

[grunt]

I can do better than that. A quote straight from that link....
:wink:Cheeky.

[Moulin Yarns]

Cheeky.

Funny though. :greengrin

It does illustrate the danger of quotes being taken out of context.

[G B Young]

You should read your own links before posting. In the link you provided 50% are in favour of a second referendum within the next 2 years.

We're not talking voting intentions here. Your words:-

"Given that polling consistently shows a minority of the people in favour of a new referendum".

Sorry, I'm maybe missing your point or needing my eyes tested but the only reference I can see in that article to a referendum in the next two years reads: "The poll also found that just 32 per cent want a fresh poll in the next year or two."

[allmodcons]

Sorry, I'm maybe missing your point or needing my eyes tested but the only reference I can see in that article to a referendum in the next two years reads: "The poll also found that just 32 per cent want a fresh poll in the next year or two."

Source 'Scot Goes Pop'.

Respondents are asked to choose between a referendum in "the next year or two", a referendum "in about two years", or no referendum "in the next few years". The latter timescale implies a period of longer than two years, which means that people who want a referendum in three years' time (2020 has, after all, been mentioned as a possible compromise date) do not have an option that represents their views - they're effectively forced to choose an option they don't really believe in. However, within those inadequate confines, there is a roughly even split between those who say they want a referendum within two years, and those who say they don't want one within the next few years - exactly as there was in the last poll.

The combined support for the two 'within two years' options is 50%, while support for 'not within the next few years' is 51%. The apparent incompatibilty of those numbers is caused by the effect of rounding. That suggests support for an early referendum on the raw numbers is fractionally below 50%, perhaps similar to the 49.4% recorded in the last poll - but that would, of course, be well within the standard 3% margin of error, meaning it's impossible to know whether the true figure is a little above 50%, or a little below.

[Moulin Yarns]

Sorry, I'm maybe missing your point or needing my eyes tested but the only reference I can see in that article to a referendum in the next two years reads: "The poll also found that just 32 per cent want a fresh poll in the next year or two."

As I said above. The dangers of taking a partial quote doesn't tell the full story.

try this.


The poll also found that just 32 per cent want a fresh poll in the next year or two, while 18 per cent favour one about two years from now “when the UK has finished negotiating

Now like SiMar it is a while since I was at school , but 32 + 18 = 50% want a referendum in 2 years time.

[JeMeSouviens]

Source 'Scot Goes Pop'.

Respondents are asked to choose between a referendum in "the next year or two", a referendum "in about two years", or no referendum "in the next few years". The latter timescale implies a period of longer than two years, which means that people who want a referendum in three years' time (2020 has, after all, been mentioned as a possible compromise date) do not have an option that represents their views - they're effectively forced to choose an option they don't really believe in. However, within those inadequate confines, there is a roughly even split between those who say they want a referendum within two years, and those who say they don't want one within the next few years - exactly as there was in the last poll.

The combined support for the two 'within two years' options is 50%, while support for 'not within the next few years' is 51%. The apparent incompatibilty of those numbers is caused by the effect of rounding. That suggests support for an early referendum on the raw numbers is fractionally below 50%, perhaps similar to the 49.4% recorded in the last poll - but that would, of course, be well within the standard 3% margin of error, meaning it's impossible to know whether the true figure is a little above 50%, or a little below.


Sorry, I know it's a bit tangential to your point but most people are a bit hazy on the 3% MoE. You can't say the numbers are within 3% of the truth unless you already knew that the poll drew an entirely random sample from a perfectly representative population, ie. it's the error caused just by having a small number (typically 1000) representing an electorate of 4M.

In fact, there are all sorts of other factors that could cause the sample to be unrepresentative and then you've got the sampling error on top. I think considering what they're trying to do, opinion polls are pretty good, but there are plenty of good reasons for them getting the wrong numbers in a tight race.

To try and base a decision to have (or claim illegitimacy of) a referendum based on a few polls being a point or 2 here or there against having it is utterly ludicrous, imo.

[RyeSloan]

Source 'Scot Goes Pop'.

Respondents are asked to choose between a referendum in "the next year or two", a referendum "in about two years", or no referendum "in the next few years". The latter timescale implies a period of longer than two years, which means that people who want a referendum in three years' time (2020 has, after all, been mentioned as a possible compromise date) do not have an option that represents their views - they're effectively forced to choose an option they don't really believe in. However, within those inadequate confines, there is a roughly even split between those who say they want a referendum within two years, and those who say they don't want one within the next few years - exactly as there was in the last poll.

The combined support for the two 'within two years' options is 50%, while support for 'not within the next few years' is 51%. The apparent incompatibilty of those numbers is caused by the effect of rounding. That suggests support for an early referendum on the raw numbers is fractionally below 50%, perhaps similar to the 49.4% recorded in the last poll - but that would, of course, be well within the standard 3% margin of error, meaning it's impossible to know whether the true figure is a little above 50%, or a little below.

Which I suppose supports what most polls have been telling us since 2014...the percentages that want Indy / Another ref are roughly the same as voted Yes and that there really hasn't been much movement one way or the other since the last referendum.

It's the same for Brexit the game changer' I think. Largely those that were already pre-disposed to support Indy or another ref see that as a perfectly valid catalyst. Those that weren't really wanting Indy or another ref don't see it in that light at all.

Sure there will be movement around the margins but to me it looks like the same folk wanting the same thing showing up in the same polls no matter how the question is asked.

[allmodcons]

Sorry, I know it's a bit tangential to your point but most people are a bit hazy on the 3% MoE. You can't say the numbers are within 3% of the truth unless you already knew that the poll drew an entirely random sample from a perfectly representative population, ie. it's the error caused just by having a small number (typically 1000) representing an electorate of 4M.

In fact, there are all sorts of other factors that could cause the sample to be unrepresentative and then you've got the sampling error on top. I think considering what they're trying to do, opinion polls are pretty good, but there are plenty of good reasons for them getting the wrong numbers in a tight race.

To try and base a decision to have (or claim illegitimacy of) a referendum based on a few polls being a point or 2 here or there against having it is utterly ludicrous, imo.

Tangential (impressive).

Anyway you've lost me. These are not my words, so I suggest you take it up with my source.

[Hibernia&Alba]

I do.

Ditto. It changes everything for me. We were told that remaining in the union was the only way to guarantee continued EU membership. Now here we are, a week away from the government formally giving notice of the UK's intention to leave. I believe it's a catastrophic mistake, and one which a clear majority of Scots do not support. David Cameron will be remembered as the prime minister who took the UK out of the EU and who set the wheels in motion for the break up of the UK. Posh boy made a total James Hunt of it by playing party politics and trying to be too clever by half.

[grunt]

Ditto. It changes everything for me. We were told that remaining in the union was the only way to guarantee continued EU membership. Now here we are, a week away from the government formally giving notice of the UK's intention to leave. I believe it's a catastrophic mistake, and one which a clear majority of Scots do not support. David Cameron will be remembered as the prime minister who took the UK out of the EU and who set the wheels in motion for the break up of the UK. Posh boy made a total James Hunt of it by playing party politics and trying to be too clever by half.Thank you, you've put it very well.

But there's something more, at least for me.

I don't want to be part of a country where the majority think it's ok to blame all their ills on incomers, foreigners, immigrants.
We live in a connected world, and I was born where I was through circumstances I had no control over.
The same applies to people from other countries, and I don't blame them for wanting to move and improve their lot.
I want to live in an inclusive world where we judge people on how they act towards us, how they live, rather than where they were born.
I'm disgusted at UKIP/Daily Mail and their vile impact on modern British society.

Ms Sturgeon, if she's true to her word, offers me the chance to live in an open society which welcomes incomers.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Thank you, you've put it very well.

But there's something more, at least for me.

I don't want to be part of a country where the majority think it's ok to blame all their ills on incomers, foreigners, immigrants.
We live in a connected world, and I was born where I was through circumstances I had no control over.
The same applies to people from other countries, and I don't blame them for wanting to move and improve their lot.
I want to live in an inclusive world where we judge people on how they act towards us, how they live, rather than where they were born.
I'm disgusted at UKIP/Daily Mail and their vile impact on modern British society.

Ms Sturgeon, if she's true to her word, offers me the chance to live in an open society which welcomes incomers.

:top marks

I fully agree with your attitude.

[Slavoj Zizek]

The people of Govanhill are waiting for the answers to our previous questions....:rolleyes: