Indy Ref 2

[Bristolhibby]

Disagree that there's an arrogance. Yes I'm an SNP supporter just not in favour of the royals.

No many Republican parties would have much success.

Pick your battles. Independence first, Republic next.

Quite frankly if you are a democrat, then you can't be a monacharist. Because the Monarchy will always sit above democracy. That in itself is undemocratic.

The Queen cannot be tried for a crime? WTF?

J

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

No many Republican parties would have much success.

Pick your battles. Independence first, Republic next.

Quite frankly if you are a democrat, then you can't be a monacharist. Because the Monarchy will always sit above democracy. That in itself is undemocratic.

The Queen cannot be tried for a crime? WTF?

J

I find it more offensive that we still have institutionalised anti-catholocism, but that is just one of the many things to dislike about the British class system.

However i would guess that one of the reasons republicanism hasnt really taken root in scotland or the UK is that people are put off the by the prospect of having more politicians.

While many will dislike thd structure of the monarchy, the actual effect they have in minimal. Replacing them with an elected structure and president etc just isnt an appealing enough alternative.

I agree that in an independent Scotlabd, effectively (re) starting a new country from scratch, we could and should implement a new structure that doesnt institutionalise hereditary privilege. But who knows, in a neely indy Scotland, maybe people would want to hang on to them as a nostalgic token?

Also agree with the snp that it is not a battle they should be fighting just now.

Related to this discussion, i habe alse heard a very senior nat stand up and say that they disagree strongly with the SNPs policy of not having a revising chamber. I agree with this, especially given some of the very poorly drafted legislation that holyrood has produced lately.

The level of scrutiny in place just now is not enough, and the committees are whipped to such a degree as to be fairly worthless.

An indy Scotland would need some sort of uppet house IMO, and personally i think it doesnt have to be an elected chamber.

[greenlex]

Well that's the democratically elected representatives of the Scottish people voted to have the referendum on independence once the details of Brexit are known. Over to you Westminster.

[makaveli1875]

oh great heres to another 18 months of endless debate , lying , fantasy and delusion ... cant wait

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Well that's the democratically elected representatives of the Scottish people voted to have the referendum on independence once the details of Brexit are known. Over to you Westminster.

And our other elected parliament, and government have said not. Simples.

Well that was a short debate...

[G B Young]

oh great heres to another 18 months of endless debate , lying , fantasy and delusion ... cant wait

I know, it's a soul-sapping prospect. Makes you think those living in England are lucky only to have the Brexit saga to endure.

While the request to hold another referendum will (rightly) get short shrift from Westminster the SNP will no doubt have some sort of legal challenge lined up so whatever transpires we have years of rancour ahead. Best hope is probably that another referendum campaign gets punted back to 2021 or later, by which time Sturgeon's minority government loses enough seats to make it a non issue.

I think what rankles most with those opposed to independence is that the nationalists simply fail to understand that for many of us it's not just a question of politics. It comes down a simple belief that it's actually OK to feel Scottish AND British. We may be a nation in our own right and not simply a UK region, but per head of population Scotland's interests are more than adequately represented at Westminster, we have our own devolved parliament and for many that is perfectly adequate. Personally, I think the diversity Scotland brings to the greater whole of the UK is a great thing.

[stoneyburn hibs]

oh great heres to another 18 months of endless debate , lying , fantasy and delusion ... cant wait

That's Better Together in a nutshell, what do you think will come from the Indy side ? 😁

[makaveli1875]

That's Better Together in a nutshell, what do you think will come from the Indy side ? 😁

Its both sides in a nutshell , they both told lies , they both got found out .

[Bristolhibby]

I know, it's a soul-sapping prospect. Makes you think those living in England are lucky only to have the Brexit saga to endure.

While the request to hold another referendum will (rightly) get short shrift from Westminster the SNP will no doubt have some sort of legal challenge lined up so whatever transpires we have years of rancour ahead. Best hope is probably that another referendum campaign gets punted back to 2021 or later, by which time Sturgeon's minority government loses enough seats to make it a non issue.

I think what rankles most with those opposed to independence is that the nationalists simply fail to understand that for many of us it's not just a question of politics. It comes down a simple belief that it's actually OK to feel Scottish AND British. We may be a nation in our own right and not simply a UK region, but per head of population Scotland's interests are more than adequately represented at Westminster, we have our own devolved parliament and for many that is perfectly adequate. Personally, I think the diversity Scotland brings to the greater whole of the UK is a great thing.

Technically everyone is Scottish and British. (We all live on the Island of Great Britain). Doesn't mean that the people of Scotland have to be ruled by Westminster. Would be great if that were the case, but to put it bluntly the way the people of Scotland vote is so divergent from the reas of the UK that the two can't continue to satisfy both.

J

[High-On-Hibs]

There's an arrogance around the SNP that's at least the equal of Scottish Labour at it's height.
I take it as a republican you are not an SNP supporter then as their policy is still to keep the Royals.

The SNPs policy isn't to "keep the royals". If you can find that anywhere in their manifesto, then please do point it out.

The problem is that they couldn't get rid of the royals, even if they wanted to. Independence would not get rid of them. It would be unhelpful from a political stand point to take a total anti-royalist stance. They're best doing what they're doing right now and that is an indifference approach towards them.

[marinello59]

The SNPs policy isn't to "keep the royals". If you can find that anywhere in their manifesto, then please do point it out.

The problem is that they couldn't get rid of the royals, even if they wanted to. Independence would not get rid of them. It would be unhelpful from a political stand point to take a total anti-royalist stance. They're best doing what they're doing right now and that is an indifference approach towards them.

It was made clear at the last referendum an Independent Scotland would be retaining the Royal Family. Has Sturgeon now said that's not the case or maybe we are going to pretend that was never said?

[grunt]

Can't believe we're discussing Royal family when Scottish Govt has just voted for 2nd referendum and UK govt has said, "nope".


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[xyz23jc]

oh great heres to another 18 months of endless debate , lying , fantasy and delusion ... cant wait

Isn't your porridge getting cold? :greengrin

[GreenLake]

If Scotland is voted independent which passport will non-residents with Scottish Nationality apply for?

Will they be European Community Passports or are the EC still threatening Scots to stay together with the UK?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Can't believe we're discussing Royal family when Scottish Govt has just voted for 2nd referendum and UK govt has said, "nope".


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I think the problem is that because we have all known this was coming, the debate has already happened.

I do think its interesting that the tories have been stronger this time. Does that mean:

They have been encouraged by the responsr to their lukewarm refusal, and so have decided to be firmer (backed by internal polling / focus groups etc)?

That they are goading the SNP into further grievance, thinking that will help them?

Spectacularly misread the mood and misstepping?

Or, that Mundell just accidentally went off message and created some new policy on the hoof...

All seem quite feasible to me. I suppose only time will tell - but id be surprised if the tories dont have some good data to back up theor aggressive stance.

Also, Ruth Davidson telling Sturgeon to 'sit back down'was peetty funny. I dont think she liked that one bit...

Also a further issue, if we now look beyond next holyrood elections to a future vote, shouldnt the governing party start delivering in order to ensure they have a majority, otherwise it may well be a generation before indyref2 happens...

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

If Scotland is voted independent which passport will non-residents with Scottish Nationality apply for?

Will they be European Community Passports or are the EC still threatening Scots to stay together with the UK?


Genuine question here, but is it right that migrants who are not permanent residents would get to vote in a referendum about something as important as this?

Im really not sure what i think about it, but if i libed france for work, im not sure i would expect to vote in a referendum.

[ronaldo7]

The FM had a clear manifesto commitment, which now has Parliamentary majority at Holyrood. For May and co to refuse to even discuss the section 30 order, shows a clear contempt for Holyrood, and our right to self determination.

For those suggesting Indyref2 after 2021, this would not allow the democratically elected Scottish Government to enact their manifesto.

Interesting next steps. Looks like we may be upping the anti.

[Mon Dieu4]

Genuine question here, but is it right that migrants who are not permanent residents would get to vote in a referendum about something as important as this?

Im really not sure what i think about it, but if i libed france for work, im not sure i would expect to vote in a referendum.

How many people actually live here "just for work"? Most people either live here or don't, in my opinion if you have lived here for say 3 years and pay tax into the system you should have every right to have a say in it

[Bristolhibby]

Genuine question here, but is it right that migrants who are not permanent residents would get to vote in a referendum about something as important as this?

Im really not sure what i think about it, but if i libed france for work, im not sure i would expect to vote in a referendum.

If you'd made France your home and registered to vote, why shouldn't you vote on the future of your new home? Similarly I am Scottish living in England, I shouldn't get a vote.

J

[marinello59]

The FM had a clear manifesto commitment, which now has Parliamentary majority at Holyrood. For May and co to refuse to even discuss the section 30 order, shows a clear contempt for Holyrood, and our right to self determination.

For those suggesting Indyref2 after 2021, this would not allow the democratically elected Scottish Government to enact their manifesto.

Interesting next steps. Looks like we may be upping the anti.

May is gambling on the appetite for a new referendum not being there so if Sturgeon does push ahead with one anyway it will either result in No winning again or the turn out being very low. As the polls stand just now she may well be right, Brexit has not given the Yes side a massive boost.
She should be entering in to discussions though and I still expect that to happen despite what Mundell has said.

[Bristolhibby]

May is gambling on the appetite for a new referendum not being there so if Sturgeon does push ahead with one anyway it will either result in No winning again or the turn out being very low. As the polls stand just now she may well be right, Brexit has not given the Yes side a massive boost.
She should be entering in to discussions though and I still expect that to happen despite what Mundell has said.

IMHO Yes will get a massive boost when the Scottish electorate realises what a chunt the Tories will make of the Brexit "deal".
Unlike the rest of the UK Scotland has another option on the table, which will be much better than the Hard Brexit and all that entails.

As has been said, both NS and TM are agreeing with each other. Nobody is saying have an Independence Reffrendum before the Brexit terms are known.

J

[johnbc70]

May is gambling on the appetite for a new referendum not being there so if Sturgeon does push ahead with one anyway it will either result in No winning again or the turn out being very low. As the polls stand just now she may well be right, Brexit has not given the Yes side a massive boost.
She should be entering in to discussions though and I still expect that to happen despite what Mundell has said.

If the SNP do decide to hold a referendum anyway and the other parties refuse to get involved or campagin and maybe even encourage people not to vote then when the SNP win (which they will if the No voters do not vote) can they really claim to have secured a bona fide vote for Independance, when it has not been ratified by Westminster and people actively did not vote as a protest. I am sure they will but it will surely be a hollow victory?

[marinello59]

IMHO Yes will get a massive boost when the Scottish electorate realises what a chunt the Tories will make of the Brexit "deal".
Unlike the rest of the UK Scotland has another option on the table, which will be much better than the Hard Brexit and all that entails.

As has been said, both NS and TM are agreeing with each other. Nobody is saying have an Independence Reffrendum before the Brexit terms are known.

J

We have to build the Yes vote on a lot more than Brexit. It was a justifiable trigger, it's nowhere near enough to get to get us over the line.

[ronaldo7]

May is gambling on the appetite for a new referendum not being there so if Sturgeon does push ahead with one anyway it will either result in No winning again or the turn out being very low. As the polls stand just now she may well be right, Brexit has not given the Yes side a massive boost.
She should be entering in to discussions though and I still expect that to happen despite what Mundell has said.

:agree: If May stands firm, we might find ourselves turning to International Law on Referenda, and peoples path to self determination.

Theirs also a possibility of another Scottish Election with specific manifesto commitments.

[Hibrandenburg]

Genuine question here, but is it right that migrants who are not permanent residents would get to vote in a referendum about something as important as this?

Im really not sure what i think about it, but if i libed france for work, im not sure i would expect to vote in a referendum.

Ah!

[G B Young]

Technically everyone is Scottish and British. (We all live on the Island of Great Britain). Doesn't mean that the people of Scotland have to be ruled by Westminster. Would be great if that were the case, but to put it bluntly the way the people of Scotland vote is so divergent from the reas of the UK that the two can't continue to satisfy both.

J

I'd suggest that the way Scotland votes is less divergent than it looks on paper. The SNP, of course, don't exist in England, but that aside they have an in-built advantage in that they can rely on the default vote of the yes voters from 2014. The no voters are thus divided among the other parties, weakening the chances of a challenge to the SNP dominance. However, as we saw in last year's Scottish parliamentary elections, the emergence of the Tories as the second largest party (as unthinkable as an SNP government in the not too distant past) fuelled by their positioning as the party of the union reminded us once again that Scotland is at heart a fairly conservative (with a small c) nation ie just about confident enough to let the SNP govern a devolved parliament but by no means convinced that independence is the answer.

The split across our nation is more emphatically underlined by today's vote at Holyrood, when contrasted by the unanimous backing of given by all parties to the Edinburgh Agreement, which gave the auld windbag Salmond the power to call the 2014 vote. This time round Sturgeon may have got parliamentary backing thanks to the obedient Greens, but otherwise faces unanimous cross party opposition.

I'm not questioning the SNP government's mandate to request a section 30 order, but it's clear that this time round it's driven by a narrow-minded power at all costs mentality rather then the collective will of either the Scottish parliament or the Scottish voters.

[Colr]

May is gambling on the appetite for a new referendum not being there so if Sturgeon does push ahead with one anyway it will either result in No winning again or the turn out being very low. As the polls stand just now she may well be right, Brexit has not given the Yes side a massive boost.
She should be entering in to discussions though and I still expect that to happen despite what Mundell has said.

If she sought a mandate to renegotiate the union terms, whether that be independence or within a federal structure, which she would then return to the public for a vote, it would strengthen her hand to have that ahead of the alternatibe Brexit, which would be put as another option. If May is so confident her deal will be a good one, how can she object? It would mean, though, that if Scotland doesn't like it, they have an alternative pretty quickly.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

The FM had a clear manifesto commitment, which now has Parliamentary majority at Holyrood. For May and co to refuse to even discuss the section 30 order, shows a clear contempt for Holyrood, and our right to self determination.

For those suggesting Indyref2 after 2021, this would not allow the democratically elected Scottish Government to enact their manifesto.

Interesting next steps. Looks like we may be upping the anti.

Come on, how many parliamentary votes has the FM ignored?

Its a reserved power, and as such not only does the PM have the right, she has the legal duty to consider, and refuse if she wants, any request.

Im not saying it isnt without risk, but dont try to twist things around that this is some democratic deficit. The SNP only got their vote through as a result of the loony greens breaking their manifesto after all.

Where the SNP go now is fascinating, but the UK govt cant back down now so i dont think the nats have a lot of options.

They are unlikely to risk an election, they wont hold an unofficial vote. And if they continue to campaign endlessly they risk becoming the single issue campaign that they claim they are not.

What do you think they will do?

[lucky]

NS won today and Westminster should listen to the will of Holyrood but NS can't have it all her own way. On 6 occasions the will of Holyrood has been ignored by the Scottish government. That's as unacceptable as Westminster ignoring Holyrood.

I hope we get a second referendum and we can't debate it all over again and maybe we will finally put it to bed once and for all whichever way it goes.

[ronaldo7]

Come on, how many parliamentary votes has the FM ignored?

Its a reserved power, and as such not only does the PM have the right, she has the legal duty to consider, and refuse if she wants, any request.

Im not saying it isnt without risk, but dont try to twist things around that this is some democratic deficit. The SNP only got their vote through as a result of the loony greens breaking their manifesto after all.

Where the SNP go now is fascinating, but the UK govt cant back down now so i dont think the nats have a lot of options.

They are unlikely to risk an election, they wont hold an unofficial vote. And if they continue to campaign endlessly they risk becoming the single issue campaign that they claim they are not.

What do you think they will do?

The Greens seem to be the only party willing to stand up to the SNP on other matters, and able to get concessions. Not Loony at all imo.

If the Greens had abstained, the Government would have won anyway.

The precedence of the Edinburgh agreement will come into play, and if it's not time just now, when is it. Can anyone give us a date?

If it's after 2021, May will have stopped a democratically elected government from carrying out their manifesto commitment. Not a good place to be imo.

I'm not sure the International community would look at that very well.

Uncharted waters, as they said. Lots of twists and turns to happen yet.

[lucky]

The Greens seem to be the only party willing to stand up to the SNP on other matters, and able to get concessions. Not Loony at all imo.

If the Greens had abstained, the Government would have won anyway.

The precedence of the Edinburgh agreement will come into play, and if it's not time just now, when is it. Can anyone give us a date?

If it's after 2021, May will have stopped a democratically elected government from carrying out their manifesto commitment. Not a good place to be imo.

I'm not sure the International community would look at that very well.

Uncharted waters, as they said. Lots of twists and turns to happen yet.

But what about Mays mandate? As much as I can't stand her or her party surely she's got as much right to say no as NS has to ask?

Also how is the will of the parliament sacrosanct on this issue but it's ok for the Scottish government to ignore the will of Holyrood on other issues?

[ronaldo7]

But what about Mays mandate? As much as I can't stand her or her party surely she's got as much right to say no as NS has to ask?

Also how is the will of the parliament sacrosanct on this issue but it's ok for the Scottish government to ignore the will of Holyrood on other issues?

What mandate? The one where the Tories said they'd stay in the single market?

[lucky]

What mandate? The one where the Tories said they'd stay in the single market?

The Tories won the GE on a ticket of standing up for the union. As I've said I'm happy for a second referendum to take place as it stands just now leave will lose but that could change depending on Brexit, answers on £15b black hole and our currency being clearer.

What about the Scottish government ignoring the will of the parliament? Any comment on that?

[Hibernia&Alba]

The health service in Scotland is in crisis. Of that there is no doubt. The reasons for this are complex and some have to do with how the health service is managed by the government. Demographics and the increasing costs and availability of new treatments are other factors putting huge strains on the service as above inflation yearly investment is needed to stand still. Scotland performs better than England mainly because it spends about 25% more on health per capita thanks to Burnett.
General practice is under particular strain. In Lothian around 12 practices have closed or handed back their contracts to the Health Board something completely unheard of before. This os because docrors simply cannot be recruited. The health board now manages these failed practices and they cost about 25 % more to run then traditional practices showing what good value traditional practices have always been. In part this is the administrations fault.The relative percentage that is spent in GP as a percentage of the overall budget has fallen. Almost a third of GPs are approaching retirement age in the next 5 years. Add to this the fact that 75 to 80% of new GPs are women who will on average work around 3 days a week andduring therefore will not provide a whole time equivalent for their training post. Also many young doctors are emigrating to find better paid jobs with better working conditions. Consider these factors and the full scale of the looming crisis becomes evident. In hospitals unfilled consultant posts have doubled to 6.5% in 4 years though they did fall slightly last year. Nursing and midwifery vacancies are also rising. Stress related illness and absenteeism is not surprisingly rising given the attritional working conditions. In Jan, admittedly one of the busiest months, though with low flu levels the A and E 4 hour target of 95% was at 87%. Conditions in A and E and acute medicine are awful and worsening year on year. The emphasis is always on how can we get the patient out of here and not what is best for them
Failure to award doctors and nurses their recommended pay rise (1.3% cut in real terms this year) for 2 years has done nothing to help recruitment.
At least in Scotland there is dialogue between the health minister and the professions. For example there is a pledge to increase GP spending back to where it was at 9% and where 90% of consultation service take place. And thank goodness we don't have Mr Hunt as health minister.
To me the real problem in health is that politicians are simply too afraid to bite the bullet and have an honest discussion about what we can and can't afford and what shape a future health service should have.We continue pretending it can be all encompassing when it can't.

That's the argument of the right: we can't afford to continue with an NHS free to all at the point of delivery. Yes we can.

First of all, end the ridiculous cap on National Insurance contributions. It would solve the problem in one go. Proposed small rise in NI contributions from the self-employed reversed after a week. Pathetic.
How about making the multinational companies who pay pennies in tax from billions in profits pay the full amount due?
We're richer than ever before as a society, but the wealth is going almost exclusively to the top. Use the tax system.
We can find £100 billion for Trident, but can't afford the NHS. Is that the logic?
It's about proper funding for the NHS and making sensible decisions about public spending. However, the scare stories about the NHS being unsustainable are politically driven by those who don't believe in the philosophy of the NHS. It's the greatest single thing the UK has ever done, IMO, and it must continue at all costs. No compromises.

[goosano]

That's the argument of the right: we can't afford to continue with an NHS free to all at the point of delivery. Yes we can.



The right may use it as an argument but it will be very, very hard to fund the health service properly without unpalatable rises in tax. Treatment costs of new drugs are rising at an enormous pace-look at the cost of biological agents, disease modifying drugs and cancer agents for example. The cost of decent, human social care is rising exponentially as people live longer, we have to deal with more dementia etc. 5% per year is a cost many experts come up with

Personally I would like to see something like the Office for Budget Responsibility that is independent from government that determines what we should pay for health, decides what treatments are to be purchased and set a budget for the year that the government has to deliver. Now whether that money comes through general tax, NI, increased taxes on business etc then that is what our government should decide

At the moment there is an enormous reluctance to increase general tax in any way. I voted SNP at the last elections because I generally like their social policies but was somewhat disappointed that they have not taken advantage of this to support struggling health and social care budgets

[makaveli1875]

the government are saying they wont discuss a referendum just now , where does that leave Sturgeons quest for independence ? what are her options

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

The Greens seem to be the only party willing to stand up to the SNP on other matters, and able to get concessions. Not Loony at all imo.

If the Greens had abstained, the Government would have won anyway.

The precedence of the Edinburgh agreement will come into play, and if it's not time just now, when is it. Can anyone give us a date?

If it's after 2021, May will have stopped a democratically elected government from carrying out their manifesto commitment. Not a good place to be imo.

I'm not sure the International community would look at that very well.

Uncharted waters, as they said. Lots of twists and turns to happen yet.

I agree its uncharted waters, which is why it is so facinating, and also so difficult for all involved.

Your point about the manifesto has some merit, but the international community point has none IMO - i mean what are they going to do about it, and what makes you think they care?

The UK govt can also point to the fact that they literally do not have the civil service support available, as a result of brexit and so could potentially claim to be unable to facilitate one.

The Edinburgh Agreement came with the backing of the full parliament,not a vote propped up by a fairly extreme fringe party, and opposed by the three other opposition parties.

The tories obviously think it is a defendable position, they have the legal rights on their side and they must be fairly sure they have enough opinion on their side. Whether they do or not, remains to be seen.

Also, how cringey was the 'protest' outside parliament ladt night? I bet the senior nats didnt like that being the face of modern nationalism!

[Hibs Class]

NS won today and Westminster should listen to the will of Holyrood but NS can't have it all her own way. On 6 occasions the will of Holyrood has been ignored by the Scottish government. That's as unacceptable as Westminster ignoring Holyrood.

I hope we get a second referendum and we can't debate it all over again and maybe we will finally put it to bed once and for all whichever way it goes.

I think history shows it will only be put to bed if it goes one way. If it goes the other way it will most likely again lead to attempts to contrive a third referendum

[ronaldo7]

The Tories won the GE on a ticket of standing up for the union. As I've said I'm happy for a second referendum to take place as it stands just now leave will lose but that could change depending on Brexit, answers on £15b black hole and our currency being clearer.

What about the Scottish government ignoring the will of the parliament? Any comment on that?

I'd agree it weakens her hand slightly, however domestic issues are for the Government deal with. Another country, interfering in the will of another, is another ball game imo.

[ronaldo7]

I agree its uncharted waters, which is why it is so facinating, and also so difficult for all involved.

Your point about the manifesto has some merit, but the international community point has none IMO - i mean what are they going to do about it, and what makes you think they care?

The UK govt can also point to the fact that they literally do not have the civil service support available, as a result of brexit and so could potentially claim to be unable to facilitate one.

The Edinburgh Agreement came with the backing of the full parliament,not a vote propped up by a fairly extreme fringe party, and opposed by the three other opposition parties.

The tories obviously think it is a defendable position, they have the legal rights on their side and they must be fairly sure they have enough opinion on their side. Whether they do or not, remains to be seen.

Also, how cringey was the 'protest' outside parliament ladt night? I bet the senior nats didnt like that being the face of modern nationalism!

First bit in bold.

The point of a referendum is for the people of SCOTLAND, and not the UK to facilitate the vote. No interference. That was the trouble last time.

Second bit

It's not. I remember when the Yes movement were all accused of being Braveheart Scots. Here's a front page of the English edition of the Daily Hail. :wink:

18287

[Peevemor]

I don't think there's any doubt that the EU would be keen to have an iScotland as a member post Brexit. I wonder if,as part of the Brexit negotiations, the EU might put pressure on Westminster to facilitate Indyref2... :hmmm:

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

That's the argument of the right: we can't afford to continue with an NHS free to all at the point of delivery. Yes we can.

First of all, end the ridiculous cap on National Insurance contributions. It would solve the problem in one go. Proposed small rise in NI contributions from the self-employed reversed after a week. Pathetic.
How about making the multinational companies who pay pennies in tax from billions in profits pay the full amount due?
We're richer than ever before as a society, but the wealth is going almost exclusively to the top. Use the tax system.
We can find £100 billion for Trident, but can't afford the NHS. Is that the logic?
It's about proper funding for the NHS and making sensible decisions about public spending. However, the scare stories about the NHS being unsustainable are politically driven by those who don't believe in the philosophy of the NHS. It's the greatest single thing the UK has ever done, IMO, and it must continue at all costs. No compromises.


Your last point is staggering.

So the NHS is the end in itself, not the means?

I am a big supporter of the NHS for many reasons, but setting it yp on a pedestal and encasing it in glass wont help it.

In what orher area of public service is it acceptable to say that a system designed 70 odd years ago to fix a problem that no longet exists (in the same form) cannot be altered in any way, ever, full stop.

We all have to accept that the cost of keeping more people alive for 20 or 30 years longer than when it was devised, with complex, and often multiple chronic conditions is a cost burden that the current model of financing was never designed to cope with.

As the previous poster said, the cost of new medicines alone is putting huge strain on the service. The new GP contract has a huge job to stop us heamorhaging our GPs (those private xontractors for whom profiting out of the NHS is ok, when it is not for anyone else according to many).

The NHS is in crisis, and putting a few pence on income tax even, politically very difficult in itself, would probably not be enough.

As an aside, around 85% of all nhs spending is staff salaries. Another 10% is medicines. Assuming both of those things are vital, that doesnt leave a lot for anything else.

The NHS is a great achievement, but it is simply a mechanism for delivering universal healthcare (in actual fact that is the great acheivement, the NHS is just how it is delivered), it is not, nor should it ever be, an end in itself.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I'd agree it weakens her hand slightly, however domestic issues are for the Government deal with. Another country, interfering in the will of another, is another ball game imo.

Woah, now you are way off.

We voted to stay part of the same country, theresa may is scotlands prime minister, ahe outranks the first minister on any reserved issue.

The UK parliament is our parliament.

This is where the nationalist mask slips IMO

This is not some iasue of high morals, it is political opportunism, trying to create the worldin the way that you want to see it, rather than how it is, and how scotland voted for it to be.

To try and twist around the well known, and well recognised democratic system that we habe, and represent it as some sort of oppressive foreign power is shameful and dangerous, and is a cynical attempt to hide political ambition of one party in a cloak of moral indignation.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

First bit in bold.

The point of a referendum is for the people of SCOTLAND, and not the UK to facilitate the vote. No interference. That was the trouble last time.

Second bit

It's not. I remember when the Yes movement were all accused of being Braveheart Scots. Here's a front page of the English edition of the Daily Hail. :wink:

18287


Come on, what planet are you on?? You do know the UK govt had to legislate for a referendum to happen? You do know that requires lots of civil servants to do it? You do know that this issue woyld greatly affect the rest of the UK too?

You are becoming positively Trumpist in your refusal to accept the world how it is, rather than how you want it to be.

I dont care about the daily mail, and if an extreme paper is what you need to justify the bravehearts behind the cameras in see-you-jimmy wigs, then that says a lot.

[Moulin Yarns]

I agree its uncharted waters, which is why it is so facinating, and also so difficult for all involved.

Your point about the manifesto has some merit, but the international community point has none IMO - i mean what are they going to do about it, and what makes you think they care?

The UK govt can also point to the fact that they literally do not have the civil service support available, as a result of brexit and so could potentially claim to be unable to facilitate one.

The Edinburgh Agreement came with the backing of the full parliament,not a vote propped up by a fairly extreme fringe party, and opposed by the three other opposition parties.

The tories obviously think it is a defendable position, they have the legal rights on their side and they must be fairly sure they have enough opinion on their side. Whether they do or not, remains to be seen.

Also, how cringey was the 'protest' outside parliament ladt night? I bet the senior nats didnt like that being the face of modern nationalism!

I presume you mean the amendment which was approved by the Scottish Parliament, the one supported by the Scottish Government. So not propped up as you put it but the one that won the day!!!

[Hibrandenburg]

Come on, what planet are you on?? You do know the UK govt had to legislate for a referendum to happen? You do know that requires lots of civil servants to do it? You do know that this issue woyld greatly affect the rest of the UK too?

You are becoming positively Trumpist in your refusal to accept the world how it is, rather than how you want it to be.

I dont care about the daily mail, and if an extreme paper is what you need to justify the bravehearts behind the cameras in see-you-jimmy wigs, then that says a lot.

LOL, we'd still be living in caves if humans just accepted the way the world is rather than changing it to how they would like it to be. Think you might be taking the conservatism thing too far.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Your last point is staggering.

So the NHS is the end in itself, not the means?

I am a big supporter of the NHS for many reasons, but setting it yp on a pedestal and encasing it in glass wont help it.

In what orher area of public service is it acceptable to say that a system designed 70 odd years ago to fix a problem that no longet exists (in the same form) cannot be altered in any way, ever, full stop.

We all have to accept that the cost of keeping more people alive for 20 or 30 years longer than when it was devised, with complex, and often multiple chronic conditions is a cost burden that the current model of financing was never designed to cope with.

As the previous poster said, the cost of new medicines alone is putting huge strain on the service. The new GP contract has a huge job to stop us heamorhaging our GPs (those private xontractors for whom profiting out of the NHS is ok, when it is not for anyone else according to many).

The NHS is in crisis, and putting a few pence on income tax even, politically very difficult in itself, would probably not be enough.

As an aside, around 85% of all nhs spending is staff salaries. Another 10% is medicines. Assuming both of those things are vital, that doesnt leave a lot for anything else.

The NHS is a great achievement, but it is simply a mechanism for delivering universal healthcare (in actual fact that is the great acheivement, the NHS is just how it is delivered), it is not, nor should it ever be, an end in itself.

I couldn't disagree more. The principle of health care free at the point of delivery to all is non-negotiable to me. The name is neither hear nor there; you can re-brand it if you like. What you can't do - EVER - is change the principle of it being free at the point of delivery; of people contributing what they can via earnings then having peace of mind their health is covered. Health care is a human right, not a matter of how much money you have; same goes for education and housing. Of course the NHS has changed as a consequence of scientific progress, and the staff have adapted to that change magnificently, but free health care to all at the point of delivery will never be negotiable for me. I would stop and reverse the drive towards outsourcing to private companies immediately in all areas of the NHS, right down to catering. A fully public service in every respect.

The moment you go down the road of a private system, you're saying health care is dependent upon how much you can afford. There are different models, but to some degree that what it means. That isn't a civilised society.

Those who want private health insurance in addition to the NHS, can already buy it. What we can never allow is private insurance to replace the NHS.

[marinello59]

The Greens seem to be the only party willing to stand up to the SNP on other matters, and able to get concessions. Not Loony at all imo.

If the Greens had abstained, the Government would have won anyway.

The precedence of the Edinburgh agreement will come into play, and if it's not time just now, when is it. Can anyone give us a date?

If it's after 2021, May will have stopped a democratically elected government from carrying out their manifesto commitment. Not a good place to be imo.

I'm not sure the International community would look at that very well.

Uncharted waters, as they said. Lots of twists and turns to happen yet.

You are not being serious there surely. They are the only party that SNP supporters are willing to accept criticism from because they support Independence, they're your cuddly wee play thing. Differences can be tolerated because they are absolutely no threat whatsoever. The other parties can be dismissed as only offering counter arguments to SNP policy because they are unionists, no matter what the issue being discussed. Can you really imagine Nicola Sturgeon offering concessions to the Tories or Labour on anything ever?

Anyway, back to the main issue. :greengrin
May's only real option here is to delay things until after the Brexit negotiations are over. That's her job as PM of the UK. What she can't do though is give an outright NO and I don't think she will. I'm of the opinion that a delay would not be a bad thing, it gives the Yes camp much longer to make the argument on multiple fronts and a much better chance of winning. Making this all about Brexit will be a huge mistake, I think Sturgeon knows that.

[xyz23jc]

I don't think there's any doubt that the EU would be keen to have an iScotland as a member post Brexit. I wonder if,as part of the Brexit negotiations, the EU might put pressure on Westminster to facilitate Indyref2... :hmmm:

They've done SFA to aid us so far!:rolleyes:

[Peevemor]

They've done SFA to aid us so far!:rolleyes:

So far they haven't been able to.

[makaveli1875]

I don't think there's any doubt that the EU would be keen to have an iScotland as a member post Brexit. I wonder if,as part of the Brexit negotiations, the EU might put pressure on Westminster to facilitate Indyref2... :hmmm:

The last thing the EU would want to see is member states being pulled apart by seperatist movements , i very much doubt they would put pressure on any of its members to facilitate a seperation . Even though the UK is leaving there will be a few EU members getting nervous at the prospect of this referendum

[RyeSloan]

I couldn't disagree more. The principle of health care free at the point of delivery to all is non-negotiable to me. The name is neither hear nor there; you can re-brand it if you like. What you can't do - EVER - is change the principle of it being free at the point of delivery; of people contributing what they can via earnings then having peace of mind their health is covered. Health care is a human right, not a matter of how much money you have; same goes for education and housing. Of course the NHS has changed as a consequence of scientific progress, and the staff have adapted to that change magnificently, but free health care to all at the point of delivery will never be negotiable for me. I would stop and reverse the drive towards outsourcing to private companies immediately in all areas of the NHS, right down to catering. A fully public service in every respect.

The moment you go down the road of a private system, you're saying health care is dependent upon how much you can afford. There are different models, but to some degree that what it means. That isn't a civilised society.

Those who want private health insurance in addition to the NHS, can already buy it. What we can never allow is private insurance to replace the NHS.

What of making it entirely free at point of use encourages over use and waste of resources?

Sweden for example has a health service largely funded through taxation but also has limited fees for access, which I assume help to prevent their A&E being clogged with minor cases.

There are also plenty models that could be put forward that maintain free at point of use but do not rely on the service being delivered entirely by the state. Costs can be paid and capped by the state as well as service levels dictated but they can be delivered by various means as long as that is the most effective route.

I think this mind set against 'privatisation' misses the point completely and ignores the fact that delivering a service through centrally employing 1.7m staff may not be the most effective route.

Why for example would you insist on catering being provided by state employees? What benefit does that automatically ensure for the end recipient?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

LOL, we'd still be living in caves if humans just accepted the way the world is rather than changing it to how they would like it to be. Think you might be taking the conservatism thing too far.

Yeah, because thats what i meant right enough.

[Hibernia&Alba]

What of making it entirely free at point of use encourages over use and waste of resources?

Sweden for example has a health service largely funded through taxation but also has limited fees for access, which I assume help to prevent their A&E being clogged with minor cases.

There are also plenty models that could be put forward that maintain free at point of use but do not rely on the service being delivered entirely by the state. Costs can be paid and capped by the state as well as service levels dictated but they can be delivered by various means as long as that is the most effective route.

I think this mind set against 'privatisation' misses the point completely and ignores the fact that delivering a service through centrally employing 1.7m staff may not be the most effective route.

Why for example would you insist on catering being provided by state employees? What benefit does that automatically ensure for the end recipient?

If you want private health insurance you can have it. But you mustn't be allowed to opt out of funding the NHS, as that means better health care for the rich than for the poor, which isn't up for negotiation in any way. You mention limited fees for access in Sweden. What happens to those who don't have the money for the fees? If they still get access, why have the fees? Instead take the money via taxation and abolish the fees. If they don't get access, it's a two tier system.

The reason I would stop private contracting in the NHS is because it's a public service and privatisation becomes a creeping process to the point where it isn't a public service any longer, rather it's a gravy train for companies. Private companies shouldn't be making profits from it, IMO. Keep it in the public sector, lock, stock and barrel, as it used to be. Another thing I would stop is the PFI scheme for capital projects in the public sector, which is another huge rip off for taxpayers to the benefit of private contractors.

A fully public service free at the point of delivery to all. That's the principle the post war Labour government created the NHS upon, and it's the best thing we've ever done; the best example of democratic socialism we've yet devised.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

If you want private health insurance you can have it. But you mustn't be allowed to opt out of funding the NHS, as that means better health care for the rich than for the poor, which isn't up for negotiation in any way. You mention limited fees for access in Sweden. What happens to those who don't have the money for the fees? If they still get access, why have the fees? Instead take the money via taxation and abolish the fees. If they don't get access, it's a two tier system.

The reason I would stop private contracting in the NHS is because it's a public service and privatisation becomes a creeping process to the point where it isn't a public service any longer, rather it's a gravy train for companies. Private companies shouldn't be making profits from it, IMO. Keep it in the public sector, lock, stock and barrel, as it used to be. Another thing I would stop is the PFI scheme for capital projects in the public sector, which is another huge rip off for taxpayers to the benefit of private contractors.

A fully public service free at the point of delivery to all. That's the principle the post war Labour government created the NHS upon, and it's the best thing we've ever done; the best example of democratic socialism we've yet devised.

What about GPs, dentists, optometrists, equipment providers amd medicines manufacturers? Should they be allowed, as they are all private and they all make profit. Your ideology is non-sensical here.

I actually agree with you completely about feee at the point of need, for the most part. Although there is a school of thought that even token payments stop people devaluaing a free service.

But how that care is delivered shouldnt be a matter of ideology, it should be about pragmatism. Whatever gives the bezt value service to patients. I tjink that is where we diverge.

For what its worth, i think some form of top-up payments will become necessary in the future. Something will have to give

And if scotland becomes independent, spending cuts or tax rises will be required just to keep things as they are now, never mind improve them.

[Hibernia&Alba]

What about GPs, dentists, optometrists, equipment providers amd medicines manufacturers? Should they be allowed, as they are all private.

I actually agree with you completely about feee at the point of need, for the most part. Although there is a school of thought that even token payments stop people devaluaing a free service.

But how that care is delivered shouldnt be a matter of ideology, it should be about pragmatism. Whatever gives the bezt value service to patients. I tjink that is where we diverge.

For what its worth, i think some form of top-up payments will become necessary in the future. Something will have to give

And if scotland becomes independent, spending cuts or tax rises will be required just to keep things as they are now, never mind improve them.

Nope sorry. In reality 'pragmatism' means creeping privatisation. Free health care for all at the point of delivery is a human right, a principle that must never be negotiated away. We have an ideological disagreement that can't be reconciled.

Dentists should certainly be fully re-incorporated back in to the NHS, IMO. Paid for fully from taxation and free at the point of delivery. The free prescriptions in Scotland is a fantastic move also, IMO. I like the idea of public ownership of the pharmaceutical companies too, but I like the idea of public or employee ownership of everything.

[Slavers]

I think more should be done to address people's eating & drinking, smoking habits before we start wanting to increase taxation to pay for peoples bad living.

The shouts of 'Am going oot oan the pish the night!' as some kind of personal triumph then spending the evening telling everyone who will listen that the Far far far far ultra extreme right of the right wing Tory government is ruining their lives.

[Peevemor]

What about GPs, dentists, optometrists, equipment providers amd medicines manufacturers? Should they be allowed, as they are all private and they all make profit. Your ideology is non-sensical here.

I actually agree with you completely about feee at the point of need, for the most part. Although there is a school of thought that even token payments stop people devaluaing a free service.

But how that care is delivered shouldnt be a matter of ideology, it should be about pragmatism. Whatever gives the bezt value service to patients. I tjink that is where we diverge.

For what its worth, i think some form of top-up payments will become necessary in the future. Something will have to give

And if scotland becomes independent, spending cuts or tax rises will be required just to keep things as they are now, never mind improve them.

What's your basis for this?

[Hibernia&Alba]

What's your basis for this?

For the sake of argument, let's say he is right. Fine, I have no problem with a much more progressive taxation system to fund spending. On the contrary, let's have it, and let's close the tax loopholes. Advocating a more progressive system should be something to be proud of.

[Moulin Yarns]

What's your basis for this?

because the believes the fearie stories

[Peevemor]

because the believes the fearie stories

I keep hearing and reading about how much of a financial basket case an iScotland woule be, but I've yet to see anything convincing which confirms this.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Nope sorry. In reality 'pragmatism' means creeping privatisation. Free health care for all at the point of delivery is a human right, a principle that must never be negotiated away. We have an ideological disagreement that can't be reconciled.

Dentists should certainly be fully re-incorporated back in to the NHS, IMO. Paid for fully from taxation and free at the point of delivery. The free prescriptions in Scotland is a fantastic move also, IMO. I like the idea of public ownership of the pharmaceutical companies too, but I like the idea of public or employee ownership of everything.

Ok, so the ideology of how it is delivered is more important than what is delivered? Yeah youre right, we sont agree - your idea is so bonkers even corbyn or the greens wouldnt go that far!

Its not a human right by the way. Its a political choice / societal choice. Human rights are things that exist simply because you are human, the NHS isnt one of them.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

What's your basis for this?

The enormous deficit that we currently run, added to the economic shock of indy, capital flight and setting-up costs.of a new country, i think cash will be quite tight.

Presumably our preferential barnett consequentials will habe to be replaced by actual tax revenue, which could well be less.

Im not saying any of these are insurmountable, just that they will put huge pressurr on public spending that is already running at deficit levels.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

because the believes the fearie stories

Yeah, meanwhile the advocates for independence on here are rIsing taxes, increasing spending and bringing the pharma industry into state ownership!

Just as well the SNP are smart enough not to listen to their new found supporters.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I keep hearing and reading about how much of a financial basket case an iScotland woule be, but I've yet to see anything convincing which confirms this.

Im not saying a basket case, just that there will be some very tough years, at least initially until things settle down.

Jeezo, even the SNP'S own fiscal commission is hinting at this.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Ok, so the ideology of how it is delivered is more important than what is delivered? Yeah youre right, we sont agree - your idea is so bonkers even corbyn or the greens wouldnt go that far!

Its not a human right by the way. Its a political choice / societal choice. Human rights are things that exist simply because you are human, the NHS isnt one of them.

What is delivered by the NHS is the best in the world; the means and the ends are consistent. IMO, it is the best system in terms of outcomes and social justice: nobody is left behind and everybody contributes when we can. The problem I have is with the crazy NI contribution ceiling, which, if removed would end any problems with funding. Some things are sacred, IMO, and the right (yes, I say it is a right) to treatment when needed is one of them. Human rights are no good to you when dead, and the NHS has literally saved millions of lives.

Do you think the right to an education for all is a human right, or is that something else we could remove from the less well off, if we made a different political choice at some point?

[RyeSloan]

If you want private health insurance you can have it. But you mustn't be allowed to opt out of funding the NHS, as that means better health care for the rich than for the poor, which isn't up for negotiation in any way. You mention limited fees for access in Sweden. What happens to those who don't have the money for the fees? If they still get access, why have the fees? Instead take the money via taxation and abolish the fees. If they don't get access, it's a two tier system.

The reason I would stop private contracting in the NHS is because it's a public service and privatisation becomes a creeping process to the point where it isn't a public service any longer, rather it's a gravy train for companies. Private companies shouldn't be making profits from it, IMO. Keep it in the public sector, lock, stock and barrel, as it used to be. Another thing I would stop is the PFI scheme for capital projects in the public sector, which is another huge rip off for taxpayers to the benefit of private contractors.

A fully public service free at the point of delivery to all. That's the principle the post war Labour government created the NHS upon, and it's the best thing we've ever done; the best example of democratic socialism we've yet devised.

Fair enough, you clearly believe in public ownership of pretty much everything...we are never going to agree on that due to my belief that this does little or nothing (in fact quite often the opposite) to drive beneficial outcomes for the user of that service.

I have no problems looking to protect free at the point of use healthcare but I think you need to think long and hard as to how that can be supported in the long run. Centrally controlled services run by politicians and paid for by ever increasing taxes on ever fewer people simply isn't a viable approach or sustainable in the long run no matter what your principles say.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Fair enough, you clearly believe in public ownership of pretty much everything...we are never going to agree on that due to my belief that this does little or nothing (in fact quite often the opposite) to drive beneficial outcomes for the user of that service.

I have no problems looking to protect free at the point of use healthcare but I think you need to think long and hard as to how that can be supported in the long run. Centrally controlled services run by politicians and paid for by ever increasing taxes on ever fewer people simply isn't a viable approach or sustainable in the long run no matter what your principles say.

I totally disagree with that. It's sustainable for as long as we want it to be sustainable. It's a question of commitment and putting in the effort and the resources. First step, abolish the NI contributions ceiling.

I also like the fact the NHS is ultimately the responsibility of the state via elected politicians, for two reasons: 1, it's a not for profit system, meaning every penny can go back into the service. There are no shareholders taking money out. 2, I can democratically remove those responsible for running it, if they fail. I can't remove the board of a private health company. The NHS is owned by every one of us.

[Moulin Yarns]

Yeah, meanwhile the advocates for independence on here are rIsing taxes, increasing spending and bringing the pharma industry into state ownership!

Just as well the SNP are smart enough not to listen to their new found supporters.

Imagine a UK and Scotland where the SNP did not exist.....

This is pure fantasy, well, mostly :wink:

http://www.scottishreview.net/GerryHassan205a.html

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

For the sake of argument, let's say he is right. Fine, I have no problem with a much more progressive taxation system to fund spending. On the contrary, let's have it, and let's close the tax loopholes. Advocating a more progressive system should be something to be proud of.

Calling a rise in taxes provressive doesnt make them anymore palatable those hit hardest by them.

If that's the kind of country you want, thats fair enough. I disagree, and fortunately, at least for the time being, so do the SNP.

[Hibs Class]

I totally disagree with that. It's sustainable for as long as we want it to be sustainable. It's a question of commitment and putting in the effort and the resources. First step, abolish the NI contributions ceiling.

I also like the fact the NHS is ultimately the responsibility of the state via elected politicians, for two reasons: 1, it's a not for profit system, meaning every penny can go back into the service. There are no shareholders taking money out. 2, I can democratically remove those responsible for running it, if they fail. I can't remove the board of a private health company. The NHS is owned by every one of us.

It looks like the current ceiling is £43k pa, and the rate to that level is 12%. Presumably abolition would effectively mean a 12% additional deduction on all earnings above £43k - is that what you are proposing? What effect would that have on the broader economy?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

What is delivered by the NHS is the best in the world; the means and the ends are consistent. IMO, it is the best system in terms of outcomes and social justice: nobody is left behind and everybody contributes when we can. The problem I have is with the crazy NI contribution ceiling, which, if removed would end any problems with funding. Some things are sacred, IMO, and the right (yes, I say it is a right) to treatment when needed is one of them. Human rights are no good to you when dead, and the NHS has literally saved millions of lives.

Do you think the right to an education for all is a human right, or is that something else we could remove from the less well off, if we made a different political choice at some point?

Its really not the best in the world. Its a good system, nit one that no other country seems overly keen to replicate. Right now there are Scottish patients who are not receiving the best treatment, because the NHS cannot afford it.

And while i agree its good, it is straining badly to keep up. You advocate clobbering the middle classes with tax rises, thays fair enough.

I disagree with that approach.

And if everyone is contributing what they can at the moment, by definition raisimg the tax burden will take it beyond what people can afford to contribute?

I dont know about education, although it seems it isnt a right. You arent born with an educatiob system, it is something provided by the collective society.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I totally disagree with that. It's sustainable for as long as we want it to be sustainable. It's a question of commitment and putting in the effort and the resources. First step, abolish the NI contributions ceiling.

I also like the fact the NHS is ultimately the responsibility of the state via elected politicians, for two reasons: 1, it's a not for profit system, meaning every penny can go back into the service. There are no shareholders taking money out. 2, I can democratically remove those responsible for running it, if they fail. I can't remove the board of a private health company. The NHS is owned by every one of us.

Yeah, and if we close our eyes and wish really hard, it will be fine.

Come on, if policy decisions were as easy as that none of us would be here arguing about it all!

Do you accept there is a finite amount of money that can be raised from taxation, especially as that tax base shrinks?

Also in an indy scotland, how many people would be hitting against those NI ceilings? Enough to pump an extra billion or two per annum into the NHS?

[Jack]

I suspect those people who tell us the NHS is unsustainable and we can't afford it are the same people who have never said we can't do wars and nuclear weapons because we can't afford them.

[JeMeSouviens]

Its really not the best in the world. Its a good system, nit one that no other country seems overly keen to replicate. Right now there are Scottish patients who are not receiving the best treatment, because the NHS cannot afford it.

And while i agree its good, it is straining badly to keep up. You advocate clobbering the middle classes with tax rises, thays fair enough.

I disagree with that approach.

And if everyone is contributing what they can at the moment, by definition raisimg the tax burden will take it beyond what people can afford to contribute?

I dont know about education, although it seems it isnt a right. You arent born with an educatiob system, it is something provided by the collective society.

Don't know about H&A but I don't think that's true.

I managed to lose track of this thread last weekend when it veered off into the taxation woods but I have one point to make: it is very dangerous to assume that because you are a higher rate taxpayer in a settled job supporting society's spongers and ne'er-do-wells it will continue like that forever. Your personal circumstances might change rapidly and you and yours will be the ones in need of expensive drugs or treatments, special educational support, etc etc. We really all should be in this together.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I suspect those people who tell us the NHS is unsustainable and we can't afford it are the same people who have never said we can't do wars and nuclear weapons because we can't afford them.

I dont think i have ever said that. I was very much against the Iraq war.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Don't know about H&A but I don't think that's true.

I managed to lose track of this thread last weekend when it veered off into the taxation woods but I have one point to make: it is very dangerous to assume that because you are a higher rate taxpayer in a settled job supporting society's spongers and ne'er-do-wells it will continue like that forever. Your personal circumstances might change rapidly and you and yours will be the ones in need of expensive drugs or treatments, special educational support, etc etc. We really all should be in this together.

Thats not what i am inferring, or intending to infer and apologies if i did infer that. Redundancies are common in my line of work, and i will almost certainly be made redundant if scotland leaves the UK, but thats by the by. But i live with the threat of redundancy every day. I am not by any stretch anti public services, but i am anti people who stick their heads in the sand and shout 'tax everyone else' when faced with unckmfortable truths and diffixult decisions.

Im above all a pragmatist, and i would vote no at the moment because it woyld be best for me. I voted yes last time, and i may vote yes again in the futre.i habe votes SNP numrous times, ive also voted tory and i woyld havr voted labour in 97 had i been old enough. Politics isnt like hibs, i can absolutely change my view, and i regularly do. If more of us did, we would have better politics IMO rather than parties taking for granted hufe blocks of sheep-like 'party loyalists'

I am no tax expert, but i do know that the NHS needs more money. My point is that it is not always fair to simply expect ghe squeezed middle to take on a greater tax burden. We are not talking millionaires here, but people who, as you say, are one corpodate reorganisation away from redundancy. Thats why people like to pay down mortgages with their money, to buff up their savings, amd generally reap the rewards of their hard work.

I think most accept taxation gets steeper as you earn more, but that doesnt mean it should be treated as bottomless well. Govts have reaponsibility to these people too.

Too many seem happy to treat other people's earnings as magic money tree, and it is not fair, IMO.

[Moulin Yarns]

Thats not what i am inferring, or intending to infer. Redundancies are common in my line of work, and i will almost certainly be made redundant if scotland leaves thr UK, but thats by the by.

I am no tax expert, but i do know that the NHS needs more money. My point is that it is not always fair to simply expect ghe squeezed middle to take on a greater tax burden. We are not talking millionaires here, but people who, as you say, are one corpodate reorganisation away from redundancy. Thats why people like to pay down mortgages with their money, to buff up their savings.

Too many treat other people's earnings as magic money tree, and it is not fair, IMO.

So says the guy that claimed Edinburgh had "Full employment " So which is it. Redundancies are common or full employment!!!

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

So says the guy that claimed Edinburgh had "Full employment " So which is it. Redundancies are common or full employment!!!

Ha ha, still bitter about making a fool of yourself on that one eh!

Amazing as it may be, not all industries are based solely in Edinburgh, and even more amazingly, redundancies can happen in areas with full employment (or as good as, as you so kindly proved edinburgh to be last week - thanks for that by the way)

The two things are not mutually exclusive, but then i think youu know that.

Youve just been dying to scratch that itch eh...

[RyeSloan]

I totally disagree with that. It's sustainable for as long as we want it to be sustainable. It's a question of commitment and putting in the effort and the resources. First step, abolish the NI contributions ceiling.

I also like the fact the NHS is ultimately the responsibility of the state via elected politicians, for two reasons: 1, it's a not for profit system, meaning every penny can go back into the service. There are no shareholders taking money out. 2, I can democratically remove those responsible for running it, if they fail. I can't remove the board of a private health company. The NHS is owned by every one of us.

As I said we are not going to agree on this!

I think you are totally bonkers to think that just because something is publicly run that in anyway is a directly correlated measure to it delivering cost effective outcomes for the user.

I also think your tax plans are unsustainable as the demographics of workers to non workers is seriously against you and any sober view of what that means shows taxing the few even more simply doesn't work.

I would also suggest profit making companies with shareholders seems to work perfectly well in driving innovation and cutting costs in plenty of other industries and healthcare is not any different...in addition you seem to completely ignore the thousands of suppliers to the NHS that will be private companies supplying critical products to that service, are you seriously advocating all of them should do so at no profit?

Finally your trust in politicians to run a healthcare service and to make the correct decisions for the long term is admirable but rather mis placed I would suggest.

I'll leave it there as I do have some work to do (gotta earn the dough to pay all this tax!) but I've got to say that while I respect your view and your right to hold it I'm far from convinced that it stands up to any critical analysis that the outcome of it would be anything like you think it would.

[JeMeSouviens]

Thats not what i am inferring, or intending to infer and apologies if i did infer that. Redundancies are common in my line of work, and i will almost certainly be made redundant if scotland leaves the UK, but thats by the by. But i live with the threat of redundancy every day. I am not by any stretch anti public services, but i am anti people who stick their heads in the sand and shout 'tax everyone else' when faced with unckmfortable truths and diffixult decisions.

Im above all a pragmatist, and i would vote no at the moment because it woyld be best for me. I voted yes last time, and i may vote yes again in the futre.i habe votes SNP numrous times, ive also voted tory and i woyld havr voted labour in 97 had i been old enough. Politics isnt like hibs, i can absolutely change my view, and i regularly do. If more of us did, we would have better politics IMO rather than parties taking for granted hufe blocks of sheep-like 'party loyalists'

I am no tax expert, but i do know that the NHS needs more money. My point is that it is not always fair to simply expect ghe squeezed middle to take on a greater tax burden. We are not talking millionaires here, but people who, as you say, are one corpodate reorganisation away from redundancy. Thats why people like to pay down mortgages with their money, to buff up their savings, amd generally reap the rewards of their hard work.

I think most accept taxation gets steeper as you earn more, but that doesnt mean it should be treated as bottomless well. Govts have reaponsibility to these people too.

Too many seem happy to treat other people's earnings as magic money tree, and it is not fair, IMO.

I'm not an expert either and I agree with you to an extent. I think something like the Labour plan to have a 50% tax rate that applies to virtually nobody is pure posturing. I also agree with SiMar's point that the burden needs to be spread across all income groups. But I agree with the principle of progressive taxation. The best balance to achieve is one where everyone feels everyone else is pulling their weight and we're all getting something like value for money. The Scandis seem to manage this, pay considerably more tax than us and have consistently measurably more happy societies.

I understand voting No due to short-term risk attached to your personal circumstances. At least you are honest enough to admit this. What's really annoying is people who have legitimate personal concerns but try and bluster on about more general things they often don't really understand to justify their position.

[RyeSloan]

I'm not an expert either and I agree with you to an extent. I think something like the Labour plan to have a 50% tax rate that applies to virtually nobody is pure posturing. I also agree with SiMar's point that the burden needs to be spread across all income groups. But I agree with the principle of progressive taxation. The best balance to achieve is one where everyone feels everyone else is pulling their weight and we're all getting something like value for money. The Scandis seem to manage this, pay considerably more tax than us and have consistently measurably more happy societies.

I understand voting No due to short-term risk attached to your personal circumstances. At least you are honest enough to admit this. What's really annoying is people who have legitimate personal concerns but try and bluster on about more general things they often don't really understand to justify their position.

Yaaas JMS has agreed with me on something! Made my day that has [emoji23]

[The Green Goblin]

The enormous deficit that we currently run, added to the economic shock of indy, capital flight and setting-up costs.of a new country, i think cash will be quite tight.

Presumably our preferential barnett consequentials will habe to be replaced by actual tax revenue, which could well be less.

Im not saying any of these are insurmountable, just that they will put huge pressurr on public spending that is already running at deficit levels.

I could tell you where they could save 100 billion pounds straight away...

[Moulin Yarns]

I could tell you where they could save 100 billion pounds straight away...

Not forgetting the share of assets >£109Bilion

[ronaldo7]

Woah, now you are way off.

We voted to stay part of the same country, theresa may is scotlands prime minister, ahe outranks the first minister on any reserved issue.

The UK parliament is our parliament.

This is where the nationalist mask slips IMO

This is not some iasue of high morals, it is political opportunism, trying to create the worldin the way that you want to see it, rather than how it is, and how scotland voted for it to be.

To try and twist around the well known, and well recognised democratic system that we habe, and represent it as some sort of oppressive foreign power is shameful and dangerous, and is a cynical attempt to hide political ambition of one party in a cloak of moral indignation.

The reason we have this thread, is that the people were told that if they voted NO, they'd ensure their EU status. Turns out it was a lie.

I'm sure you knew that though.:aok:

[ronaldo7]

You are not being serious there surely. They are the only party that SNP supporters are willing to accept criticism from because they support Independence, they're your cuddly wee play thing. Differences can be tolerated because they are absolutely no threat whatsoever. The other parties can be dismissed as only offering counter arguments to SNP policy because they are unionists, no matter what the issue being discussed. Can you really imagine Nicola Sturgeon offering concessions to the Tories or Labour on anything ever?

Anyway, back to the main issue. :greengrin
May's only real option here is to delay things until after the Brexit negotiations are over. That's her job as PM of the UK. What she can't do though is give an outright NO and I don't think she will. I'm of the opinion that a delay would not be a bad thing, it gives the Yes camp much longer to make the argument on multiple fronts and a much better chance of winning. Making this all about Brexit will be a huge mistake, I think Sturgeon knows that.

That's a bit disrespectful Jon.:rolleyes:

As for offering concessions, I seem to recall something about 1000 extra police officers around 2007. Maybe I just missed that though.:wink:

The concession given to the Greens in the last budget was because they fought for it, unlike Labour, and the Tories, who just threw their toys out the pram.

I'm not saying the SNP would have conceded to Lab/Tory on tax, as one wanted to put it up, and the other wanted to give more to the rich. I think we got it about right.:wink:

[ronaldo7]

This is part of the letter the PM sent today. Interesting bit about our National self determination.:greengrin

What's good for the goose and all that.

18295

[Jack]

I dont think i have ever said that. I was very much against the Iraq war.

I never said you did. It's not all about you, no matter how seriously you take yourself!

[Moulin Yarns]

This is part of the letter the PM sent today. Interesting bit about our National self determination.:greengrin

What's good for the goose and all that.

18295


Are you following me on Twitter. I said the exact same thing.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I could tell you where they could save 100 billion pounds straight away...

Perhaps, but that is a judgement call, and a policy decision.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

The reason we have this thread, is that the people were told that if they voted NO, they'd ensure their EU status. Turns out it was a lie.

I'm sure you knew that though.:aok:

That is one reason. But by no means the only one.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I never said you did. It's not all about you, no matter how seriously you take yourself!

Ok buddy, my apologies.

[ronaldo7]

Are you following me on Twitter. I said the exact same thing.

No. Seen the letter from Humza. Who are you on twitter?

[JeMeSouviens]

Yaaas JMS has agreed with me on something! Made my day that has [emoji23]

Damn! I was hoping that had slipped past you. :wink:

[marinello59]

That's a bit disrespectful Jon.:rolleyes:

As for offering concessions, I seem to recall something about 1000 extra police officers around 2007. Maybe I just missed that though.:wink:

The concession given to the Greens in the last budget was because they fought for it, unlike Labour, and the Tories, who just threw their toys out the pram.

I'm not saying the SNP would have conceded to Lab/Tory on tax, as one wanted to put it up, and the other wanted to give more to the rich. I think we got it about right.:wink:

Disrespectful to who? The SNP or the Greens?
I have a fair degree of disrespect for all political parties although I do quite like the Greens. Apart from their Green policies. :greengrin

[johnbc70]

The reason we have this thread, is that the people were told that if they voted NO, they'd ensure their EU status. Turns out it was a lie.

I'm sure you knew that though.:aok:

A lie is a deliberate statement made with the intention to deceive. As the EU referendum result was not known, or indeed the EU referendum was not legislated for when we had the Scottish Referendum then I struggle to see how anyone lied.

They may have been wrong that a No vote would retain our EU status but unless they had a time machine and knew the result of the EU referendum nobody lied.

[ronaldo7]

A lie is a deliberate statement made with the intention to deceive. As the EU referendum result was not known, or indeed the EU referendum was not legislated for when we had the Scottish Referendum then I struggle to see how anyone lied.

They may have been wrong that a No vote would retain our EU status but unless they had a time machine and knew the result of the EU referendum nobody lied.

Misled then. For you, let's call it a Carmichael.:wink:

[Mr White]

A lie is a deliberate statement made with the intention to deceive. As the EU referendum result was not known, or indeed the EU referendum was not legislated for when we had the Scottish Referendum then I struggle to see how anyone lied.

They may have been wrong that a No vote would retain our EU status but unless they had a time machine and knew the result of the EU referendum nobody lied.

Anti-independence campaigners have made a fair bit of comment on the fall of the price of oil since 2014 haven't they? Fair enough really given how much was placed on that by the yes campaign for funding an indy Scotland.

It's not a massive leap really to compare that to the EU situation imo. The unionist campaign in 2014 focused attention on that knowing there was widespread support in Scotland for staying in the EU. Two years later both campaigns look a bit daft with the benefit of hindsight.

[Colr]

Anti-independence campaigners have made a fair bit of comment on the fall of the price of oil since 2014 haven't they? Fair enough really given how much was placed on that by the yes campaign for funding an indy Scotland.

It's not a massive leap really to compare that to the EU situation imo. The unionist campaign in 2014 focused attention on that knowing there was widespread support in Scotland for staying in the EU. Two years later both campaigns look a bit daft with the benefit of hindsight.

True enough and the hypocrasy inherent in people supporting brexit but not scottish independence is startling.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

True enough and the hypocrasy inherent in people supporting brexit but not scottish independence is startling.

I can see where you are coming from a bit on that, bit does it also mean that there is hypocrisy in supporting leaving the UK but staying in the EU?

[Moulin Yarns]

No. Seen the letter from Humza. Who are you on twitter?

Apologies it was Facebook I put it on.

[Smartie]

I can see where you are coming from a bit on that, bit does it also mean that there is hypocrisy in supporting leaving the UK but staying in the EU?

As a remainer who supports Scottish Independence this is something I have a permanent inner struggle with. You find yourself using one line of argument in one debate and then believing the opposite in the other, which I admit is strange and almost hypocritical at times.

I think part of it comes down to a personal choice as to what decisions you'd like to have made for you where. For a benefit of Union you have to sacrifice something in return. I think I've simply come to the conclusion that I believe the benefits of remaining in the EU outweigh the negatives and sacrifices, but that the benefits of remaining within the UK do not outweigh the sacrifices.

For all I disagree with the position, I actually have a bit of understanding of Brexiteers who simply want to see decisions affecting their lives being made closer to home.

The biggest problem is that most logic went out the window long ago, and people's decisions and opinions seem to now be made emotionally, down to a sense of identity and loyalty to one flag or other, which is an overwhelmingly bad thing.

[G B Young]

As a remainer who supports Scottish Independence this is something I have a permanent inner struggle with. You find yourself using one line of argument in one debate and then believing the opposite in the other, which I admit is strange and almost hypocritical at times.

I think part of it comes down to a personal choice as to what decisions you'd like to have made for you where. For a benefit of Union you have to sacrifice something in return. I think I've simply come to the conclusion that I believe the benefits of remaining in the EU outweigh the negatives and sacrifices, but that the benefits of remaining within the UK do not outweigh the sacrifices.

For all I disagree with the position, I actually have a bit of understanding of Brexiteers who simply want to see decisions affecting their lives being made closer to home.

The biggest problem is that most logic went out the window long ago, and people's decisions and opinions seem to now be made emotionally, down to a sense of identity and loyalty to one flag or other, which is an overwhelmingly bad thing.

Interesting to see that a long overdue study on whether Scottish voters actually want a bespoke deal for Scotland has finally been conducted and polling shows that the majority are more aligned with the UK Brexit view rather than the SNP's. As the study concludes, the majority are simply not fuelled by the sense of seething injustice the SNP would have us believe and now that the mechanics of Brexit are under way they just want the best deal we can negotiate. Rather undermines the SNP's rationale for another independence referendum.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/poll-majority-of-scots-don-t-want-separate-brexit-deal-1-4406774

More detailed analysis here:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/john-curtice-scots-attitudes-to-brexit-in-line-with-rest-of-uk-1-4406776

[makaveli1875]

Interesting to see that a long overdue study on whether Scottish voters actually want a bespoke deal for Scotland has finally been conducted and polling shows that the majority are more aligned with the UK Brexit view rather than the SNP's. As the study concludes, the majority are simply not fuelled by the sense of seething injustice the SNP would have us believe and now that the mechanics of Brexit are under way they just want the best deal we can negotiate. Rather undermines the SNP's rationale for another independence referendum.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/poll-majority-of-scots-don-t-want-separate-brexit-deal-1-4406774

The SNP apparently speak for us all , everybody that took part in that poll must either be wrong or extremist right wing tories pretending to be scots

[Moulin Yarns]

Interesting to see that a long overdue study on whether Scottish voters actually want a bespoke deal for Scotland has finally been conducted and polling shows that the majority are more aligned with the UK Brexit view rather than the SNP's. As the study concludes, the majority are simply not fuelled by the sense of seething injustice the SNP would have us believe and now that the mechanics of Brexit are under way they just want the best deal we can negotiate. Rather undermines the SNP's rationale for another independence referendum.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/poll-majority-of-scots-don-t-want-separate-brexit-deal-1-4406774

More detailed analysis here:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/john-curtice-scots-attitudes-to-brexit-in-line-with-rest-of-uk-1-4406776


this first systematic study of attitudes towards Brexit in Scotland shows that for the most part voters on both sides of the border want much the same outcome - free trade, immigration control and retention of much of the consumer and environmental regulation currently afforded by the EU

Or to take it the other way round, the rest of the UK agrees with Scotland that we don't want to lose all of the above. I wonder what, if any we will get post Brexit?

[The Green Goblin]

I can see where you are coming from a bit on that, bit does it also mean that there is hypocrisy in supporting leaving the UK but staying in the EU?

Not if the two share core values and aspirations for the future. Even allowing for the rich variety of political beliefs and points of view, you couldn't argue with any confidence that May's Tory party reflects and embodies the beliefs, perspective and values of Scotland as a country.

[Slavers]

The SNP apparently speak for us all , everybody that took part in that poll must either be wrong or extremist right wing tories pretending to be scots

Correct and or they are probably just racist little Englander wannabes or Huns! Whoever they are certainly wrong and not educated enlightened left wing progressives!

[The Green Goblin]

Interesting to see that a long overdue study on whether Scottish voters actually want a bespoke deal for Scotland has finally been conducted and polling shows that the majority are more aligned with the UK Brexit view rather than the SNP's. As the study concludes, the majority are simply not fuelled by the sense of seething injustice the SNP would have us believe and now that the mechanics of Brexit are under way they just want the best deal we can negotiate. Rather undermines the SNP's rationale for another independence referendum.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/poll-majority-of-scots-don-t-want-separate-brexit-deal-1-4406774

More detailed analysis here:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/john-curtice-scots-attitudes-to-brexit-in-line-with-rest-of-uk-1-4406776


It remains to be seen whether that "majority" view will still hold up in light of the details of the final Brexit deal down the road. I'd say it was significant that Merkel and others immediately poured cold water on the cuddly fantasy tone in May's letter yesterday. The threat to use intelligence as a(n other) bargaining chip on the very first day betrayed how desperate things are going to get- so much for an amicable start - and in the months to come, the reality of what this means will become clear. In the end, the real "seething injustice" will come from those Brexit voters who realise how shafted they actually are when the EU decides to play hard and that brings about a direct impact on their daily lives. Still, with Boris, Theresa and David "we haven't looked into that yet" Davis speaking for "us", and Empire 2.0 to look forward to, I'm sure it will all be fine...

[The Modfather]

Correct and or they are probably just racist little Englander wannabes or Huns! Whoever they are certainly wrong and not educated enlightened left wing progressives!

It's posts like these, from both sides, that put me off actually contributing to the, by and large, interesting debates on threads like these.

What is the point in diluting the actual debate with childish and bitchy posts from both sides.

Ps HoneTeam I just so happened to quote yourself, lots of other examples on both sides.

Yours,
V Meldrew

[Moulin Yarns]

It remains to be seen whether that "majority" view will still hold up in light of the details of the final Brexit deal down the road. I'd say it was significant that Merkel and others immediately poured cold water on the cuddly fantasy tone in May's letter yesterday. The threat to use intelligence as a(n other) bargaining chip on the very first day betrayed how desperate things are going to get- so much for an amicable start - and in the months to come, the reality of what this means will become clear. In the end, the real "seething injustice" will come from those Brexit voters who realise how shafted they actually are when the EU decides to play hard and that brings about a direct impact on their daily lives. Still, with Boris, Theresa and David "we haven't looked into that yet" Davis speaking for "us", and Empire 2.0 to look forward to, I'm sure it will all be awesome...

Sorted that for you GG :wink:

[HiBremian]

Interesting to see that a long overdue study on whether Scottish voters actually want a bespoke deal for Scotland has finally been conducted and polling shows that the majority are more aligned with the UK Brexit view rather than the SNP's. As the study concludes, the majority are simply not fuelled by the sense of seething injustice the SNP would have us believe and now that the mechanics of Brexit are under way they just want the best deal we can negotiate. Rather undermines the SNP's rationale for another independence referendum.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/poll-majority-of-scots-don-t-want-separate-brexit-deal-1-4406774

More detailed analysis here:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/john-curtice-scots-attitudes-to-brexit-in-line-with-rest-of-uk-1-4406776

"Voters in Scotland seem to want what voters elsewhere want – free trade but not freedom of movement".


So most voters want “their cake and eat it” to quote Boris. The trouble is the reddest of EU red lines is exactly this. At some point even the average punter who pays little attention to politics needs to choose between realistic options. Indyref2 is meant to be about that choice. However, if I were Nicola I’d be keeping the indy powder dry right now. Given that these fantasy attitudes are still prevalent, my guess is that TM will be negotiating towards a soft Brexit, with sufficient spin, smoke and mirrors around the free movement issue - maybe picking up Cameron’s pre-referendum agreement - to give her business chums the access to the single market they demand. It’ll cost a fortune, we’ll effectively be in Norway’s position, paying 80% of what we pay now for access but without any influence, but for those punters who don’t pay much attention to politics and want controls on immigration, it could well work.


On the other hand, many EU countries have had enough of the UK’s constant whingeing and demanding special treatment. They might expect a much harder bargain, which in the end TM would be forced to accept, or retreat to her “no deal” scenario. In which case voters would need to choose between the cake and eating it. The stupid thing is, in fact immigration is economically helpful to Scotland, and all this waffle about reducing it flies in the face of economic necessity.

[G B Young]

A lie is a deliberate statement made with the intention to deceive. As the EU referendum result was not known, or indeed the EU referendum was not legislated for when we had the Scottish Referendum then I struggle to see how anyone lied.

They may have been wrong that a No vote would retain our EU status but unless they had a time machine and knew the result of the EU referendum nobody lied.

Indeed. And the fact the SNP's hoped-for surge in support for Scottish independence post-Brexit hasn't materialised indicates that the EU argument prior to the 2014 vote wasn't actually a key issue for a lot of voters anyway.

[G B Young]

Or to take it the other way round, the rest of the UK agrees with Scotland that we don't want to lose all of the above. I wonder what, if any we will get post Brexit?

And we'll need to keep wondering for a long time yet I suspect. Which seems to be why the SNP are so aggrieved that their push for another referendum has been brushed aside. While privately delighted by the Brexit vote and the mandate it gave them to stoke up their familiar brand of grievance politics, they're also privately concerned that Scotland might end up with a deal that puts any appetite for a referendum well down the pecking order.

[Slavers]

It's posts like these, from both sides, that put me off actually contributing to the, by and large, interesting debates on threads like these.

What is the point in diluting the actual debate with childish and bitchy posts from both sides.

Ps HoneTeam I just so happened to quote yourself, lots of other examples on both sides.

Yours,
V Meldrew

I know it was a petty comment made tongue in cheek about the many posters on here who proclaimed it was only racist little Englanders who voted for Brexit. My comment was tongue in cheek, their comments after the brexit vote were genuine.

I'm sure there is irony in there somewhere.

[Moulin Yarns]

I know it was a petty comment made tongue in cheek about the many posters on here who proclaimed it was only racist little Englanders who voted for Brexit. My comment was tongue in cheek, their comments after the brexit vote were genuine.

I'm sure there is irony in there somewhere.

by repeating them, even tongue in cheek, you are giving oxygen to the fire, dontcha think?

[JeMeSouviens]

As a remainer who supports Scottish Independence this is something I have a permanent inner struggle with. You find yourself using one line of argument in one debate and then believing the opposite in the other, which I admit is strange and almost hypocritical at times.

I think part of it comes down to a personal choice as to what decisions you'd like to have made for you where. For a benefit of Union you have to sacrifice something in return. I think I've simply come to the conclusion that I believe the benefits of remaining in the EU outweigh the negatives and sacrifices, but that the benefits of remaining within the UK do not outweigh the sacrifices.

For all I disagree with the position, I actually have a bit of understanding of Brexiteers who simply want to see decisions affecting their lives being made closer to home.

The biggest problem is that most logic went out the window long ago, and people's decisions and opinions seem to now be made emotionally, down to a sense of identity and loyalty to one flag or other, which is an overwhelmingly bad thing.

It really isn't strange at all. It's making a trade off between exercising sovereignty and the benefits of pooling it. Scotland in the UK is right at one extreme where Scotland loses 100% of sovereignty and everything is pooled under the UK banner. We have zero control. Scotland in the EU is a much different proposition.

Saying someone is hypocritical because they think Scotland should be independent of the UK but outside of the EU is like calling a cyclist hypocritical if they don't like Formula 1.

[JeMeSouviens]

And we'll need to keep wondering for a long time yet I suspect. Which seems to be why the SNP are so aggrieved that their push for another referendum has been brushed aside. While privately delighted by the Brexit vote and the mandate it gave them to stoke up their familiar brand of grievance politics, they're also privately concerned that Scotland might end up with a deal that puts any appetite for a referendum well down the pecking order.

I think it's more likely that they think Brexit will make Scotland so weak economically that they'll never be able to persuade people to make the jump to independence. I think a large strand of current Unionist strategy is to make Scotland's position within the Union as weak as possible to encourage maximum dependency. Witness the shrieks of delight over 15bn black holes etc.

[JeMeSouviens]

"Voters in Scotland seem to want what voters elsewhere want – free trade but not freedom of movement".


So most voters want “their cake and eat it” to quote Boris. The trouble is the reddest of EU red lines is exactly this. At some point even the average punter who pays little attention to politics needs to choose between realistic options. Indyref2 is meant to be about that choice. However, if I were Nicola I’d be keeping the indy powder dry right now. Given that these fantasy attitudes are still prevalent, my guess is that TM will be negotiating towards a soft Brexit, with sufficient spin, smoke and mirrors around the free movement issue - maybe picking up Cameron’s pre-referendum agreement - to give her business chums the access to the single market they demand. It’ll cost a fortune, we’ll effectively be in Norway’s position, paying 80% of what we pay now for access but without any influence, but for those punters who don’t pay much attention to politics and want controls on immigration, it could well work.


On the other hand, many EU countries have had enough of the UK’s constant whingeing and demanding special treatment. They might expect a much harder bargain, which in the end TM would be forced to accept, or retreat to her “no deal” scenario. In which case voters would need to choose between the cake and eating it. The stupid thing is, in fact immigration is economically helpful to Scotland, and all this waffle about reducing it flies in the face of economic necessity.

Eh? In the survey, 61% of Scots said freedom of movement was definitely or probably a price worth paying for free trade.

[Hibernia&Alba]

It looks like the current ceiling is £43k pa, and the rate to that level is 12%. Presumably abolition would effectively mean a 12% additional deduction on all earnings above £43k - is that what you are proposing? What effect would that have on the broader economy?


Do you think it's right that the current ceiling for National Insurance contributions is just £43,000 per year? If that's the case, you can't complain the NHS is lacking funds. It's crazy and immoral IMO. It puts pay to the argument that the NHS is unsustainable. It's certainly sustainable if all earnings are contributable :agree:

[CropleyWasGod]

Do you think it's right that the current ceiling for National Insurance contributions is just £43,000 per year? If that's the case, you can't complain the NHS is lacking funds. It's crazy and immoral IMO. It puts pay to the argument that the NHS is unsustainable. It's certainly sustainable if all earnings are contributable :agree:

The days of IT and NI being ring-fenced for different purposes are long gone, IMO. There's a strong case for abolishing NI, and pushing up IT rates accordingly. There would be a consequent saving in admin costs.

[makaveli1875]

I think it's more likely that they think Brexit will make Scotland so weak economically that they'll never be able to persuade people to make the jump to independence. I think a large strand of current Unionist strategy is to make Scotland's position within the Union as weak as possible to encourage maximum dependency. Witness the shrieks of delight over 15bn black holes etc.

we were constantly told by our dear leader , the great leader that weve got billions of oil , how can we possibly become economically weak with all that black gold were sitting on

[Moulin Yarns]

I think it's more likely that they think Brexit will make Scotland so weak economically that they'll never be able to persuade people to make the jump to independence. I think a large strand of current Unionist strategy is to make Scotland's position within the Union as weak as possible to encourage maximum dependency. Witness the shrieks of delight over 15bn black holes etc.

Black hole? £15bn?? Nope, never heard that one before. Is it on the side of a bus?

[Hibernia&Alba]

Independence is only worthwhile, IMO, if it's for something - a different society. I don't see the point of it more for of the same i.e. a continuation of the failed programme of almost forty years of neoliberalism, privatisation, industrial destruction, inequality and casualization of labour. Independence shouldn't be an end in itself but a path to the transformation of society; towards an alternative to the vision of England, which seems to want the American model more than the European. The aim should be a more equal society, free of the class prejudices of British society. Social justice should be at the core of the vision, IMO, meaning that accident of birth will play no role in one's life prospects. It's a disgrace that in 2017 the two most important factors contributing to one's future prospects are your mother's educational qualifications and your postcode. Those born poor are more likely to die poor than at any time in the post war era. That's what four decades of Thatcherism have created and it needs to be reversed.

I would like to see independence offer a democratic republic - immediate abolition of the monarchy. A written constitution and Bill of Rights, the latter explicitly stating those things all citizens have a right to access. This wouldn't just include political and legal rights but would encompass tangible markers of one's living conditions and quality of life. These things to be guaranteed for all citizens. Just for starters:

The right to access to health care when required, irrespective of ability to pay.
The right to access education irrespective of ability to pay.
The right to a home commensurate with a dignified life, including satisfactory sanitation and heating.
The right to meaningful employment at a minimum level of pay.
The right to a pension in old age with a minimum income guarantee.
The right to join an independent trade union and the right to strike.

I would like to see any independent Scotland outlaw exploitative practices such as zero hour contracts.

In their 1974 election manifesto, Labour promised 'a fundamental and irreversible shift in wealth and power towards working people and their families'. It didn't happen, but it's the kind of vision that independence needs, in order to offer a clear alternative to the status quo. A Scotland without food banks, homelessness, mass unemployment and casual employment, fuel poverty and declining social mobility.

Where we are today is a million miles short of the society we need. If independence is the means to a new path - the dismantling of neoliberalism - I'm all for it.

[Moulin Yarns]

we were constantly told by our dear leader , the great leader that weve got billions of oil , how can we possibly become economically weak with all that black gold were sitting on

Maybe if we weren't sitting on it and sold it to our neighbours instead. OH wait, they stole most of it.

[RyeSloan]

Do you think it's right that the current ceiling for National Insurance contributions is just £43,000 per year? If that's the case, you can't complain the NHS is lacking funds. It's crazy and immoral IMO. It puts pay to the argument that the NHS is unsustainable. It's certainly sustainable if all earnings are contributable :agree:

Bit circular this discussion but there is more to sustainability than just tax.

Anyway earnings above the upper limit do attract NI. It's 2% for the employee and the employer continues to pay 13.8%.

That's in addition to the fact that the employee pays 40% income tax on those earnings.

So as you can see there is already plenty of tax being paid on earnings above £43k so your focus on this area as some sort of magic bullet for the long term demographic and cost challenges facing healthcare is misplaced.

[Moulin Yarns]

Independence is only worthwhile, IMO, if it's for something - a different society. I don't see the point of it more for of the same i.e. a continuation of the failed programme of almost forty years of neoliberalism, privatisation, industrial destruction, inequality and casualization of labour. Independence shouldn't be an end in itself but a path to the transformation of society; towards an alternative to the vision of England, which seems to want the American model more than the European. The aim should be a more equal society, free of the class prejudices of British society. Social justice should be at the core of the vision, IMO, meaning that accident of birth will play no role in one's life prospects. It's a disgrace that in 2017 the two most important factors contributing to one's future prospects are your mother's educational qualifications and your postcode. Those born poor are more likely to die poor than at any time in the post war era. That's what four decades of Thatcherism have created and it needs to be reversed.

I would like to see independence offer a democratic republic - immediate abolition of the monarchy. A written constitution and Bill of Rights, the latter explicitly stating those things all citizens have a right to access. This wouldn't just include political and legal rights but would encompass tangible markers of one's living conditions and quality of life. These things to be guaranteed for all citizens. Just for starters:

The right to access to health care when required, irrespective of ability to pay.
The right to access education irrespective of ability to pay.
The right to a home commensurate with a dignified life, including satisfactory sanitation and heating.
The right to meaningful employment at a minimum level of pay.
The right to a pension in old age with a minimum income guarantee.
The right to join an independent trade union and the right to strike.

I would like to see any independent Scotland outlaw exploitative practices such as zero hour contracts.

In their 1974 election manifesto, Labour promised 'a fundamental and irreversible shift in wealth and power towards working people and their families'. It didn't happen, but it's the kind of vision that independence needs, in order to offer a clear alternative to the status quo. A Scotland without food banks, homelessness, mass unemployment and casual employment, fuel poverty and declining social mobility.

Where we are today is a million miles short of the society we need. If independence is the means to a new path - the dismantling of neoliberalism - I'm all for it.

Sounds like you have been reading the Scottish Greens policies

[HiBremian]

Eh? In the survey, 61% of Scots said freedom of movement was definitely or probably a price worth paying for free trade.
And 54% across the UK. Which makes it even more likely that TM will do a free movement-type deal with a bit of immigration control window dressing for the UKIP-Tory swing voters.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Sounds like you have been reading the Scottish Greens policies

I usually vote Green, though I'd like to see them shift a tad to the left :greengrin

Specifically, I'd like proposals upon worker control of their companies/industries with a democratic structure. Workplaces are hierarchical dictatorships, with the vast majority having no input into the decisions being made. I'd like to see plans for democratisation in the workplace; where employees have a say in what is made, how and when. Those who do the work having some influence upon it. Hardly radical really; it shouldn't even need to be said. You can't have political freedom with economic slavery, as Tom Paine said. That's why big business tries to buy the political system, as in America, because it's egalitarian: one person one vote. This concept also requires industrial democracy. If the employee is merely an economic unit who can be deprived of their means of existence at any given moment, you don't have democracy but tyranny.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Bit circular this discussion but there is more to sustainability than just tax.

Anyway earnings above the upper limit do attract NI. It's 2% for the employee and the employer continues to pay 13.8%.

That's in addition to the fact that the employee pays 40% income tax on those earnings.

So as you can see there is already plenty of tax being paid on earnings above £43k so your focus on this area as some sort of magic bullet for the long term demographic and cost challenges facing healthcare is misplaced.

Not nearly enough. It's no good saying the NHS unsustainable when this is allowed to happen. Of course it's unsustainable if the funds aren't put in. People earning hundreds of thousands, or even millions per annum paying 2 per cent on everything above just £43,000 in NI? Disgraceful. I'd change that tomorrow.

[Jack]

The days of IT and NI being ring-fenced for different purposes are long gone, IMO. There's a strong case for abolishing NI, and pushing up IT rates accordingly. There would be a consequent saving in admin costs.

Savings in admin? I thought it was all done through computer programmes and (automatic) bank transfers.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Point being if we can afford wars and nuclear weapons, we can afford a health system free at the point of delivery.
If the country is richer than ever before, as we're told, we can afford a health system free at the point of delivery.
If we can afford to let multinationals pay no tax, we can afford a health system free at the point of delivery.
We can afford to allow multi millionaires pay a maximum rate of 45% income tax and nothing in National Insurance on the vast majority of their income, we can afford a health system free at the point of delivery.
If we constantly change the system so that it benefits those at the top, we have no right to demand sacrifices of the rest.

It's the decisions you take and the choices you make. We're making the wrong ones.

[CropleyWasGod]

Savings in admin? I thought it was all done through computer programmes and (automatic) bank transfers.

When it comes to IT, HMRC are firmly rooted in the 1970's. :greengrin

[RyeSloan]

Not nearly enough. It's no good saying the NHS unsustainable when this is allowed to happen. Of course it's unsustainable if the funds aren't put in. People earning hundreds of thousands, or even millions per annum paying 2 per cent on everything above just £43,000 in NI? Disgraceful. I'd change that tomorrow.

OK your clearly not going to take on the wider points around sustainability and have conveniently avoided the fact that those earnings you are after generate 13.8% in employers NI, 2% in employee NI and 40-45% income tax...bit of a stretch to call that 'disgraceful' in my mind but there you go.

[Jack]

I can see where you are coming from a bit on that, bit does it also mean that there is hypocrisy in supporting leaving the UK but staying in the EU?

Probably something to do with this.

[Slavers]

by repeating them, even tongue in cheek, you are giving oxygen to the fire, dontcha think?

Yes maybe a wee bit but it's hard not to mock those kind of comments but I'm sure the fire will go oot once the Brexit fire blanket has smothered the flames!

[Hibernia&Alba]

OK your clearly not going to take on the wider points around sustainability and have conveniently avoided the fact that those earnings you are after generate 13.8% in employers NI, 2% in employee NI and 40-45% income tax...bit of a stretch to call that 'disgraceful' in my mind but there you go.

I take your point, but the NHS IS sustainable if we wish to sustain it. We have the resources; in fact the NI ceiling means some people simply aren't being asked to pull their weight - the very people who have the most. To me that is disgraceful. Why should contributions drop to just 2 per cent on everything above £43,000? It makes no sense and is totally regressive. So we have CEO's, bankers and EPL footballers, many of whom earn more than £43,000 in a week, contributing 2 per cent to NI. Not nearly good enough. It's about making the right decisions.

[Moulin Yarns]

Yes maybe a wee bit but it's hard not to mock those kind of comments but I'm sure the fire will go oot once the Brexit fire blanket has smothered the flames!

Problem is more fuel will be added when we start burning bridges

[Slavers]

Problem is more fuel will be added when we start burning bridges

Sturgeon is certainly trying her best to burn the bridge between Scotland and the UK but hopefully she will burn herself oot soon and we will hear less of her then we can start rebuilding from any damage that has been done.

[RyeSloan]

I take your point, but the NHS IS sustainable if we wish to sustain it. We have the resources; in fact the NI ceiling means some people simply aren't being asked to pull their weight - the very people who have the most. To me that is disgraceful. Why should contributions drop to just 2 per cent on everything above £43,000? It makes no sense and is totally regressive. So we have CEO's, bankers and EPL footballers, many of whom earn more than £43,000 in a week, contributing 2 per cent to NI. Not nearly good enough. It's about making the right decisions.

Why your fascination with NI? You must know it's not really a ring fenced pot.

I've already pointed out the other direct taxation that is levied on those incomes. The employers NI is a tax on the individual in all but name as it's included in the cost of paying that person so the NI contribution over £43k is 15.8%, in addition there is the higher income tax rate of 40 - 45%.

I'm all for right decisions and we can argue till the cows come home on what is an appropriate percentage of the state to take off an ndividuals income but no matter our thoughts on that if you think that the nations healthcare needs in the future can be paid for by taxing the types of people you have suggested 10% more you are misguided, it simply wouldn't be enough and nor is basing the provision of something like healthcare on such a small tax base a responsible or sensible thing to do.

I've posted previously that there is a mighty 18,000 people in Scotland paying the higher rate of tax, do you think that's enough people to generate the billions that will be required?

[stoneyburn hibs]

And we'll need to keep wondering for a long time yet I suspect. Which seems to be why the SNP are so aggrieved that their push for another referendum has been brushed aside. While privately delighted by the Brexit vote and the mandate it gave them to stoke up their familiar brand of grievance politics, they're also privately concerned that Scotland might end up with a deal that puts any appetite for a referendum well down the pecking order.

Grievance politics ? Explain.
Privately concerned ? Are you privy to Scottish government meetings ?

And how can Scotland come away with any sort of deal that's positive given the ****storm that Brexit is, given that the Tories haven't got a clue as to what they're doing ?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Independence is only worthwhile, IMO, if it's for something - a different society. I don't see the point of it more for of the same i.e. a continuation of the failed programme of almost forty years of neoliberalism, privatisation, industrial destruction, inequality and casualization of labour. Independence shouldn't be an end in itself but a path to the transformation of society; towards an alternative to the vision of England, which seems to want the American model more than the European. The aim should be a more equal society, free of the class prejudices of British society. Social justice should be at the core of the vision, IMO, meaning that accident of birth will play no role in one's life prospects. It's a disgrace that in 2017 the two most important factors contributing to one's future prospects are your mother's educational qualifications and your postcode. Those born poor are more likely to die poor than at any time in the post war era. That's what four decades of Thatcherism have created and it needs to be reversed.

I would like to see independence offer a democratic republic - immediate abolition of the monarchy. A written constitution and Bill of Rights, the latter explicitly stating those things all citizens have a right to access. This wouldn't just include political and legal rights but would encompass tangible markers of one's living conditions and quality of life. These things to be guaranteed for all citizens. Just for starters:

The right to access to health care when required, irrespective of ability to pay.
The right to access education irrespective of ability to pay.
The right to a home commensurate with a dignified life, including satisfactory sanitation and heating.
The right to meaningful employment at a minimum level of pay.
The right to a pension in old age with a minimum income guarantee.
The right to join an independent trade union and the right to strike.

I would like to see any independent Scotland outlaw exploitative practices such as zero hour contracts.

In their 1974 election manifesto, Labour promised 'a fundamental and irreversible shift in wealth and power towards working people and their families'. It didn't happen, but it's the kind of vision that independence needs, in order to offer a clear alternative to the status quo. A Scotland without food banks, homelessness, mass unemployment and casual employment, fuel poverty and declining social mobility.

Where we are today is a million miles short of the society we need. If independence is the means to a new path - the dismantling of neoliberalism - I'm all for it.


I can pretty much guarentee that independence will not deliver what you want, so i fear you will be disappointed.

And our country would be ruined if it did.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Not nearly enough. It's no good saying the NHS unsustainable when this is allowed to happen. Of course it's unsustainable if the funds aren't put in. People earning hundreds of thousands, or even millions per annum paying 2 per cent on everything above just £43,000 in NI? Disgraceful. I'd change that tomorrow.

How many earn that in scotland?

Sorry, i see SiMar has already answered that.

The favt that you are quoting figures talking about high earning CEOs and premier league footballers suggests to me you jabe lifted some argument from england, because neither premier league footballers nor high earning CEOs are very common in Scotland.

[The Green Goblin]

I can pretty much guarentee that independence will not deliver what you want, so i fear you will be disappointed.

No you can't guarantee that. That's an opinion founded on a guess. Nobody can guarantee anything at the moment, not what Brexit will mean, nor any future independence situation, nor anything else. That's a fact.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

No you can't guarantee that. That's an opinion founded on a guess. Nobody can guarantee anything at the moment, not what Brexit will mean, nor any future independence situation, nor anything else. That's a fact.

Thats why i said 'pretty much'.

I dont always agree with the SNP, but they are savvy, and they are not stupid. The Greens are just their useful idiots in the parliamen amd if we become independent, i think Scotland will take a very pro-business, pro-enterprise stance, similar to thay of Ireland because they know that jobs are the key to making a success of indy Scotland. The SNP are VERY aware of this, and aee actively touting for such investment, high value jobs at the moment.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Why your fascination with NI? You must know it's not really a ring fenced pot.

I've already pointed out the other direct taxation that is levied on those incomes. The employers NI is a tax on the individual in all but name as it's included in the cost of paying that person so the NI contribution over £43k is 15.8%, in addition there is the higher income tax rate of 40 - 45%.

I'm all for right decisions and we can argue till the cows come home on what is an appropriate percentage of the state to take off an ndividuals income but no matter our thoughts on that if you think that the nations healthcare needs in the future can be paid for by taxing the types of people you have suggested 10% more you are misguided, it simply wouldn't be enough and nor is basing the provision of something like healthcare on such a small tax base a responsible or sensible thing to do.

I've posted previously that there is a mighty 18,000 people in Scotland paying the higher rate of tax, do you think that's enough people to generate the billions that will be required?



Not progressive enough, same as the NI ceiling. By the way, if, as you claim, the NI rate remains the same 'in all but name' above £43,000, you'll be okay with removing the ceiling then, yes? Taxes are too low all round, IMHO. I want a high tax/high spend society based upon collectivism; whatever is necessary to attain a civilised society with social justice at its core. I want the destruction of the decades of neoliberalism/Thatcherism/trickle down that has done so much damage to our society. I want to move away from the money obsessed society towards a human needs society; an end to putting the cart before the horse. Haggling over numbers is wrong, but it's nonsense to say one of the richest countries in the world cannot, in the twenty-first century, afford comprehensive health cover for its citizens. Seems to me a very modest demand/expectation in a society like ours.We should be looking at what we want to achieve and then finding the path to get there, hence I want a written Bill of Rights that enshrines in law a guarantee to every citizen tangible quality of life outcomes based upon collective provision. In short a complete transformation of society away from free market capitalism and towards measurable goals that are based upon quality and meaning of life for all. We cannot leave our future to the oscillations of markets. The vision the great Connolly had for an independent Ireland. Independence should be Scotland's 1916: a re-evaluation of what society and what human life are for. He knew his onions and his fitba! The same ideology from Holyrood instead of Westminster just seems a waste of time to me.

Conclusion: We decide what we want then raise the necessary finance. We shouldn't set tax rates at an arbitrary level, say this is how much we have, and then see what we can get for the money. Horse before cart. If free health care for all requires significant tax raises, lets get it done; but don't tell me there's no way it can happen. Outcome driven policy making.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Thats why i said 'pretty much'.

I dont always agree with the SNP, but they are savvy, and they are not stupid. The Greens are just their useful idiots in the parliamen amd if we become independent, i think Scotland will take a very pro-business, pro-enterprise stance, similar to thay of Ireland because they know that jobs are the key to making a success of indy Scotland. The SNP are VERY aware of this, and aee actively touting for such investment, high value jobs at the moment.

More of the same crap then. More meaningless casual jobs that offer no quality of life. More and more people living to work, rather than working to live. More money for its own sake philosophy, devoid of asking what life is actually for and how we measure progress. The same vulgar free for all. More talent thrown away, more hopelessness, more inequality.

I don't see the point of independence on that basis. We may as well just continue as we are; it would be the same system with the same type of people calling the shots. We'd be no further forward. We must formulate a vision of how we want to live.

[Hibernia&Alba]

By the way those who argue the NHS is unsustainable, whether within the UK or after independence, need to spell out what system they would replace it with, and what would happen to those who can't afford private insurance when they need treatment. Also what happens to those who are refused cover by private insurers because they are considered too high risk? There are many problems to be addressed the moment you put a for profit health system in place. What about the moral issue of people making profit from the sick and dying? Private systems are also more bureaucratic, America being the most extreme example. They spend twice as much of their GDP on health care as we do, yet still have millions with either no coverage or minimal coverage.

[Moulin Yarns]

Thats why i said 'pretty much'.

I dont always agree with the SNP, but they are savvy, and they are not stupid. The Greens are just their useful idiots in the parliamen amd if we become independent, i think Scotland will take a very pro-business, pro-enterprise stance, similar to thay of Ireland because they know that jobs are the key to making a success of indy Scotland. The SNP are VERY aware of this, and aee actively touting for such investment, high value jobs at the moment.

More mud slinging. quelle surprise. As for the frequent misspelling of simple words, either a large libation or someone played a joke on you and moved the keys on your keyboard. :greengrin

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

More mud slinging. quelle surprise. As for the frequent misspelling of simple words, either a large libation or someone played a joke on you and moved the keys on your keyboard. :greengrin

I wish it was a large libation that was to blame!

I just hate using touchscreen keyboards on my phone, and i cant aleays be bothered to go back and correct.

IMO the greens are just as extreme on their own political spectrum as ukip are on theirs.

[Moulin Yarns]

Thats why i said 'pretty much'.

I dont always agree with the SNP, but they are savvy, and they are not stupid. The Greens are just their useful idiots in the parliamen amd if we become independent, i think Scotland will take a very pro-business, pro-enterprise stance, similar to thay of Ireland because they know that jobs are the key to making a success of indy Scotland. The SNP are VERY aware of this, and aee actively touting for such investment, high value jobs at the moment.

I agree with you to an extent regarding the SNP and pro business if Alex Salmond were still the leader, but I think Nicola Sturgeon is more likely to consider the ordinary working man/woman and be open to providing the type of things that H&A suggested in his post at 3:59 yesterday afternoon. You know, like the things in the Scottish Greens manifesto. :wink:

[Jack]

How many earn that in scotland?

Sorry, i see SiMar has already answered that.

The favt that you are quoting figures talking about high earning CEOs and premier league footballers suggests to me you jabe lifted some argument from england, because neither premier league footballers nor high earning CEOs are very common in Scotland.

Is there any evidence to suggest that the income profile of those living in Scotland is much different to the rest of the UK or similar sized counties?

The figures I've seen, produced by ONS and the Scottish Government (2016), say the difference between Scotland and England is less than the cost of a couple of beers a week.

Hardly the poor wee country some folk try to portray.

I also saw a league table recently of the 10 richest people in Scotland. They were all billionaires! Not millionaires but billionaires! So goodness knows how many millionaires ... I've just looked it up. Google headlines saying around 45,000 millionaires in Scotland. They also say Edinburgh is the UK capital for millionaires.

But but, but Scotland is just a poor wee country where they have scrimp and scrape their groats and bawbees the gither to keep their peely wally bodies and souls together. Aye right!

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I agree with you to an extent regarding the SNP and pro business if Alex Salmond were still the leader, but I think Nicola Sturgeon is more likely to consider the ordinary working man/woman and be open to providing the type of things that H&A suggested in his post at 3:59 yesterday afternoon. You know, like the things in the Scottish Greens manifesto. :wink:

Time will tell i suppose.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Is there any evidence to suggest that the income profile of those living in Scotland is much different to the rest of the UK or similar sized counties?

The figures I've seen, produced by ONS and the Scottish Government (2016), say the difference between Scotland and England is less than the cost of a couple of beers a week.

Hardly the poor wee country some folk try to portray.

I also saw a league table recently of the 10 richest people in Scotland. They were all billionaires! Not millionaires but billionaires! So goodness knows how many millionaires ... I've just looked it up. Google headlines saying around 45,000 millionaires in Scotland. They also say Edinburgh is the UK capital for millionaires.

But but, but Scotland is just a poor wee country where they have scrimp and scrape their groats and bawbees the gither to keep their peely wally bodies and souls together. Aye right!

Scotland isnt a poor wee country, thats a strawman argument.

I dont know, im happy to accept what you say about that is true. My guess would have been that london and south east have a far higher concentration of wealth than scotland / rest of the UK, but if you habe checked the stats, im happy to take your point.

But according to Golden Fleece, Edinburgh is in the midst of an economic crisis with huge unemployment, so im a bit confused?

For what its worth, i think london and south east is the highest earning tax area of the UK, and i know the north east of scotland used to be second, although oil crisis may have affected that.

I suspect Edinburgh does pretty well in this regard, although i got shot down last week for suggesting that Edinburgh is a prosperous and successful city.

[Hibernia&Alba]

My fear is that post Brexit the Tories (and the Blairite wing of Labour) want to take us down the American road, and it will be a relentless chipping away of everything that was achieved post war. Don't get sick, don't lose your job, don't get old, because you're on your own. Listen to this poor guy's story and the very revealing statistics he quotes. It's heartbreaking really, and we must never allow ourselves to inhabit this kind of society.This is a country which will spend $694 billion on its military in 2017.


https://youtu.be/Wn0xugNivl4

[Moulin Yarns]

Scotland isnt a poor wee country, thats a strawman argument.

I dont know, im happy to accept what you say about that is true. My guess would have been that london and south east have a far higher concentration of wealth than scotland / rest of the UK, but if you habe checked the stats, im happy to take your point.

But according to Golden Fleece, Edinburgh is in the midst of an economic crisis with huge unemployment, so im a bit confused?

For what its worth, i think london and south east is the highest earning tax area of the UK, and i know the north east of scotland used to be second, although oil crisis may have affected that.

I suspect Edinburgh does pretty well in this regard, although i got shot down last week for suggesting that Edinburgh is a prosperous and successful city.

Not quite what I said. to clarify.


71.9% of all working age Edinburgh residents were in employment during Q3 2016


The number of working age DWP benefits claimants in Edinburgh was 32,410 (9.3% of all working age adults) in the quarter to August 2016




As an aside, there are more Spanish employed in Edinburgh than any other EU nationality in 2013-15

[ronaldo7]

By the way those who argue the NHS is unsustainable, whether within the UK or after independence, need to spell out what system they would replace it with, and what would happen to those who can't afford private insurance when they need treatment. Also what happens to those who are refused cover by private insurers because they are considered too high risk? There are many problems to be addressed the moment you put a for profit health system in place. What about the moral issue of people making profit from the sick and dying? Private systems are also more bureaucratic, America being the most extreme example. They spend twice as much of their GDP on health care as we do, yet still have millions with either no coverage or minimal coverage.

I've yet to hear that argument.

Woe betide them, if any of them or their own fall sick, and can't afford treatment.

[ronaldo7]

From No to YES.:greengrin

On the last sentence, I won't say that. I'll just say Welcome to the YES movement.:aok:

https://t.co/WHFYYK4Aj0

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

As an aside to the discussions on NHS, i see NHS Tayside have been put into special administration by the government - https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/39437418

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Not quite what I said. to clarify.


As an aside, there are more Spanish employed in Edinburgh than any other EU nationality in 2013-15

So what do those stats tell us?

You ridiculed me for saying Edinburgh is a prosperous, successful city with more or less full employment.

You then posted a stat, which some of the economic experts here said showed fhat Edinburgh does have, more or less full employment.

You habe now come back with some new stats, but i genuinely dont know what they indicate?

Does that mean unemployment is at 9.3%?

Also does the large number of Spanish migrants working here not indicate that there were lots of jobs needing to be filled?

[G B Young]

Grievance politics ? Explain.


Don't always agree with him, but Brian Wilson sums it up well:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/brian-wilson-permanent-cacophony-of-grievance-from-snp-1-4408359

[Moulin Yarns]

So what do those stats tell us?

You ridiculed me for saying Edinburgh is a prosperous, successful city with more or less full employment.

You then posted a stat, which some of the economic experts here said showed fhat Edinburgh does have, more or less full employment.

You habe now come back with some new stats, but i genuinely dont know what they indicate?

Does that mean unemployment is at 9.3%?

Also does the large number of Spanish migrants working here not indicate that there were lots of jobs needing to be filled?

I asked before, which is it, full employment or lots of jobs needing filled? You can't have it both ways. These figures come from City of Edinburgh Council.

The figures also show the majority of 'hospitality and tourism' jobs are filled by migrant workers. Do you remember about 10 years ago when the chances were you couldn't get served in a bar by anything other than an Australian? Nothing has really changed in that industry, migrant workers fill those posts.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I asked before, which is it, full employment or lots of jobs needing filled? You can't have it both ways. These figures come from City of Edinburgh Council.

The figures also show the majority of 'hospitality and tourism' jobs are filled by migrant workers. Do you remember about 10 years ago when the chances were you couldn't get served in a bar by anything other than an Australian? Nothing has really changed in that industry, migrant workers fill those posts.

Of course you can... there are lots of migrant workers here because lots of jobs need filled. i.e. there is nobody else to fill them, i.e. we have more or less full employment and not enough people to fill all the jobs?

I said in our previous exchange on this that i dont know of anyone in Edinburgh who wants a job amd cant get one. Surely what you are saging supports this i.e. that there are lots of jobs available for those sho want them (and arr having to be filled by spanish, aussie backpackers etc)?

Basically we are importing workers because we dont habe enough of our own.

[McD]

Not progressive enough, same as the NI ceiling. By the way, if, as you claim, the NI rate remains the same 'in all but name' above £43,000, you'll be okay with removing the ceiling then, yes? Taxes are too low all round, IMHO. I want a high tax/high spend society based upon collectivism; whatever is necessary to attain a civilised society with social justice at its core. I want the destruction of the decades of neoliberalism/Thatcherism/trickle down that has done so much damage to our society. I want to move away from the money obsessed society towards a human needs society; an end to putting the cart before the horse. Haggling over numbers is wrong, but it's nonsense to say one of the richest countries in the world cannot, in the twenty-first century, afford comprehensive health cover for its citizens. Seems to me a very modest demand/expectation in a society like ours.We should be looking at what we want to achieve and then finding the path to get there, hence I want a written Bill of Rights that enshrines in law a guarantee to every citizen tangible quality of life outcomes based upon collective provision. In short a complete transformation of society away from free market capitalism and towards measurable goals that are based upon quality and meaning of life for all. We cannot leave our future to the oscillations of markets. The vision the great Connolly had for an independent Ireland. Independence should be Scotland's 1916: a re-evaluation of what society and what human life are for. He knew his onions and his fitba! The same ideology from Holyrood instead of Westminster just seems a waste of time to me.

Conclusion: We decide what we want then raise the necessary finance. We shouldn't set tax rates at an arbitrary level, say this is how much we have, and then see what we can get for the money. Horse before cart. If free health care for all requires significant tax raises, lets get it done; but don't tell me there's no way it can happen. Outcome driven policy making.



firstly, that's good of you to decide that your 'wants' are paramount - what of everyone else, specifically those who will be forcibly taxed at a more chnhigher rate to satisfy your demands? And before you mention high paid CEOs and premiership footballers agin, I mean everyone else. Those who have worked hard to earn what they have, without earning the hundred of thousands you have referred to. you may be willing to contribute significantly more (are you in this high earning bracket?) - have you asked them?


Secondly, you speak of wanting to get away from the money obsessed society, but pretty much every post you've made on this thread has been heavily focussed on....money.

[Moulin Yarns]

Of course you can... there are lots of migrant workers here because lots of jobs need filled. i.e. there is nobody else to fill them, i.e. we have more or less full employment and not enough people to fill all the jobs?

I said in our previous exchange on this that i dont know of anyone in Edinburgh who wants a job amd cant get one. Surely what you are saging supports this i.e. that there are lots of jobs available for those sho want them (and arr having to be filled by spanish, aussie backpackers etc)?

Basically we are importing workers because we dont habe enough of our own.

Ask anyone that's genuinely begging on Princes Street if they would rather have a job to support themselves or be sitting in the cold and wet day after day and you will get an answer to whether anyone who wants a job can get one.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Ask anyone that's genuinely begging on Princes Street if they would rather have a job to support themselves or be sitting in the cold and wet day after day and you will get an answer to whether anyone who wants a job can get one.

So you are not going to engage with any of the points i made then?

As i said previously, i think the causes of homelessness (and therefore the solutions) are a lot more complicated than cant get a job.

And using a couple of hundred people at the absolute extreme end, in a discussion about a city of almost 500,000 people seems a bit daft.

[Hibrandenburg]

Of course you can... there are lots of migrant workers here because lots of jobs need filled. i.e. there is nobody else to fill them, i.e. we have more or less full employment and not enough people to fill all the jobs?

I said in our previous exchange on this that i dont know of anyone in Edinburgh who wants a job amd cant get one. Surely what you are saging supports this i.e. that there are lots of jobs available for those sho want them (and arr having to be filled by spanish, aussie backpackers etc)?

Basically we are importing workers because we dont habe enough of our own.

Excellent argumentation for leaving the UK and staying in the EU.

[Slavers]

Excellent argumentation for leaving the UK and staying in the EU.

Or maybe an argument for a new government strategy to make it more affordable for couples to have children and get the birth rate up in Scotland.

[Hibernia&Alba]

firstly, that's good of you to decide that your 'wants' are paramount - what of everyone else, specifically those who will be forcibly taxed at a more chnhigher rate to satisfy your demands? And before you mention high paid CEOs and premiership footballers agin, I mean everyone else. Those who have worked hard to earn what they have, without earning the hundred of thousands you have referred to. you may be willing to contribute significantly more (are you in this high earning bracket?) - have you asked them?


Secondly, you speak of wanting to get away from the money obsessed society, but pretty much every post you've made on this thread has been heavily focussed on....money.

Firstly, I could afford to contribute more and would do so, yes. I wouldn't want an exemption of any kind. I put my money where my mooth is by voting for tax increasing parties, usually Green. Also, it would be a democratic decision - voted upon at elections - not 'forced'. I assume you also have 'wants' i.e. a vision of the type of society you wish to live in. There's nothing wrong with arguing your case then putting it to the democratic test. That's how our politics works.

Secondly, my contribution on this thread has been around the type of society we wish to create. Specifically, we got into a debate about the NHS and how we should deliver health care to our citizens. This of course requires a discussion of funding - I don't think I initiated the question of funding - but of course that requires a discussion of the money involved. However, the whole point of my posts has been satisfaction of human needs first and haggling over money a very distant second.

[Moulin Yarns]

Or maybe an argument for a new government strategy to make it more affordable for couples to have children and get the birth rate up in Scotland.

Wow, I can see the headlines now.

**** for your country.

More Kids More Wonga!!

One for sorrow,
Two for joy,
Three for a girl,
Four for a boy,

Naw, sorry, family size is a personal choice, not one for the state to decide. See how that is working in China!!

[Hibrandenburg]

Or maybe an argument for a new government strategy to make it more affordable for couples to have children and get the birth rate up in Scotland.

Aye, because money is the deciding factor on the domestic birth rate. :rolleyes:

[Slavers]

Aye, because money is the deciding factor on the domestic birth rate. :rolleyes:

It is for most people! Id have more kids If I could afford it.

[Hibrandenburg]

It is for most people! Id have more kids If I could afford it.

Sorry but that's rubbish. Birth rates are highest in poor countries.

[Moulin Yarns]

Sorry but that's rubbish. Birth rates are highest in poor countries.

In that case Brexit will solve the low birth rate for the whole of the UK :wink:

[Slavers]

Wow, I can see the headlines now.

**** for your country.

More Kids More Wonga!!

One for sorrow,
Two for joy,
Three for a girl,
Four for a boy,

Naw, sorry, family size is a personal choice, not one for the state to decide. See how that is working in China!!

Did China not try and limit the amount of Children born?

Im just saying instead of looking at immigration to get the population numbers up why no make it more affordable for families to have more? Just an idea.

My local Priest used to say "Go forth and multiply!!" after every Sunday service! Let's hear Sturgeon say the same lol

[RyeSloan]

Not progressive enough, same as the NI ceiling. By the way, if, as you claim, the NI rate remains the same 'in all but name' above £43,000, you'll be okay with removing the ceiling then, yes? Taxes are too low all round, IMHO. I want a high tax/high spend society based upon collectivism; whatever is necessary to attain a civilised society with social justice at its core. I want the destruction of the decades of neoliberalism/Thatcherism/trickle down that has done so much damage to our society. I want to move away from the money obsessed society towards a human needs society; an end to putting the cart before the horse. Haggling over numbers is wrong, but it's nonsense to say one of the richest countries in the world cannot, in the twenty-first century, afford comprehensive health cover for its citizens. Seems to me a very modest demand/expectation in a society like ours.We should be looking at what we want to achieve and then finding the path to get there, hence I want a written Bill of Rights that enshrines in law a guarantee to every citizen tangible quality of life outcomes based upon collective provision. In short a complete transformation of society away from free market capitalism and towards measurable goals that are based upon quality and meaning of life for all. We cannot leave our future to the oscillations of markets. The vision the great Connolly had for an independent Ireland. Independence should be Scotland's 1916: a re-evaluation of what society and what human life are for. He knew his onions and his fitba! The same ideology from Holyrood instead of Westminster just seems a waste of time to me.

Conclusion: We decide what we want then raise the necessary finance. We shouldn't set tax rates at an arbitrary level, say this is how much we have, and then see what we can get for the money. Horse before cart. If free health care for all requires significant tax raises, lets get it done; but don't tell me there's no way it can happen. Outcome driven policy making.

Well at least you are honest and open as to what you wish to see happen. Your aspirations to give everyone a long list of 'rights' may well be founded in the sound belief that no citizen should be cast aside.

Unfortunately however your approach which appears to be straight down the middle Socialism that has been proven to fail each and every time. There really is no example ever of socialism making a country wealthier nor it improving the lives of all. Your approach would simply drive everything to the lowest common denominator or end up making Scotland like Venezuela.

As I said I appreciate your aims and no one can deny that as a society we should, as a collective, look to make the lives of all better but I fundamentally disagree that taxing more and more for it to be then spent by a central, politically controlled body is the correct way to go about it. That's not to say I defend the current set up, it's just that I see a large part of the problem as exactly what you want to expand.

Every man and his dog can see the current situation is a mess but capitalism per se is not to blame here but the substantial corruption of that process by governments and individuals to suit their own short term goals. A simple example is Central banks setting the price of money...who are they to decide the price of money and how are they any better placed to judge compared to the millions of individual's making their own decisions and trades? Who does the BoE's target of inflation and low interest rates help most...the UK Government. Who does it hurt most? Those that actually had the gumption to save for their later lives and now see that return on those savings crushed by a government too busy looking out for those that issued too much debt and those that couldn't afford to re-pay it. Chuck in QE (a bigger corruption of capitalism you won't find) which seems to have one main effect only (barring propping up government borrowing) in it having the handy effect of boosting asset prices so helping those that are already wealthy in terms of capital...handy that when the narrative is focussed on taxing people's income. When you see these effects day in day out why should I have any faith in MORE government and that government taking more and more of peoples hard earned?

I envisage a much more dynamic economic outlook, one that rewards people who take risks and drive innovation and productivity as it is these elements that will allow the nation to grow wealthier and thus support the very people you want to give such a long list of rights to. Allowing flexible working, encouraging saving (by not artificially holding down rates to protect those who issued too much debt to those that couldn't afford to repay) and champion our businesses that create value and wealth by reducing the cost of employment and remove the myriad of taxes, reliefs and protectionist 'free trade' deals. Rather than whine they are not taxed enough (why tax the entities that create the value and if you want to tax companies you are just taxing the employees, the shareholders or their customers. If you want to tax either of those groups then why not just do so directly?). Building a dynamic economy free of the dead hand of government and excessive taxation will be what not only allows more people to take part and thus help themselves but will allow us to look after those that for one reason or another cannot contribute with the majority.

Your proposed methods of punishing success, placing effective wage caps across society by taxing huge percentages from those that achieve even moderate success in growing their income and wanting the few to pay for many the will do nothing in the long run to help anyone.

That said I'm also happy to admit my view may be as Utopian as yours (if diametrically opposed in how it would be achieved) and the answer may well lie in the middle somewhere but clearly our views on the desired outcome change our perspective of where that middle might be :greengrin

[Slavers]

Sorry but that's rubbish. Birth rates are highest in poor countries.

Why is that though?

[Slavers]

In that case Brexit will solve the low birth rate for the whole of the UK :wink:

Surely the best reason for Brexit so far?

[Hibrandenburg]

Why is that though?

Can't afford a telly? :dunno:

[Moulin Yarns]

Surely the best reason for Brexit so far?

There is no 'best reason' though, there is no reason at all. (refer to the Brexit thread for further information)

[Slavers]

There is no 'best reason' though, there is no reason at all. (refer to the Brexit thread for further information)

No reason at all? I think you may have a narrow view of brexit.

[Slavers]

Can't afford a telly? :dunno:

Lack of sex education and affordable birth control maybe?

[Moulin Yarns]

No reason at all? I think you may have a narrow view of brexit.

Ok. I admit it, none of this is true

http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?312796-Brexit-what-will-happen-next&p=4994932&viewfull=1#post4994932

[Slavers]

Ok. I admit it, none of this is true

http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?312796-Brexit-what-will-happen-next&p=4994932&viewfull=1#post4994932

Fair enough but to suggest there is no good reason for Brexit just shows that you have the EU blinkers on. It's probably why the remain vote lost as the remain side could only see it from their point of view.

[stoneyburn hibs]

Don't always agree with him, but Brian Wilson sums it up well:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/brian-wilson-permanent-cacophony-of-grievance-from-snp-1-4408359

Sums it up well from your pov. The word grievance when used against the Scottish government is nothing more than a unionist sneer.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Well at least you are honest and open as to what you wish to see happen. Your aspirations to give everyone a long list of 'rights' may well be founded in the sound belief that no citizen should be cast aside.

Unfortunately however your approach which appears to be straight down the middle Socialism that has been proven to fail each and every time. There really is no example ever of socialism making a country wealthier nor it improving the lives of all. Your approach would simply drive everything to the lowest common denominator or end up making Scotland like Venezuela.

As I said I appreciate your aims and no one can deny that as a society we should, as a collective, look to make the lives of all better but I fundamentally disagree that taxing more and more for it to be then spent by a central, politically controlled body is the correct way to go about it. That's not to say I defend the current set up, it's just that I see a large part of the problem as exactly what you want to expand.

Every man and his dog can see the current situation is a mess but capitalism per se is not to blame here but the substantial corruption of that process by governments and individuals to suit their own short term goals. A simple example is Central banks setting the price of money...who are they to decide the price of money and how are they any better placed to judge compared to the millions of individual's making their own decisions and trades? Who does the BoE's target of inflation and low interest rates help most...the UK Government. Who does it hurt most? Those that actually had the gumption to save for their later lives and now see that return on those savings crushed by a government too busy looking out for those that issued too much debt and those that couldn't afford to re-pay it. Chuck in QE (a bigger corruption of capitalism you won't find) which seems to have one main effect only (barring propping up government borrowing) in it having the handy effect of boosting asset prices so helping those that are already wealthy in terms of capital...handy that when the narrative is focussed on taxing people's income. When you see these effects day in day out why should I have any faith in MORE government and that government taking more and more of peoples hard earned?

I envisage a much more dynamic economic outlook, one that rewards people who take risks and drive innovation and productivity as it is these elements that will allow the nation to grow wealthier and thus support the very people you want to give such a long list of rights to. Allowing flexible working, encouraging saving (by not artificially holding down rates to protect those who issued too much debt to those that couldn't afford to repay) and champion our businesses that create value and wealth by reducing the cost of employment and remove the myriad of taxes, reliefs and protectionist 'free trade' deals. Rather than whine they are not taxed enough (why tax the entities that create the value and if you want to tax companies you are just taxing the employees, the shareholders or their customers. If you want to tax either of those groups then why not just do so directly?). Building a dynamic economy free of the dead hand of government and excessive taxation will be what not only allows more people to take part and thus help themselves but will allow us to look after those that for one reason or another cannot contribute with the majority.

Your proposed methods of punishing success, placing effective wage caps across society by taxing huge percentages from those that achieve even moderate success in growing their income and wanting the few to pay for many the will do nothing in the long run to help anyone.

That said I'm also happy to admit my view may be as Utopian as yours (if diametrically opposed in how it would be achieved) and the answer may well lie in the middle somewhere but clearly our views on the desired outcome change our perspective of where that middle might be :greengrin

Thats quite a post!

Im reading a book at the moment about saving capitalism for the many, and it makes many similar points.

Thats my main problem with the left, is that in their moment ofaximum opportunity, they have little to contribute to the debate other than tired old rhetoric and failed examples.

The 'progressives' are so stuck in the past, its not real. The Greens are just as bad since they became a party of 'social justice'

Where is the neo-leftism? What was it about soviet union failing that makes people want to keep trying elsewhere?

Anyway, we digress!

For what its worth, i have enjoyed the debate on scotland's future.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Sums it up well from your pov. The word grievance when used against the Scottish government is nothing more than a unionist sneer.

Asking for things you know you cant have, so as to then complain that they didnt give it to you seems the very definition of grievance politics.

Surely nobody really believes this situation with brexit has come around because of anything other than the SNP sensing a great opportunity to acheieve their only consistent objective?

[Hibernia&Alba]

Well at least you are honest and open as to what you wish to see happen. Your aspirations to give everyone a long list of 'rights' may well be founded in the sound belief that no citizen should be cast aside.

Unfortunately however your approach which appears to be straight down the middle Socialism that has been proven to fail each and every time. There really is no example ever of socialism making a country wealthier nor it improving the lives of all. Your approach would simply drive everything to the lowest common denominator or end up making Scotland like Venezuela.

As I said I appreciate your aims and no one can deny that as a society we should, as a collective, look to make the lives of all better but I fundamentally disagree that taxing more and more for it to be then spent by a central, politically controlled body is the correct way to go about it. That's not to say I defend the current set up, it's just that I see a large part of the problem as exactly what you want to expand.

Every man and his dog can see the current situation is a mess but capitalism per se is not to blame here but the substantial corruption of that process by governments and individuals to suit their own short term goals. A simple example is Central banks setting the price of money...who are they to decide the price of money and how are they any better placed to judge compared to the millions of individual's making their own decisions and trades? Who does the BoE's target of inflation and low interest rates help most...the UK Government. Who does it hurt most? Those that actually had the gumption to save for their later lives and now see that return on those savings crushed by a government too busy looking out for those that issued too much debt and those that couldn't afford to re-pay it. Chuck in QE (a bigger corruption of capitalism you won't find) which seems to have one main effect only (barring propping up government borrowing) in it having the handy effect of boosting asset prices so helping those that are already wealthy in terms of capital...handy that when the narrative is focussed on taxing people's income. When you see these effects day in day out why should I have any faith in MORE government and that government taking more and more of peoples hard earned?

I envisage a much more dynamic economic outlook, one that rewards people who take risks and drive innovation and productivity as it is these elements that will allow the nation to grow wealthier and thus support the very people you want to give such a long list of rights to. Allowing flexible working, encouraging saving (by not artificially holding down rates to protect those who issued too much debt to those that couldn't afford to repay) and champion our businesses that create value and wealth by reducing the cost of employment and remove the myriad of taxes, reliefs and protectionist 'free trade' deals. Rather than whine they are not taxed enough (why tax the entities that create the value and if you want to tax companies you are just taxing the employees, the shareholders or their customers. If you want to tax either of those groups then why not just do so directly?). Building a dynamic economy free of the dead hand of government and excessive taxation will be what not only allows more people to take part and thus help themselves but will allow us to look after those that for one reason or another cannot contribute with the majority.

Your proposed methods of punishing success, placing effective wage caps across society by taxing huge percentages from those that achieve even moderate success in growing their income and wanting the few to pay for many the will do nothing in the long run to help anyone.

That said I'm also happy to admit my view may be as Utopian as yours (if diametrically opposed in how it would be achieved) and the answer may well lie in the middle somewhere but clearly our views on the desired outcome change our perspective of where that middle might be :greengrin

I don't agree that the problem isn't capitalism itself but the interference and subversion of capitalism from government and individuals. I think capitalism, and more specifically its neoliberal version, is the problem. For what it's worth, my idea of a socialist society isn't the state controlling everything. As I said earlier in the thread, I'd like to see workers controlling their own companies and industries, democratically deciding what is made, when and how, and with a share of any income for all. That's another way of ending the dichotomy between those who own capital and those who sell their labour. That's the key thing, and there are various ways to do it: public ownership, worker ownership, industry syndicalism, non profit cooperatives, credit unions, community projects. A combination of all would create a dynamic society, but one in which the accumulation of wealth isn't an end in itself, but, rather, fulfillment of human potential is the end and wealth creation is a by product of that. It's an inversion of the Thatcherite/Reagonomics idea that the economy is something other; something that we sacrifice ourselves to. Instead we acknowledge that we are the economy and that it is a tool for humane ends. You may think it's utopian, that's fine, but the way we live is a consequence of human decisions; economies are man made constructs. That being the case, we can choose a better way, though the enemies of such change are very powerful and very ruthless, no question. It seems an esoteric debate right now, that's certainly true, but it isn't meaningless. If we were to all accept we can never do any better, there wouldn't be any point in ever trying anything or believing in anything.

My fundamental point is independence should be for something that offers a better way of life, not merely to have Holyrood work in the same way as Westminster. I'm not interested in independence for any reasons of sentimental patriotism. It would take a long time and require a fundamental change in what we think society is for, after decades of the mantra of markets, cut throat competition, profit etc. I'm not naïve about the size of the task, but far better men and women than I have said similar.

I respect your opinion; I don't doubt it's sincere, but we just have different visions of society. That's democracy and it's always good to have open discussion and disagreements.

Anyway, I've had my say on what I'd like to see any post-independence society to aim for, however far fetched it many seem to some, and it wouldn't be right to allow seemingly arcane debates to sidetrack the thread. I'm sure there are plenty of folk who want to discuss bread and butter issues, so I give them the floor :aok:

[Jack]

Asking for things you know you cant have, so as to then complain that they didnt give it to you seems the very definition of grievance politics.

Surely nobody really believes this situation with brexit has come around because of anything other than the SNP sensing a great opportunity to acheieve their only consistent objective?

What is it we can't have and why?

[Moulin Yarns]

And here it is, the letter to Theresa May from Nicola Sturgeon


Dear Theresa,

When we met in Glasgow on Monday, I wished you well for the negotiations that lie ahead now that you have formally invoked Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. I want to reiterate those good wishes now.

I very much hope that you succeed in realising your ambitions for the terms of the UK's future relationship with the EU. A good deal for the UK is clearly in Scotland's interests whatever constitutional future we choose.

It is for that reason that I intend that the Scottish government will play a full and constructive role in securing such an outcome.




I expressed my frustration on Monday that the process leading up to the invoking of Article 50 had failed to involve the devolved administrations in any meaningful way - a view that I know is shared by the First Minister of Wales.

Far from securing a UK-wide approach ahead of invoking Article 50 - as you committed to do last July - the voices of the devolved administrations were largely ignored and all attempts at compromise rejected, in most cases with no prior consultation.

As we move forward into a new phase, we need to agree a more direct role and influence for the devolved administrations, reflecting the key interests that are at stake for all of us.

However, whatever outcome is secured, it seems inevitable that it will remove the UK, not just from the EU, but also from the single market.

As you are aware, that is not an outcome that the people of Scotland voted for. It is also an outcome that will have significant implications for our economy, society and place in the world.

In these very changed circumstances, the people of Scotland must have the right to choose our own future - in short, to exercise our right of self determination.

Indeed I noted the importance you attached to the principle of self determination in your letter to President Tusk.

As you are aware, the Scottish Parliament has now determined by a clear majority that there should be an independence referendum.

The purpose of such a referendum is to give people in Scotland the choice of following the UK out of the EU and single market on the terms you negotiate, or becoming an independent country, able to chart our own course and build a genuine partnership of equals with the other nations of the UK.

A copy of the motion passed by Parliament on 28 March 2017 is attached.

The decision of the Scottish Parliament has been made in line with the tradition of popular sovereignty in Scotland - that the people of Scotland should be able to determine the form of government most suited to their needs - and with the clear commitment in the manifesto on which my government was re-elected last May.

I am therefore writing to begin early discussions between our governments to agree an Order under section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 that would enable a referendum to be legislated for by the Scottish Parliament.

I have, of course, noted and carefully considered your public position.

However, it seems that we are in agreement on the essential matters.

For example we agree that now is not the time for a referendum.

You confirmed to me on Monday, and repeated in your letter invoking Article 50, that you intend the terms of both the UK's exit from the EU and of a future trade deal to be agreed before March 2019 and in time for ratification by other member states - in other words, between the autumn of next year and the spring of 2019.

As you are aware, this is the timescale endorsed by the Scottish Parliament for a referendum.

As I have said previously, if the timetable you have set out changes, we will require to consider the implications for the timing of a referendum. However, it seems reasonable at this stage to work on the basis of your stated timetable.

We are also in agreement that - unlike the EU referendum - the choice must be an informed one. That means that both the terms of Brexit and the implications and opportunities of independence must be clear in advance of the referendum.

It is also worth noting that the clear precedent of the 2012 Edinburgh Agreement should make reaching agreement on this occasion a relatively straightforward process - addressing any concern you may have that discussions would be time-consuming for your government when they are also preparing for EU negotiations.

In light of the above, there appears to be no rational reason for you to stand in the way of the will of the Scottish Parliament and I hope you will not do so.

However, in anticipation of your refusal to enter into discussions at this stage, it is important for me to be clear about my position.

It is my firm view that the mandate of the Scottish Parliament must be respected and progressed.

The question is not if, but how.

I hope that will be by constructive discussion between our governments.

However, if that is not yet possible, I will set out to the Scottish Parliament the steps I intend to take to ensure that progress is made towards a referendum.

Again, I wish you well for all that lies ahead and stand ready to discuss both a section 30 order and the Scottish government's role in securing the best outcome for all parts of the UK.

I am copying this letter to the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament and to Bruce Crawford, convener of the Parliament's Finance and Constitution Committee.

Nicola Sturgeon

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

What is it we can't have and why?

A differntial trade deal with the EU?

[Smartie]

Lack of sex education and affordable birth control maybe?

Limited access to top-notch internet pornography?

[Moulin Yarns]

A differntial trade deal with the EU?

Aint it funny how the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey can manage that?

[Slavers]

Limited access to top-notch internet pornography?

Lol the point was to try and increase birth rate in Scotland. The problems with the third world don't really need to come in to it.

[Slavers]

And here it is, the letter to Theresa May from Nicola Sturgeon

Sturgeon skiving from the day job once again I see.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Aint it funny how the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey can manage that?

Are they part of the UK? I geneuinely dont know.

Also are they in the EU?

Ok, so what do you think the SG will say if there is an indy vote, and orkney, Shetland, grampian amd Lothian all voted against it and our respective councils demanded a deal whereby we stay in the UK under some separate special status?

Also, if your job, as with thr UK PM is to secure the union, would you let Scotland effectively achieve independence through the backdoor, against the will of the majority of that country?

You are insulting everyones intelligence if you think for a minute that sturgeon proposed something that she thought was reasonable, practical or at all acceptable to the UK govt.

[Slavers]

Are they part of the UK? I geneuinely dont know.

Also are they in the EU?

Ok, so what do you think the SG will say if there is an indy vote, and orkney, Shetland, grampian amd Lothian all voted against it and our respective councils demanded a deal whereby we stay in the UK under some separate special status?

Also, if your job, as with thr UK PM is to secure the union, would you let Scotland effectively achieve independence through the backdoor, against the will of the majority of that country?

You are insulting everyones intelligence if you think for a minute that sturgeon proposed something that she thought was reasonable, practical or at all acceptable to the UK govt.

That to me is the key part in the future referendum where that any part of Scotland who voted overwhelmingly to remain UK then they should be allowed to do so.

[stoneyburn hibs]

Asking for things you know you cant have, so as to then complain that they didnt give it to you seems the very definition of grievance politics.

Surely nobody really believes this situation with brexit has come around because of anything other than the SNP sensing a great opportunity to acheieve their only consistent objective?

That's singing from the Tory songbook. Why can't we have them then ? And why shouldn't they seize the opportunity for another Indy vote , it's never been hidden but remember that you won't be voting for SNP.

[Smartie]

Lol the point was to try and increase birth rate in Scotland. The problems with the third world don't really need to come in to it.

I was being daft, but there is a serious point.

I'm 39 and have been in a relationship for nearly 10 years. My partner and I would love to have kids but I'm seriously dragging my feet. I am very concerned about this country's outlook going forward, and I am very concerned about my personal ability to provide for a family.

I can't easily just up sticks and leave, as I own my own business and I have a few family debts associated with it.

If I had a bit more faith in our prospects as a country then I'd be bashing on and having kids.

Until then it's the internet pornography all the way.

[PeeJay]

Are they part of the UK? I geneuinely dont know.

Also are they in the EU?

Ok, so what do you think the SG will say if there is an indy vote, and orkney, Shetland, grampian amd Lothian all voted against it and our respective councils demanded a deal whereby we stay in the UK under some separate special status?

Also, if your job, as with thr UK PM is to secure the union, would you let Scotland effectively achieve independence through the backdoor, against the will of the majority of that country?

You are insulting everyones intelligence if you think for a minute that sturgeon proposed something that she thought was reasonable, practical or at all acceptable to the UK govt.

Not part of the UK, not part of the EU... the free trade deal they have with the EU may cease when the UK leaves the EU.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

That's singing from the Tory songbook. Why can't we have them then ? And why shouldn't they seize the opportunity for another Indy vote , it's never been hidden but remember that you won't be voting for SNP.

By 'we' i presume you mean the SNP? I understand perfectly why they have. But by the same token you have to understand why the UK govt have said no?

As pointed out above, its completely impractical for different parts of the same country to be working in different economic rules and laws, different legal system, different borders, security arrangents, democratic structure.

Which legal system would have applied? Would Scotland habe lost access to the UK single market?

Any reasonable person cam see it for the political theatre it was. It woyld have beem creating an independent Scotland.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Not part of the UK, not part of the EU... the free trade deal they have with the EU may cease when the UK leaves the EU.

Ok, thanks.

So not an analagous situation at all then.

[Moulin Yarns]

Or maybe an argument for a new government strategy to make it more affordable for couples to have children and get the birth rate up in Scotland.

Why reward people for doing something that comes naturally. For most.

[ronaldo7]

Asking for things you know you cant have, so as to then complain that they didnt give it to you seems the very definition of grievance politics.

Surely nobody really believes this situation with brexit has come around because of anything other than the SNP sensing a great opportunity to acheieve their only consistent objective?

So if you ask for something, it's grievance politics. It's getting silly now.

As another poster has said, straight from the Unionist handbook. Next they'll be saying keep your mouth shut, sit doon, and eat yer cereal

[Moulin Yarns]

So if you ask for something, it's grievance politics. It's getting silly now.

As another poster has said, straight from the Unionist handbook. Next they'll be saying keep your mouth shut, sit doon, and eat yer cereal

But ye cannae eat yer cereal wae yer mooth shut. Ken?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

So if you ask for something, it's grievance politics. It's getting silly now.

As another poster has said, straight from the Unionist handbook. Next they'll be saying keep your mouth shut, sit doon, and eat yer cereal

As i said above, asking for things that are nonsensical and can never be delivered, then greeting the inevitable refusal with faux indignation is.

Why is this so hatd to accept? Can anyone explain why the SNP wouldnt be doing this, given their priority is independence?

[northstandhibby]

Asking for things you know you cant have, so as to then complain that they didnt give it to you seems the very definition of grievance politics.

Surely nobody really believes this situation with brexit has come around because of anything other than the SNP sensing a great opportunity to acheieve their only consistent objective?

Agree with this.

The SNP appear a one issue party which is not what the Scottish folk deserve. They are in danger of alienating the vast majority of ordinary hard working decent Scots who are not driven by the single issue of independence with the SNP becoming despised as the public are tired of seeing Sturgeon embarrassing herself with the childlike mentality of throwing the toys out of the pram because she can't get her own way.

Its desperate stuff from the SNP and from Sturgeon.

glory glory

[ronaldo7]

As i said above, asking for things that are nonsensical and can never be delivered, then greeting the inevitable refusal with faux indignation is.

Why is this so hatd to accept? Can anyone explain why the SNP wouldnt be doing this, given their priority is independence?

Can you explain why they can't be delivered. A simple referendum, and somehow, the UKGOV can't do this.

Please explain.

I thought they were the brains of the outfit too.

[ronaldo7]

Agree with this.

The SNP appear a one issue party which is not what the Scottish folk deserve. They are in danger of alienating the vast majority of ordinary hard working decent Scots who are not driven by the single issue of independence with the SNP becoming despised as the public are tired of seeing Sturgeon embarrassing herself with the childlike mentality of throwing the toys out of the pram because she can't get her own way.

Its desperate stuff from the SNP and from Sturgeon.

glory glory

Those pesky elections in 2015 and 2016 where the SNP were returned in huge numbers seem to get in the way of your argument.:wink:

[northstandhibby]

Those pesky elections in 2015 and 2016 where the SNP were returned in huge numbers seem to get in the way of your argument.:wink:

Don't think they'll be doing so well next time around as the good hard working Scots folk revert back to the more traditional parties now the SNP are revealing themselves as the singular issue party they are.

They've embarrassed Scotland with their childlike antics recently.

glory glory

[Slavers]

Why reward people for doing something that comes naturally. For most.

Well to increase the birth rate so we don't have to rely on immigration to fill the jobs here and keep growing the economy.

[The Green Goblin]

Sturgeon skiving from the day job once again I see.

No offence HT, but that's a silly comment. Or do you really believe that writing a relatively short e-mail letter means she can't do other things?

[Slavers]

No offence HT, but that's a silly comment. Or do you really think that writing a relatively short e-mail letter means she can't do other things?

It's the photo shoots along with the letter. Her sitting on the couch shoes off, pen in hand pretending to be writing the letter in question.

What's the need for the staged cringy photos? Does she not have better things to do than pose for cameras with the shoes off?

[cabbageandribs1875]

It's the photo shoots along with the letter. Her sitting on the couch shoes off, pen in hand pretending to be writing the letter in question.

What's the need for the staged cringy photos? Does she not have better things to do than pose for cameras with the shoes off?


are you for real ?

[Hibrandenburg]

Don't think they'll be doing so well next time around as the good hard working Scots folk revert back to the more traditional parties now the SNP are revealing themselves as the singular issue party they are.

They've embarrassed Scotland with their childlike antics recently.

glory glory

Embarrassed Scotland, really? That would take some doing after the whole Brexit parody.

[cabbageandribs1875]

Don't think they'll be doing so well next time around as the good hard working Scots folk revert back to the more traditional parties now the SNP are revealing themselves as the singular issue party they are.

They've embarrassed Scotland with their childlike antics recently.

glory glory

hey mr oracle, i'm one of those, you sound like one of those ignorant people that think they talk for the masses and who they will be voting for....what a gift you have :aok:


as for embarrassing ? :faf:


oh and p.s. glory glory

[RyeSloan]

It's the photo shoots along with the letter. Her sitting on the couch shoes off, pen in hand pretending to be writing the letter in question.

What's the need for the staged cringy photos? Does she not have better things to do than pose for cameras with the shoes off?

Ha ha I about boaked when I saw that.

The king of spin Mandelson would have loved the juxtaposition to the rather more formal pictures of May penning her Article 50 letter and of course the distant echo of the Thatcher sofa picture back in the 80's...

[stoneyburn hibs]

As i said above, asking for things that are nonsensical and can never be delivered, then greeting the inevitable refusal with faux indignation is.

Why is this so hatd to accept? Can anyone explain why the SNP wouldnt be doing this, given their priority is independence?


I don't know what's nonsensical that's been asked ?

[CropleyWasGod]

Ha ha I about boaked when I saw that.

The king of spin Mandelson would have loved the juxtaposition to the rather more formal pictures of May penning her Article 50 letter and of course the distant echo of the Thatcher sofa picture back in the 80's...
She does have nice legs though.😁

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Can you explain why they can't be delivered. A simple referendum, and somehow, the UKGOV can't do this.

Please explain.

I thought they were the brains of the outfit too.


Sorry i was talking about the differential eu membership issue.

The ref they possibly could do, although i think there are very real concerns the civil service couldnt handle it all at once.

The referendum they dont agree with the SNP that now is the appropriate time.

The UK PM is protecting the interests of the majority of Scots who dont want a ref just now.

[RyeSloan]

She does have nice legs though.[emoji16]

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Just about boaked again [emoji23]

[stoneyburn hibs]

Agree with this.

The SNP appear a one issue party which is not what the Scottish folk deserve. They are in danger of alienating the vast majority of ordinary hard working decent Scots who are not driven by the single issue of independence with the SNP becoming despised as the public are tired of seeing Sturgeon embarrassing herself with the childlike mentality of throwing the toys out of the pram because she can't get her own way.

Its desperate stuff from the SNP and from Sturgeon.

glory glory

Ms Sturgeon, the leader of the Scottish Indy Party has a mandate from the Scottish electorate, right ? That's quite a significant number of hard working Scots.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I don't know what's nonsensical that's been asked ?

See my previous post - differential membership deal of the EU

[The Green Goblin]

Ha ha I about boaked when I saw that.

The king of spin Mandelson would have loved the juxtaposition to the rather more formal pictures of May penning her Article 50 letter and of course the distant echo of the Thatcher sofa picture back in the 80's...

Yes, at least May did what she did in a civilised, proper "British" manner. One could almost hear the distant strains of Vaughan Williams, the smack of leather on willow and the clink of the teapot lid being gently put into place as she grasped the quill once used by Shakespeare and signed our future away down the Gary Glitter.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Ms Sturgeon, the leader of the Scottish Indy Party has a mandate from the Scottish electorate, right ? That's quite a significant number of hard working Scots.

Yes, they have a mandate, although a smaller, minority mandate as opposed to last time.

[The Green Goblin]

Yes, they have a mandate, although a smaller, minority mandate as opposed to last time.

Mandate means mandate. :greengrin

[stoneyburn hibs]

Yes, they have a mandate, although a smaller, minority mandate as opposed to last time.

And that's the least they'll ever have for a very long time, if Indy Ref 2 fails. Marginal vote swapping between the unionist parties, which amount to nada in the spectrum of Holyrood.

[JeMeSouviens]

Ha ha I about boaked when I saw that.

The king of spin Mandelson would have loved the juxtaposition to the rather more formal pictures of May penning her Article 50 letter and of course the distant echo of the Thatcher sofa picture back in the 80's...

I thought the NS one was meant to be a pisstake of TM, no?

[JeMeSouviens]

Don't think they'll be doing so well next time around as the good hard working Scots folk revert back to the more traditional parties now the SNP are revealing themselves as the singular issue party they are.

They've embarrassed Scotland with their childlike antics recently.

glory glory

Still massively ahead in all westminster and holyrood VI polls. The only current movement in Scottish politics is Lab leaking their harder unionist voters to the Ruth Davidson No Surrender party.

[northstandhibby]

hey mr oracle, i'm one of those, you sound like one of those ignorant people that think they talk for the masses and who they will be voting for....what a gift you have :aok:


as for embarrassing ? :faf:


oh and p.s. glory glory

Very droll. If I don't agree with the SNP storm-troopers they go out of their way to disrespect me. Really encourages folk to vote for the SNP.

:wink:

glory glory

[northstandhibby]

Still massively ahead in all westminster and holyrood VI polls. The only current movement in Scottish politics is Lab leaking their harder unionist voters to the Ruth Davidson No Surrender party.

The Scottish Labour voters will be returning to the fold very soon indeed and the SNP will crawl back under its stone again.

glory glory

[JeMeSouviens]

The Scottish Labour voters will be returning to the fold very soon indeed and the SNP will crawl back under its stone again.

glory glory

Yeah, they've been saying that in increasingly desperate tones since 2007!

Even if the SNP was completely useless, they'd be head and shoulders above SLab. ;-)

[northstandhibby]

SNP storm troopers?? Not everyone in favour of independence is an snp supporter. i don't suppose like many unionists you give that much thought.

Fair point, albeit to be fair I only referred to SNP supporters in a mock way as storm-troopers.

I'm no paid up unionist but think its fair for the UK to have ties certainly if only to prevent tensions arising from competing home nations and I was an EU remainer. I don't believe in rampant nationalism.

glory glory

[northstandhibby]

Yeah, they've been saying that in increasingly desperate tones since 2007!

Even if the SNP was completely useless, they'd be head and shoulders above SLab. ;-)

I've yet to hear or read a single compelling argument that makes Scottish nationalism an attractive option. Its why they (SNP) prefer to term it as 'independence' as opposed to 'nationalism' for it depicts an old fashioned inward looking state controlled nation.

West Germany and East Germany have never looked back since the wall was torn down. The SNP are hell bent on erecting new barriers possibly even borders between not only our biggest trading partners but our closest allies on just about everything including fighting nazism and maintaining free speech and democracy. I think the UK is much stronger together with devolution which has given us more choice and voice within the UK.

glory glory

[stoneyburn hibs]

I've yet to hear or read a single compelling argument that makes Scottish nationalism an attractive option. Its why they (SNP) prefer to term it as 'independence' as opposed to 'nationalism' for it depicts an old fashioned inward looking state controlled nation.

West Germany and East Germany have never looked back since the wall was torn down. The SNP are hell bent on erecting new barriers possibly even borders between not only our biggest trading partners but our closest allies on just about everything including fighting nazism and maintaining free speech and democracy. I think the UK is much stronger together with devolution which has given us more choice and voice within the UK.

glory glory

Apologies, but what a loady pish.

Glory Glory

[northstandhibby]

Apologies, but what a loady pish.

Glory Glory

No apologies required, not loaded with reasoned logic but it's an opinion nether the less.

:greengrin

glory glory

[RyeSloan]

I thought the NS one was meant to be a pisstake of TM, no?

Not sure what it was...maybe not the time to be mounting piss takes but who knows really, I just found it all a bit pathetic to be honest.

[The Green Goblin]

I've yet to hear or read a single compelling argument that makes Scottish nationalism an attractive option. Its why they (SNP) prefer to term it as 'independence' as opposed to 'nationalism' for it depicts an old fashioned inward looking state controlled nation.

West Germany and East Germany have never looked back since the wall was torn down. The SNP are hell bent on erecting new barriers possibly even borders between not only our biggest trading partners but our closest allies on just about everything including fighting nazism and maintaining free speech and democracy. I think the UK is much stronger together with devolution which has given us more choice and voice within the UK.

glory glory

To that, I would just say that the SNP are the "Scottish National Party", a party which defines its electorate as being those who live there, not those who represent a specific nationality. On that point, they are clear and consistent. Your perception of them and what they stand for seems very outdated.

[Smartie]

I've yet to hear or read a single compelling argument that makes Scottish nationalism an attractive option. Its why they (SNP) prefer to term it as 'independence' as opposed to 'nationalism' for it depicts an old fashioned inward looking state controlled nation.

West Germany and East Germany have never looked back since the wall was torn down. The SNP are hell bent on erecting new barriers possibly even borders between not only our biggest trading partners but our closest allies on just about everything including fighting nazism and maintaining free speech and democracy. I think the UK is much stronger together with devolution which has given us more choice and voice within the UK.

glory glory

The Czech Republic and Slovakia have never looked back after amicably going their separate ways.

Many countries have left the British Empire and the last time I checked none of them were banging the door down to get back in.

No country can exist on it's own and will need to have some sort of relationship with the outside world. What those relationships are, and where political decisions are made and by whom are all a reasonable points for debate.

[allmodcons]

The Scottish Labour voters will be returning to the fold very soon indeed and the SNP will crawl back under its stone again.

glory glory

Do have any evidence to back this up?



Fair point, albeit to be fair I only referred to SNP supporters in a mock way as storm-troopers.

I'm no paid up unionist but think its fair for the UK to have ties certainly if only to prevent tensions arising from competing home nations and I was an EU remainer. I don't believe in rampant nationalism.

glory glory

No paid up Unionist but a Unionist all the same. How is that the Nordic countries can happily co-exist as Independent Nation States? I vote SNP and don't believe in rampant nationalism. You trying to conflate the SNP with Nazis (rampant nationalists) is just plain embarrassing.




I've yet to hear or read a single compelling argument that makes Scottish nationalism an attractive option. Its why they (SNP) prefer to term it as 'independence' as opposed to 'nationalism' for it depicts an old fashioned inward looking state controlled nation.

West Germany and East Germany have never looked back since the wall was torn down. The SNP are hell bent on erecting new barriers possibly even borders between not only our biggest trading partners but our closest allies on just about everything including fighting nazism and maintaining free speech and democracy. I think the UK is much stronger together with devolution which has given us more choice and voice within the UK.

glory glory

As for this, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've been drinking.

[northstandhibby]

To that, I would just say that the SNP are the "Scottish National Party", a party which defines its electorate as being those who live there, not those who represent a specific nationality. On that point, they are clear and consistent. Your perception of them and what they stand for seems very outdated.

Nationalism is an outdated and backward notion for me. Unfortunately brexit which was also an unwelcome form of nationalism has afforded the SNP a platform for raising the Scottish form of nationalism again. We already have devolution as a means for continuing our argument the UK can either strike a deal to remain within the single market or re-join the EU at a later date post brexit.

Scottish Nationalism is just as dangerous as English Nationalism for me.

glory glory

[northstandhibby]

Do have any evidence to back this up?




No paid up Unionist but a Unionist all the same. How is that the Nordic countries can happily co-exist as Independent Nation States? I vote SNP and don't believe in rampant nationalism. You trying to conflate the SNP with Nazis (rampant nationalists) is just plain embarrassing.





As for this, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've been drinking.

Still no compelling argument for Scottish Nationalism?

glory glory

[allmodcons]

Still no compelling argument for Scottish Nationalism?

glory glory

This from an Englishman during Indyref2.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/16/scottish-nationalism-british-westminster-class

Once you've taken the time to read it maybe you'll look to back up some of wild assertions you've been making on this thread. I won't hold my breath.

[northstandhibby]

The Czech Republic and Slovakia have never looked back after amicably going their separate ways.

Many countries have left the British Empire and the last time I checked none of them were banging the door down to get back in.

No country can exist on it's own and will need to have some sort of relationship with the outside world. What those relationships are, and where political decisions are made and by whom are all a reasonable points for debate.

A juxtaposition which makes my personal theory of a supra deliberate separation ever more credible.

:greengrin

glory glory

[stoneyburn hibs]

No apologies required, not loaded with reasoned logic but it's an opinion nether the less.

:greengrin

glory glory

Thanks and yes it was an opinion of which I slated without adding any reasoned response, fair play.

[northstandhibby]

This from an Englishman during Indyref2.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/16/scottish-nationalism-british-westminster-class

Once you've taken the time to read it maybe you'll look to back up some of wild assertions you've been making on this thread. I won't hold my breath.

I actually quite like Billy Bragg. However his attempts to lend credence to one form of nationality as opposed to another is incongruous. He is seeing his own nationalities nasty nationalism in the same way I see my own's.

glory glory

[northstandhibby]

Thanks and yes it was an opinion of which I slated without adding any reasoned response, fair play.

Cheers bro. Like your style.

:thumbsup:

glory glory

[Hibrandenburg]

Nationalism is an outdated and backward notion for me. Unfortunately brexit which was also an unwelcome form of nationalism has afforded the SNP a platform for raising the Scottish form of nationalism again. We already have devolution as a means for continuing our argument the UK can either strike a deal to remain within the single market or re-join the EU at a later date post brexit.

Scottish Nationalism is just as dangerous as English Nationalism for me.

glory glory

English nationalism is based on ethnic supremism and the Scottish variety is civic. To say that both are similar never mind dangerous is absolute tosh and shows a complete lack of understanding of what is going on in Scotland.

[northstandhibby]

English nationalism is based on ethnic supreme small and the Scottish variety is civic. To say that both are similar never mind dangerous is absolute tosh and shows a complete lack of understanding of what is going on in Scotland.

I'm all for reasoned debate. Why is it 'tosh?

glory glory

[ronaldo7]

Sorry i was talking about the differential eu membership issue.

The ref they possibly could do, although i think there are very real concerns the civil service couldnt handle it all at once.

The referendum they dont agree with the SNP that now is the appropriate time.

The UK PM is protecting the interests of the majority of Scots who dont want a ref just now.

As the EU have said their won't be parallel negotiations on trade whilst we agree the divorce deal, maybe we could use all those civil servants who'll be twiddling their thumbs doing nowt. :greengrin

Great Britain must have the best, and most up to date negotiators looking at all those deals eh. Global Britain and all that.:faf:

[ronaldo7]

Not sure what it was...maybe not the time to be mounting piss takes but who knows really, I just found it all a bit pathetic to be honest.

Can't see much wrong with it myself.:greengrin

18308