SNP nonsense

[JeMeSouviens]

Along with Pike, Jones and Godfrey.

Don't forget Fraser, we are definitely DOOOOOOOOOMED!

[allmodcons]

The need to spy is driven by the need to find out what is hidden and secretive. So what are the SNP hiding if you genuinely believe they are being targeted.

I am off the board for the next few hours as need to meet my Mi5 handler.

That they are a threat to your glorious Union is excuse enough.

[marinello59]

Surely all this can't be true. You mean the SNP are actually just like all other parties? Who would have thought.

It's a massive dilemma for Nicola Sturgeon. What is her next move if Westminster says no? As an aside I don't think she will last out the year. Joanna Cherry is clearly mounting a challenge to become leader and I think there is a lot of restlessness amongst SNP members who feel Nicola Sturgeon has dithered.

I hope the SNP membership don’t see Sturgeon as dithering here, she is right to hold firm until a referendum has a solid chance of being won. We are not quite there yet.
What I would like to see is her and the leaders of the other pro-Indy parties, the Greens, the Socialists etc, make it clear that a vote for them in any election from now on is a vote for Independence.

[JeMeSouviens]

I hope the SNP membership don’t see Sturgeon as dithering here, she is right to hold firm until a referendum has a solid chance of being won. We are not quite there yet.
What I would like to see is her and the leaders of the other pro-Indy parties, the Greens, the Socialists etc, make it clear that a vote for them in any election from now on is a vote for Independence.

:agree:

Apart from anything else, the mandate for an indyref is based on a brexit that might not happen. Far better to keep the UK in the EU (at least the single market) and seek a fresh mandate at the next Holyrood election.

[Moulin Yarns]

If I stopped the first 100 people I saw this morning and asked them who Maggie Chapman was, how many do you think would know?

But not many would be as obsessed as you to discredit the independence supporting parties, you would think that you would have a bit of knowledge about who you are targeting.

[JeMeSouviens]

But not many would be as obsessed as you to discredit the independence supporting parties, you would think that you would have a bit of knowledge about who you are targeting.

Knowledge? Pah!

You don't need to know anything to know that the neo-nazi, quasi-communist, racist, politically-correct-gone-mad SNP are dragging us down to a nightmare vision of the future. Imagine the hell of being an insignificant EU member pursuing its own path while co-operating with its neighbours. Yeuch! How would we ever cope without that old Etonian array of genius that makes us so great. Watch the world cower before the might of resurgent Britain!

[James310]

But not many would be as obsessed as you to discredit the independence supporting parties, you would think that you would have a bit of knowledge about who you are targeting.

Just like the countless of other posts we have from all sorts of people who are clearly experts in their field. I posted about an unelected person that I would bet 99 out of 100 people will never have heard of and how she was advocating something that was in my opinion a very dangerous and foolish thing to do, and it was about Scottish Independence which is totally on topic.

I bet you had to Google her!

[ronaldo7]

The need to spy is driven by the need to find out what is hidden and secretive. So what are the SNP hiding if you genuinely believe they are being targeted.

I am off the board for the next few hours as need to meet my Mi5 handler.

2019, and the need to "spy" on a registered political party in Scotland, says more about the family of nations, and your precious union, than anything the pesky nats have ever done.

How are you feeling, Scotland?

[The Modfather]

Just like the countless of other posts we have from all sorts of people who are clearly experts in their field. I posted about an unelected person that I would bet 99 out of 100 people will never have heard of and how she was advocating something that was in my opinion a very dangerous and foolish thing to do, and it was about Scottish Independence which is totally on topic.

I bet you had to Google her!

What is the point you’re making? An unelected person 99/100 people haven’t heard off said something you interpreted as dangerous and foolish.

[matty_f]

It's terrible when people criticise the government of the day. We should not encourage it.

The obsession with Brexit as well on the other threads is awful.

A quick look at the first page of the HG shows we have 2 separate threads about Israel and 2 separate threads about how the Tories are such ***** and why are all Tories so ignorant. One thread about the SNP. Who is obsessed?

2 threads on any subject wouldn't give any indication at all of someone being obsessed or otherwise, so that tells us nothing.


How many posts one poster has contributed to a particular subject might be a better indicator, however...

Top 3 posters on these threads:

SNP thread - Ronaldo 173; SouthsideHarp_Bhoy 101, James310 98

Tory Brexiters : JeMeSouviens 13, lapsedhibee 11, Hibrandenburg 4

Lying tories: Ronaldo 51; JeMeSouviens 21, johnbc30

[JeMeSouviens]

2 threads on any subject wouldn't give any indication at all of someone being obsessed or otherwise, so that tells us nothing.


How many posts one poster has contributed to a particular subject might be a better indicator, however...

Top 3 posters on these threads:

SNP thread - Ronaldo 173; SouthsideHarp_Bhoy 101, James310 98

Tory Brexiters : JeMeSouviens 13, lapsedhibee 11, Hibrandenburg 4

Lying tories: Ronaldo 51; JeMeSouviens 21, johnbc30

James 3:10 is the new incarnation of johnbc.

If he's taking suggestions for the next name change, can I get in early with John 11:35 please? :wink:

[ronaldo7]

In my defence M'lud, I was responding to, Southside, both John's, and now you. 😂

174, and counting, well somebody is. 😉

[matty_f]

In my defence M'lud, I was responding to, Southside, both John's, and now you. 😂

174, and counting, well somebody is. 😉

:faf: I have no opinion on the matter, merely presenting the facts as they stood at the time. :greengrin

[ronaldo7]

:faf: I have no opinion on the matter, merely presenting the facts as they stood at the time. :greengrin

That's you on two now.

175🏁

[Moulin Yarns]

Just like the countless of other posts we have from all sorts of people who are clearly experts in their field. I posted about an unelected person that I would bet 99 out of 100 people will never have heard of and how she was advocating something that was in my opinion a very dangerous and foolish thing to do, and it was about Scottish Independence which is totally on topic.

I bet you had to Google her!

As a member of the Scottish Green Party I don't think I did 😉

As to my point, if you are critical towards a political party it would be worth knowing who you are criticising. You were obviously ignorant of party leaders in the Scottish Parliament.

[James310]

As a member of the Scottish Green Party I don't think I did 😉

As to my point, if you are critical towards a political party it would be worth knowing who you are criticising. You were obviously ignorant of party leaders in the Scottish Parliament.

So before I critise anyone I need to have an understanding of who they are and what they do etc. ? OK, noted for future reference. Maybe we need to get the admins to update the rules so that nobody is allowed to critise anyone who may have said something that's reported widely in the media unless they know their background and history etc? No googling allowed!

Nothing like a bit of common sense. I hope you will be calling out all future offenders and ensuring they know their history before any kind of critsisim. Surely its nothing to do with the fact she was talking nonsense, no of course not.

[matty_f]

So before I critise anyone I need to have an understanding of who they are and what they do etc. ? OK, noted for future reference. Maybe we need to get the admins to update the rules so that nobody is allowed to critise anyone who may have said something that's reported widely in the media unless they know their background and history etc? No googling allowed!

Nothing like a bit of common sense. I hope you will be calling out all future offenders and ensuring they know their history before any kind of critsisim. Surely its nothing to do with the fact she was talking nonsense, no of course not.

I think it would be worth understanding the difference between a poster's opinion on what they think you should do, and what the site rules are. :wink:

[Moulin Yarns]

So before I critise anyone I need to have an understanding of who they are and what they do etc. ? OK, noted for future reference. Maybe we need to get the admins to update the rules so that nobody is allowed to critise anyone who may have said something that's reported widely in the media unless they know their background and history etc? No googling allowed!

Nothing like a bit of common sense. I hope you will be calling out all future offenders and ensuring they know their history before any kind of critsisim. Surely its nothing to do with the fact she was talking nonsense, no of course not.

That's not what I said and you know it.

[Mibbes Aye]

You trying to re-write history?

The Section 28 'referendum' took place in the year 2000, 7 years before Souter's donation to the SNP. In the Scottish Parliament the SNP group voted to repeal the Act. Surprise, surprise the Conservatives opposed repeal.

Your contention that the SNP have a history with private referenda is just nonsense. They have a history with a man who held a private referendum 7 years before he donated.

Your comments around Souter's donation and the regulation of the bus network are at best contentious. If you want to get into a debate about unethical donations you might want to provide a balanced post referencing some of the many 'unethical' donations the Conservative and Labour Parties have received over the years but I guess that doesn't suit your narrative.

I really don't think you read posts before responding.

Nevertheless, I knew once I had made my post that there would be Nat responses that were either straw men or whataboutery. You've managed to combine the two, well done :greengrin.

You are the one linking Souter's referendum to his dodgy-as-hell 2007 donation (and no, it's not contentious, it stinks to high heaven). I didn't - I was merely pointing out that the SNP puppetmaster, sorry chief business funder, has abhorrent views on gay rights and equality. Oh, and then that he gave a donation which almost immediately preceded a U-turn on SNP policy, breaking their own conference commitment.

[Mibbes Aye]

Dearie me, that’s pretty desperate dredging. I deplore Souter’s homophobia but I can’t see you managing to make that tag stick to the government that brought in marriage equality.

"Despicable dredging", dearie me indeed!

I was responding to a post about private referenda in Scotland and mentioned what was by far and away the most high-profile example of such a thing. That's completely relevant.

It's hardly my fault that the SNP chose to take millions in funding from a man who tried his hardest to deny equal rights for gay people.

Anyway, as you say, marriage equality was eventually brought in, following the lead set by England and Wales. Though going by their public utterances, I'm not sure the likes of John Mason, Roseanna Cunningham, Gordon Wilson, Fergus Ewing and Bill Walker would have been on-message.

I get I touched a raw nerve with some Nats on here - Souter is the shame that dare not be mentioned - but I think my main point has been overlooked. Namely private or wildcat referenda, that aren't carried out under the auspices of the Electoral Commission are dangerous things.

[allmodcons]

I really don't think you read posts before responding.

Nevertheless, I knew once I had made my post that there would be Nat responses that were either straw men or whataboutery. You've managed to combine the two, well done :greengrin.

You are the one linking Souter's referendum to his dodgy-as-hell 2007 donation (and no, it's not contentious, it stinks to high heaven). I didn't - I was merely pointing out that the SNP puppetmaster, sorry chief business funder, has abhorrent views on gay rights and equality. Oh, and then that he gave a donation which almost immediately preceded a U-turn on SNP policy, breaking their own conference commitment.

Oh b****r off MA. You made the link, end of. To then suggest you were just fishing is embarrassing.
For someone who's posting I respect that is/was one of your poorer moments.

[JeMeSouviens]

"Despicable dredging", dearie me indeed!

I was responding to a post about private referenda in Scotland and mentioned what was by far and away the most high-profile example of such a thing. That's completely relevant.

It's hardly my fault that the SNP chose to take millions in funding from a man who tried his hardest to deny equal rights for gay people.

Anyway, as you say, marriage equality was eventually brought in, following the lead set by England and Wales. Though going by their public utterances, I'm not sure the likes of John Mason, Roseanna Cunningham, Gordon Wilson, Fergus Ewing and Bill Walker would have been on-message.

I get I touched a raw nerve with some Nats on here - Souter is the shame that dare not be mentioned - but I think my main point has been overlooked. Namely private or wildcat referenda, that aren't carried out under the auspices of the Electoral Commission are dangerous things.

Not that I think it’s at all likely to happen or a good idea except as an absolute last resort but the Scottish government could probably legally hold an advisory referendum on independence. It wouldn’t be “private” and it could involve the EC, but the UK gov would obv not be bound by the result leading to a mess. Not advisable imo.

“desperate” btw, not “despicable”. It’s fair comment but tenuous (to say the least) in this context. Calling Souter’s stunt a “referendum” dignifies it in a wholly undeserved way.

[JeMeSouviens]

I really don't think you read posts before responding.

Nevertheless, I knew once I had made my post that there would be Nat responses that were either straw men or whataboutery. You've managed to combine the two, well done :greengrin.

You are the one linking Souter's referendum to his dodgy-as-hell 2007 donation (and no, it's not contentious, it stinks to high heaven). I didn't - I was merely pointing out that the SNP puppetmaster, sorry chief business funder, has abhorrent views on gay rights and equality. Oh, and then that he gave a donation which almost immediately preceded a U-turn on SNP policy, breaking their own conference commitment.

Given the SNP voted for the repeal of clause 2a and then legislated for equality, his puppetry could use a bit of work. :greengrin

[James310]

Robin McAlpine really does not like the Growth Commission report (or Andrew Wilson)

"IS BETTER TOGETHER taking over the SNP? The party’s new spiritual leader (Andrew Wilson) was on BBC radio quite openly telling Scotland that independence will be pain and sacrifice, that Britain is a fine economic and political institution and that Scotland shouldn't get above itself with talk of its own currency"

"I really want to take head-on this idea that the Growth Commission isn't austerity; please understand what it says. It says that the public sector deficit needs to be very sharply reduced – just like George Osborne said."

".. the Growth Commission is all about 'comfort' for bankers and certainly not providing comfort for the poor or even for the struggling middle classes. And anyone who thinks that Scotland can meet climate change targets while reducing public investment as a proportion of the economy needs carted off in a straightjacket."

https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/14096/robin-mcalpine-just-thatchers-legacy-was-blair-better-togethers-legacy-growth

Scotland for the Bankers under the SNP? Is Andrew Wilson the epitome of a Tartan Tory?

[Fife-Hibee]

It's official, we're all SNP supporters now. :wink:

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/56874329_2170053586375440_6936986234514309120_n.jp g?_nc_cat=104&_nc_ht=scontent-lhr3-1.xx&oh=7f5d4ac81c08f648adf56b222b4c02e9&oe=5D5032FC

[Mr Grieves]

It's official, we're all SNP supporters now. :wink:

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/56874329_2170053586375440_6936986234514309120_n.jp g?_nc_cat=104&_nc_ht=scontent-lhr3-1.xx&oh=7f5d4ac81c08f648adf56b222b4c02e9&oe=5D5032FC

Leith Walk (Edinburgh) result:

SNP: 35.7% (+1.4)
GRN: 25.5% (+5.9)
LAB: 15.5% (-7.0)
CON: 10.7% (-3.7)
LDEM: 8.6% (+4.8)

IND (Illingworth): 1.5% (+1.5)
UKIP: 1.2% (+1.2)
SLP: 0.8% (-0.1)
IND (Scott): 0.2% (+0.2)
FBM: 0.2% (+0.2)
LBT: 0.2% (+0.2)

Not the most surprising result with Edinburgh North and Leith being one of the most pro-indy and pro-EU constituencies in Scotland. Scottish Labour will be worried, they had 3 out of 4 councillors in this ward 2 years ago!

[One Day Soon]

Leith Walk (Edinburgh) result:

SNP: 35.7% (+1.4)
GRN: 25.5% (+5.9)
LAB: 15.5% (-7.0)
CON: 10.7% (-3.7)
LDEM: 8.6% (+4.8)

IND (Illingworth): 1.5% (+1.5)
UKIP: 1.2% (+1.2)
SLP: 0.8% (-0.1)
IND (Scott): 0.2% (+0.2)
FBM: 0.2% (+0.2)
LBT: 0.2% (+0.2)

Not the most surprising result with Edinburgh North and Leith being one of the most pro-indy and pro-EU constituencies in Scotland. Scottish Labour will be worried, they had 3 out of 4 councillors in this ward 2 years ago!


Pleased for Rob Munn who is a nice, if slightly ineffectual, guy. We've a pretty aimless council at the moment unfortunately which is a shame since with all the strength of a capital city a little bit of good leadership on the political and officer sides would make a big difference.

A result that fairly reflects Labour's failure to get any serious traction up here, just as going backward in the recent Welsh by-election demonstrated the same elsewhere.

[ronaldo7]

Leith Walk (Edinburgh) result:

SNP: 35.7% (+1.4)
GRN: 25.5% (+5.9)
LAB: 15.5% (-7.0)
CON: 10.7% (-3.7)
LDEM: 8.6% (+4.8)

IND (Illingworth): 1.5% (+1.5)
UKIP: 1.2% (+1.2)
SLP: 0.8% (-0.1)
IND (Scott): 0.2% (+0.2)
FBM: 0.2% (+0.2)
LBT: 0.2% (+0.2)

Not the most surprising result with Edinburgh North and Leith being one of the most pro-indy and pro-EU constituencies in Scotland. Scottish Labour will be worried, they had 3 out of 4 councillors in this ward 2 years ago!

Nice to see the London based parties take a pasting. Greens are on the march though.

[marinello59]

Nice to see the London based parties take a pasting. Greens are on the march though.

It’s the Greens result that jumped out at me. They could be big winners if Labour continues on its current course.

[Moulin Yarns]

Nice to see the London based parties take a pasting. Greens are on the march though.

If only the SNP had heeded Tommy Sheppard's call to not split the pro independence vote the Greens might have won :wink:

[marinello59]

If only the SNP had heeded Tommy Sheppard's call to not split the pro independence vote the Greens might have won :wink:

The Scottish Greens need to increase efforts to appear more than a green branch of the SNP. Then they can watch discontented Labour voters flock to them.

[JeMeSouviens]

The Scottish Greens need to increase efforts to appear more than a green branch of the SNP. Then they can watch discontented Labour voters flock to them.

:agree:

Calling the Leith Walk result an SNP gain is a bit meaningless in the new system since they topped the poll in the last council election. But an encouraging straw in the wind nonetheless. Seemingly the Tories went with their usual anti-indyref2 and no policies of their own campaign.

[lapsedhibee]

All I meant was the type of people who will always ultimately make the same decision, despite circumstances and reason suggesting that they should perhaps make a different one. It wasn't intended to be aimed at you personally. Just people who are like this in general.


I asked for an explanation today , he gave one, I’m happy with that.
I wouldn’t like to see Fife feel that he was being hounded put. Agree with his posts or not there is no doubting his passion.

Good resolution. Could the two of you do Brexit do now pls.

[James310]

Pro Indy blogger the famous Reverend Stuart Campbell aka Wings lost his defamation case today against Kezia Dugdale.

The most interesting bit though was the judge if he had found in his favour would have awarded him damages of £100, not the £25,000 he was wanting. His reputation was worth a mere £100.

[Fife-Hibee]

Pro Indy blogger the famous Reverend Stuart Campbell aka Wings lost his defamation case today against Kezia Dugdale.

The most interesting bit though was the judge if he had found in his favour would have awarded him damages of £100, not the £25,000 he was wanting. His reputation was worth a mere £100.

The most interesting bit is that he didn't. The judge ruled that Kezia Dugdales comment did indeed fall under defamation, but he didn't charge her on the grounds of her being an idiot who "didn't understand" what her comment meant.

But don't let fact get in the way of british newspaper headlines.

[Bristolhibby]

Pro Indy blogger the famous Reverend Stuart Campbell aka Wings lost his defamation case today against Kezia Dugdale.

The most interesting bit though was the judge if he had found in his favour would have awarded him damages of £100, not the £25,000 he was wanting. His reputation was worth a mere £100.

Don’t think he lost, also don’t think Kez “won”. The ruling says he was defamed. A bizarre ruling to be honest.
Dugdale’s feelings about what homophobia is trumps the actual meaning of the word. It was on that basis that he found in her favour on the grounds of “fair comment”, while repeatedly emphasising that the comments were wrong (ie he was not a homophobe).

J

[Pretty Boy]

Pro Indy blogger the famous Reverend Stuart Campbell aka Wings lost his defamation case today against Kezia Dugdale.

The most interesting bit though was the judge if he had found in his favour would have awarded him damages of £100, not the £25,000 he was wanting. His reputation was worth a mere £100.

It's one of those cases in which it would have been good if both people could lose and that's almost what happened.

She's ruled as a bit of an idiot and he's ruled as a prick.

[James310]

It's one of those cases in which it would have been good if both people could lose and that's alsmost what happened.

She's ruled as a bit of an idiot and he's ruled as a prick.

I don't think we needed a judge to make that ruling about Stuart Campbell.

[allmodcons]

It's one of those cases in which it would have been good if both people could lose and that's almost what happened.

She's ruled as a bit of an idiot and he's ruled as a prick.

:agree: I feel a bit for Kezia because she often appears to be a little out of her depth and Campbell, whilst good at deconstructing some of the crap printed by MSM, is an unlikeable, arrogant individual.

[Pretty Boy]

:agree: I feel a bit for Kezia because she often appears to be a little out of her depth and Campbell, whilst good at deconstructing some of the crap printed by MSM, is an unlikeable, arrogant individual.

I always feel if Campbell could leave his ego at the door then he'd be well worth listening to.

[Fife-Hibee]

I always feel if Campbell could leave his ego at the door then he'd be well worth listening to.

The guy deals with constant threats and trolling on a daily basis. He may come across as an arse, but it's hard to keep yourself pleasant when you're constantly dealing with those who are not.

[Bristolhibby]

:agree: I feel a bit for Kezia because she often appears to be a little out of her depth and Campbell, whilst good at deconstructing some of the crap printed by MSM, is an unlikeable, arrogant individual.

Re Kez, if you are not competent to cook, stay out of the kitchen. (I also have to say on a personal level I really like her. Some of her articles post Cup Final, were brilliant). But in this case she was wrong. Being gay does not give you Carte Blanche to accuse people of being Homophobes because of a joke.

J

[JeMeSouviens]

The guy deals with constant threats and trolling on a daily basis. He may come across as an arse, but it's hard to keep yourself pleasant when you're constantly dealing with those who are not.

Nah, he came across as a total arse even before he got famous.

I agree with amc, his takedowns of the other side's propaganda are often very well done, but he definitely fails my "would you want to go for a pint with him?" test.

The Sheriff's summing up is actually rather good.

"It is possible to obey the law, but still act unpleasantly and harmfully to others. That is a freedom. Some freedoms are best left unexercised."

[JeMeSouviens]

Re Kez, if you are not competent to cook, stay out of the kitchen. (I also have to say on a personal level I really like her. Some of her articles post Cup Final, were brilliant). But in this case she was wrong. Being gay does not give you Carte Blanche to accuse people of being Homophobes because of a joke.

J

Tragically over promoted. A symptom of the decline of the once mighty Scottish Labour.

[Smartie]

Re Kez, if you are not competent to cook, stay out of the kitchen. (I also have to say on a personal level I really like her. Some of her articles post Cup Final, were brilliant). But in this case she was wrong. Being gay does not give you Carte Blanche to accuse people of being Homophobes because of a joke.

J

I think she's entitled to call his comments out as homophobic. She is wrong, they are not, but when you chuck comments around the way that Campbell did, you should expect a response from certain quarters and not rush off to the courts claiming defamation when inevitable objections roll in.

It's been a pretty sorry and pointless episode all round and I think I agree with the judge's outcome.

[James310]

I think she's entitled to call his comments out as homophobic. She is wrong, they are not, but when you chuck comments around the way that Campbell did, you should expect a response from certain quarters and not rush off to the courts claiming defamation when inevitable objections roll in.

It's been a pretty sorry and pointless episode all round and I think I agree with the judge's outcome.

I am sure the lawyers are delighted.

[Moulin Yarns]

All sounds wonderful, but what will they do about keeping the oil and gas in the ground? Not a mention.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/17581335.nicola-sturgeon-pledges-to-deliver-scottsh-green-deal/



https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/14124/campaigners-welcome-sturgeons-scottish-green-deal-pledge-urge-real-and-radical-follow

[Fife-Hibee]

All sounds wonderful, but what will they do about keeping the oil and gas in the ground? Not a mention.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/17581335.nicola-sturgeon-pledges-to-deliver-scottsh-green-deal/



https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/14124/campaigners-welcome-sturgeons-scottish-green-deal-pledge-urge-real-and-radical-follow

We won't need to keep oil and gas in the ground. We have a neighbour that's quite happy to keep pumping carbon emissions into the air as well as other countries.

[Moulin Yarns]

We won't need to keep oil and gas in the ground. We have a neighbour that's quite happy to keep pumping carbon emissions into the air as well as other countries.

You can't be carbon neutral and continue to extract fossil fuel, the two are mutually exclusive. Unless the snp are lying of course.

[JeMeSouviens]

You can't be carbon neutral and continue to extract fossil fuel, the two are mutually exclusive. Unless the snp are lying of course.

Unless you're extracting carbon from the atmosphere at an equivalent rate, presumably?

[Moulin Yarns]

Unless you're extracting carbon from the atmosphere at an equivalent rate, presumably?

Yes and where is the plan from the snp to achieve this?

[JeMeSouviens]

Yes and where is the plan from the snp to achieve this?

No idea, just helpfully being pedantic about your use of "mutually exclusive". :wink:

[Moulin Yarns]

No idea, just helpfully being pedantic about your use of "mutually exclusive". :wink:

🤔

[James310]

Trouble at the mill? Shared on my Facebook by my very pro Indy mother in law (hates the English) from the Hope Over Fear Indy movement. I think this could be the first real sign of dissent and actually presents a real challenge for the SNP. They have had an easy ride from their members for a while now so will be interesting to see how this plays out.

"It looks like the SNP leadership are going full steam ahead with their swing to the Balrite right represented by the motion to Spring Conference and Andrew Wilson's Scottish Growth Commission Report. Some may want to dismiss this because it appears in the Herald. But the quotes in it from Nicola Sturgeon and Andrew Wilson are accurate.

SNP members will be told at their spring conference that 'Andrew's Way' is the only way to win. They'll be told not to vote against because it would be seen as a defeat for the leadership (as if leaderships don't sometimes need defeating). That we need the support of the banks and Tory voters, not the working class whose votes are misjudged as being 'already in the bag'. They'll be told that Andrew Wilson's vision of the 'softest' possible independence is the only way to secure any kind of indy.

But it's not true. Why would voters vote for a vision of independence that puts the money men first, and promises to lower Westminsters' notional GERS based deficit for Scotland to a rigid 3% of GDP, at a time post-independence when we should be investing in our new Scotland's future?

Why would voters vote for a version of independence that leaves us tied to Westminster fiscal policy,and the Bank of England's interest rates?

Why would they vote for a version of independence that ignores how Scotland has been plundered by Westminster for the last 40 years, and offer an unconditional solidarity payment of £5.2 billion to rUK every year for thirty years - Scots taxpayer money that could be used for schools, hospitals, roads, infrastructure and investement in science and technology?

We agree that we want to have good relations with our neighours in rUK - but we shouldn't need to offer them bribes and promise 'no real change' to achieve that. Many folk elsewhere in these Isles are crying out for change and would look to a bold, and radical independent Scotland.

It is to be hoped that SNP activists see through this Blairite farrago, and reject the SGC motion at their Spring conference.

If not, the YES movement is sure it has a winning case for independence, and that that is the broad, general democratic case for independence.

If the SNP votes to move its 'case for independence' dramatically to the right, YES must have the courage and the organisational and political independence to say that the SNP's case is not our case.

Independence is about giving the Scottish people real choices, not hemming the them into a 'don't frighten the horses' vision, and a neo-liberal, banker led economics Tony Blair would have been proud of.

Saor Alba!

"One Day We Will All Be Free!"

* Having a winning case doesn't mean that you necessarily win the first time round. Better Together and the BritNat establishment moved heaven and earth to stop us the last time. But the broad general and democratic case (not any party's specific 'offer') has always remained the same, Scotland should be a normal country and the people who live there should take all of the decisions that affect their lives"

[Ozyhibby]

Trouble at the mill? Shared on my Facebook by my very pro Indy mother in law (hates the English) from the Hope Over Fear Indy movement. I think this could be the first real sign of dissent and actually presents a real challenge for the SNP. They have had an easy ride from their members for a while now so will be interesting to see how this plays out.

"It looks like the SNP leadership are going full steam ahead with their swing to the Balrite right represented by the motion to Spring Conference and Andrew Wilson's Scottish Growth Commission Report. Some may want to dismiss this because it appears in the Herald. But the quotes in it from Nicola Sturgeon and Andrew Wilson are accurate.

SNP members will be told at their spring conference that 'Andrew's Way' is the only way to win. They'll be told not to vote against because it would be seen as a defeat for the leadership (as if leaderships don't sometimes need defeating). That we need the support of the banks and Tory voters, not the working class whose votes are misjudged as being 'already in the bag'. They'll be told that Andrew Wilson's vision of the 'softest' possible independence is the only way to secure any kind of indy.

But it's not true. Why would voters vote for a vision of independence that puts the money men first, and promises to lower Westminsters' notional GERS based deficit for Scotland to a rigid 3% of GDP, at a time post-independence when we should be investing in our new Scotland's future?

Why would voters vote for a version of independence that leaves us tied to Westminster fiscal policy,and the Bank of England's interest rates?

Why would they vote for a version of independence that ignores how Scotland has been plundered by Westminster for the last 40 years, and offer an unconditional solidarity payment of £5.2 billion to rUK every year for thirty years - Scots taxpayer money that could be used for schools, hospitals, roads, infrastructure and investement in science and technology?

We agree that we want to have good relations with our neighours in rUK - but we shouldn't need to offer them bribes and promise 'no real change' to achieve that. Many folk elsewhere in these Isles are crying out for change and would look to a bold, and radical independent Scotland.

It is to be hoped that SNP activists see through this Blairite farrago, and reject the SGC motion at their Spring conference.

If not, the YES movement is sure it has a winning case for independence, and that that is the broad, general democratic case for independence.

If the SNP votes to move its 'case for independence' dramatically to the right, YES must have the courage and the organisational and political independence to say that the SNP's case is not our case.

Independence is about giving the Scottish people real choices, not hemming the them into a 'don't frighten the horses' vision, and a neo-liberal, banker led economics Tony Blair would have been proud of.

Saor Alba!

"One Day We Will All Be Free!"

* Having a winning case doesn't mean that you necessarily win the first time round. Better Together and the BritNat establishment moved heaven and earth to stop us the last time. But the broad general and democratic case (not any party's specific 'offer') has always remained the same, Scotland should be a normal country and the people who live there should take all of the decisions that affect their lives"

Not really. The leadership of the snp are correct to try and show that there is a credible economic plan post independence. To win the next indyref they have to win over people who voted No last time. Running the same campaign as last time would bring about the same result.
Which is why the currency plan is changing and also the economic plan. There will be other changes.
To say there is trouble ahead for the SNP is nonsense. They are gaining in the polls just now and are likely to increase their representation at the Euro elections.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

Not really. The leadership of the snp are correct to try and show that there is a credible economic plan post independence. To win the next indyref they have to win over people who voted No last time. Running the same campaign as last time would bring about the same result.
Which is why the currency plan is changing and also the economic plan. There will be other changes.
To say there is trouble ahead for the SNP is nonsense. They are gaining in the polls just now and are likely to increase their representation at the Euro elections.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So are you suggesting there was no credible plan last time? No credible economic or currency plan? Just as well we voted No then.

After nearly 5 years they are still to come up with one?

The conference is going to be very interesting, looks like Nicola Sturgeon is going to kick the can down the road yet again.

[JeMeSouviens]

So are you suggesting there was no credible plan last time? No credible economic or currency plan? Just as well we voted No then.

After nearly 5 years they are still to come up with one?

The conference is going to be very interesting, looks like Nicola Sturgeon is going to kick the can down the road yet again.

Infinitely more interesting to a Con & Yoon than any of their own "shindigs" it would seem. :wink:

What are the Tory crumblies talking about anyway these days? Let me guess ... Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP, Scotland's independent future? :wink::faf:

[JeMeSouviens]

Trouble at the mill? Shared on my Facebook by my very pro Indy mother in law (hates the English) from the Hope Over Fear Indy movement.

Not really sure the dying embers of Tommy's latest ego-trip count as a "movement"? Anyway, hope your m-in-l is making your life miserable. :wink: Maybe you could work on disabusing herself of her misguided anglophobia rather than wasting your time on here?

[Moulin Yarns]

So are you suggesting there was no credible plan last time? No credible economic or currency plan? Just as well we voted No then.

After nearly 5 years they are still to come up with one?

The conference is going to be very interesting, looks like Nicola Sturgeon is going to kick the can down the road yet again.

This is sounding like the orange = protestant argument. In your case yes = snp when there is a far wider support for yes than the snp.

[Ozyhibby]

So are you suggesting there was no credible plan last time? No credible economic or currency plan? Just as well we voted No then.

After nearly 5 years they are still to come up with one?

The conference is going to be very interesting, looks like Nicola Sturgeon is going to kick the can down the road yet again.

I’m saying the last campaign was not perfect and it will need refining. The last two years have been great for educating the Scottish public on exactly how the EU works which will take a lot of the fear about independence away next time around. Scare stories about border posts are not going to work now that we see the lengths Westminster will go to avoid them in Ireland. People now realise that trading arrangements will be guaranteed no matter what as we stay in the EU. And people will realise that belonging to the EU gives us the freedom to run our own country ourselves within the security of a large trading block.
We are likely to get a soft brexit now or none at all and that will make Scotland becoming independent a lot more likely.
If it’s a soft brexit then the 300,000 EU nationals who overwhelmingly voted no now will likely switch totally to yes next time. That on its own is probably enough to change the result.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fife-Hibee]

So are you suggesting there was no credible plan last time? No credible economic or currency plan? Just as well we voted No then.

Just as well we voted No then?

For what? To be trapped in a UK with no economic plan of their own?

[James310]

Just as well we voted No then?

For what? To be trapped in a UK with no economic plan of their own?

Economy seems to holding up not so bad, even Nicola Sturgeon tweeting about the record low unemployment levels in Scotland. But then again she has said she has no economic levers so she needs to make her mind up.

So are you comfortable with the way the SNP is moving to the right with the plans in the GC? Certainly potential to attract more people to Yes which is the plan is it not?

[James310]

I’m saying the last campaign was not perfect and it will need refining. The last two years have been great for educating the Scottish public on exactly how the EU works which will take a lot of the fear about independence away next time around. Scare stories about border posts are not going to work now that we see the lengths Westminster will go to avoid them in Ireland. People now realise that trading arrangements will be guaranteed no matter what as we stay in the EU. And people will realise that belonging to the EU gives us the freedom to run our own country ourselves within the security of a large trading block.
We are likely to get a soft brexit now or none at all and that will make Scotland becoming independent a lot more likely.
If it’s a soft brexit then the 300,000 EU nationals who overwhelmingly voted no now will likely switch totally to yes next time. That on its own is probably enough to change the result.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If there is no Brexit then what exactly was the 'material change' that was supposed to happen that Nicola Sturgeon said had to happen for another referendum to take place. Are we not back to where we were pre June 2016?

[Fife-Hibee]

Economy seems to holding up not so bad, even Nicola Sturgeon tweeting about the record low unemployment levels in Scotland. But then again she has said she has no economic levers so she needs to make her mind up.

So are you comfortable with the way the SNP is moving to the right with the plans in the GC? Certainly potential to attract more people to Yes which is the plan is it not?

Not so bad? Failed to eliminate the deficit by 2015. Doubled the national debt in less than a decade. An 88% debt to GDP ratio and rising. Pound all over the place due to the on going uncertainty of brexit, which is now being dragged out even further.

How about we just say it's "not so good"?

Neither Nicola Sturgeon or the SNP have claimed to have "no" economic levers. They do however argue that Scotlands full economic potential can't be reached without access to "all" of the necessary levers. The fact Scotland is out performing the UK in terms of employment and economic growth with just a few of them would suggest that the more levers we have control over the better. Which explains the UK Governments hesitation to give up anymore leverage. Wouldn't want Scotland under a national government embarrassing them even further.

Also, in what way are they "moving to the right" with the plans in the GC? I'm intrigued to know what you mean by this.



If there is no Brexit then what exactly was the 'material change' that was supposed to happen that Nicola Sturgeon said had to happen for another referendum to take place. Are we not back to where we were pre June 2016?

If there is no Brexit (completely wishful thinking at this stage with the 2 UK main political parties backing it) then we wouldn't be far off another general election. Which would mean a new manifesto from the SNP for people to decide whether to back it or not.

[James310]

Not so bad? Failed to eliminate the deficit by 2015. Doubled the national debt in less than a decade. An 88% debt to GDP ratio and rising. Pound all over the place due to the on going uncertainty of brexit, which is now being dragged out even further.

How about we just say it's "not so good"?

Neither Nicola Sturgeon or the SNP have claimed to have "no" economic levers. They do however argue that Scotlands full economic potential can't be reached without access to "all" of the necessary levers. The fact Scotland is out performing the UK in terms of employment and economic growth with just a few of them would suggest that the more levers we have control over the better. Which explains the UK Governments hesitation to give up anymore leverage. Wouldn't want Scotland under a national government embarrassing them even further.

Also, in what way are they "moving to the right" with the plans in the GC? I'm intrigued to know what you mean by this.




If there is no Brexit (completely wishful thinking at this stage with the 2 UK main political parties backing it) then we wouldn't be far off another general election. Which would mean a new manifesto from the SNP for people to decide whether to back it or not.

The move to the right by the austerity that the GC is advocating, austerity that was so hated by the SNP. The fact that a 'soft Indy' is being pursued by Andrew Wilson with the full support of Nicola Sturgeon exemplified by having the BoE as our central bank setting our interest rates and monetary policy for an undefined period of time. Is that your version of Independence? Having the BoE in control?

[Bristolhibby]

The move to the right by the austerity that the GC is advocating, austerity that was so hated by the SNP. The fact that a 'soft Indy' is being pursued by Andrew Wilson with the full support of Nicola Sturgeon exemplified by having the BoE as our central bank setting our interest rates and monetary policy for an undefined period of time. Is that your version of Independence? Having the BoE in control?

It’s a start. A step in the right (Independent) direction. Who knows what will happen after that.

J

[Hibs98]

Trouble at the mill? Shared on my Facebook by my very pro Indy mother in law (hates the English) from the Hope Over Fear Indy movement. I think this could be the first real sign of dissent and actually presents a real challenge for the SNP. They have had an easy ride from their members for a while now so will be interesting to see how this plays out.

"It looks like the SNP leadership are going full steam ahead with their swing to the Balrite right represented by the motion to Spring Conference and Andrew Wilson's Scottish Growth Commission Report. Some may want to dismiss this because it appears in the Herald. But the quotes in it from Nicola Sturgeon and Andrew Wilson are accurate.

SNP members will be told at their spring conference that 'Andrew's Way' is the only way to win. They'll be told not to vote against because it would be seen as a defeat for the leadership (as if leaderships don't sometimes need defeating). That we need the support of the banks and Tory voters, not the working class whose votes are misjudged as being 'already in the bag'. They'll be told that Andrew Wilson's vision of the 'softest' possible independence is the only way to secure any kind of indy.

But it's not true. Why would voters vote for a vision of independence that puts the money men first, and promises to lower Westminsters' notional GERS based deficit for Scotland to a rigid 3% of GDP, at a time post-independence when we should be investing in our new Scotland's future?

Why would voters vote for a version of independence that leaves us tied to Westminster fiscal policy,and the Bank of England's interest rates?

Why would they vote for a version of independence that ignores how Scotland has been plundered by Westminster for the last 40 years, and offer an unconditional solidarity payment of £5.2 billion to rUK every year for thirty years - Scots taxpayer money that could be used for schools, hospitals, roads, infrastructure and investement in science and technology?

We agree that we want to have good relations with our neighours in rUK - but we shouldn't need to offer them bribes and promise 'no real change' to achieve that. Many folk elsewhere in these Isles are crying out for change and would look to a bold, and radical independent Scotland.

It is to be hoped that SNP activists see through this Blairite farrago, and reject the SGC motion at their Spring conference.

If not, the YES movement is sure it has a winning case for independence, and that that is the broad, general democratic case for independence.

If the SNP votes to move its 'case for independence' dramatically to the right, YES must have the courage and the organisational and political independence to say that the SNP's case is not our case.

Independence is about giving the Scottish people real choices, not hemming the them into a 'don't frighten the horses' vision, and a neo-liberal, banker led economics Tony Blair would have been proud of.

Saor Alba!

"One Day We Will All Be Free!"

* Having a winning case doesn't mean that you necessarily win the first time round. Better Together and the BritNat establishment moved heaven and earth to stop us the last time. But the broad general and democratic case (not any party's specific 'offer') has always remained the same, Scotland should be a normal country and the people who live there should take all of the decisions that affect their lives"
Arse

[James310]

Arse

Great contribution but who is? Tommy Sheridan that wrote it?

[Ozyhibby]

The move to the right by the austerity that the GC is advocating, austerity that was so hated by the SNP. The fact that a 'soft Indy' is being pursued by Andrew Wilson with the full support of Nicola Sturgeon exemplified by having the BoE as our central bank setting our interest rates and monetary policy for an undefined period of time. Is that your version of Independence? Having the BoE in control?

https://www.thenational.scot/news/17586824.sturgeon-our-currency-position-is-ambitious-and-credible-it-can-win-us-indy/

Sturgeon clear that the plan does not include austerity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

Great contribution but who is? Tommy Sheridan that wrote it?

Well, seeing as you decided to quote Tommy Sheridan. :wink:

[Ozyhibby]

Surely nobody is taking Tommy Sheridan seriously?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

https://www.thenational.scot/news/17586824.sturgeon-our-currency-position-is-ambitious-and-credible-it-can-win-us-indy/

Sturgeon clear that the plan does not include austerity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well of course she would. It's just dressed up as something else. Maybe some 'fiscal tightening of the belt' is what it will be called. George Osborne never called it austerity as well, but I am sure you thought it was.

Her article talks about "important decisions about our future will be taken in Scotland by governments we choose rather than Westminster governments" Yet is happy for the BoE to set interest rates and monetary policy. Bit of a contradiction.

[James310]

Well, seeing as you decided to quote Tommy Sheridan. :wink:

I thought he was a hero of the Yes movement, you all love him don't you? ☺

[Just Alf]

I thought he was a hero of the Yes movement, you all love him don't you? [emoji5]The facr that you think that, and that you appear to be arguing that independence with Scotland still tied to the £ is the same as the status quo tells me you maybe need to do a bit more research[emoji106]

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[James310]

The facr that you think that, and that you appear to be arguing that independence with Scotland still tied to the £ is the same as the status quo tells me you maybe need to do a bit more research[emoji106]

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

So your take on the BoE having full control is what exactly, a kind of independence but not really because we can still blame someone else when things go wrong.

As for Tommy, you have posters on your wall don't you! 😂 😂

Do you still believe NS when she says Education is her number one priority, or do you think she has her mind on other things.

[Just Alf]

So your take on the BoE having full control is what exactly, a kind of independence but not really because we can still blame someone else when things go wrong.

As for Tommy, you have posters on your wall don't you! [emoji23] [emoji23]

Do you still believe NS when she says Education is her number one priority, or do you think she has her mind on other things.We'll still have more control, even if we were in the EU (see the veto that Ireland, for example, have on the Brexit deal compared to "powers" that Scotland currently have over it).

If things go wrong and it's down the Scottish government of the time then it's their fault and they'll answer at the ballot box, if it's a fiscal disaster in rUK then we would at least have the choice to move to a new currency.

On yer last bit, we all have muppets in our support, you, me, all of us, roll our eyes and sigh at some of them. :agree:

Edit: last bit was aimed at the TS comment NOT the NS one! Lol


Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[grunt]

So your take on the BoE having full control is what exactly, a kind of independence but not really because we can still blame someone else when things go wrong. You constantly criticise the views of others. I may have missed it, but I can't recall seeing your own thoughts about the future of Scotland. Are you happy to be subject to the whims of the (unelected in Scotland) London Tory Government outside of the EU (outside against the wishes of the Scottish electorate)?

[Ozyhibby]

You constantly criticise the views of others. I may have missed it, but I can't recall seeing your own thoughts about the future of Scotland. Are you happy to be subject to the whims of the (unelected in Scotland) London Tory Government outside of the EU (outside against the wishes of the Scottish electorate)?

Haha, your not going to get that.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

You constantly criticise the views of others. I may have missed it, but I can't recall seeing your own thoughts about the future of Scotland. Are you happy to be subject to the whims of the (unelected in Scotland) London Tory Government outside of the EU (outside against the wishes of the Scottish electorate)?

I am happy not to separate from our closest neighbours and remain as part of the UK and ideally as part of the EU Union as well. I never voted for the SNP but they are my government, I never voted for my MP but she was elected, I never voted to leave but its happening etc etc. that's democracy. Lots of things I never voted for but I get them. I did vote No however in 2014 but that seems to be conveniently ignored, which I am guessing your OK with? Can't have it both ways.

This place again is hypocrisy city, its OK to critise pretty much everything and everyone but as soon as you stray into SNP territory it's not allowed. If you don't think it's a valid criticism then say why? Do you expect if the SNP come out with plans people are not going to scrutinise them and call out if they believe they are flawed? Would you like it if everyone just went that's brilliant well done, carry on.

I do wonder if for some it's a hatred of the Tories (Tory **** Out banners at Indy marches etc) that's driving some individuals in the Indy movement or actually Independence itself.

[Fife-Hibee]

The move to the right by the austerity that the GC is advocating, austerity that was so hated by the SNP. The fact that a 'soft Indy' is being pursued by Andrew Wilson with the full support of Nicola Sturgeon exemplified by having the BoE as our central bank setting our interest rates and monetary policy for an undefined period of time. Is that your version of Independence? Having the BoE in control?

Are you suggesting Scotland should go down the hard Scoxit route instead? Are you in support of a hard brexit?

Or would it perhaps be more sensible to have a currency union during the transitional phase to give ourselves enough time to establish a new national currency?

[James310]

Are you suggesting Scotland should go down the hard Scoxit route instead? Are you in support of a hard brexit?

Or would it perhaps be more sensible to have a currency union during the transitional phase to give ourselves enough time to establish a new national currency?

I am suggesting Scotland should not go down any route that separates us.

[grunt]

This place again is hypocrisy city, its OK to critise pretty much everything and everyone but as soon as you stray into SNP territory it's not allowed. If you don't think it's a valid criticism then say why? Do you expect if the SNP come out with plans people are not going to scrutinise them and call out if they believe they are flawed? Would you like it if everyone just went that's brilliant well done, carry on. I hope you're not calling me a hypocrite. I don't think I've said anything that would make you think so.

No my comment was posted because you remind me of a lot of the Leave people I see in the media. They are very quick to jump on the views of others and to criticise, saying that this is wrong and that is wrong, but it seems they seldom ever articulate what they themselves want. Full of saying what's wrong with everything, but slow to offer their own suggestions about how to make things better.

Your reply to my post pretty much confirms this.

[James310]

I hope you're not calling me a hypocrite. I don't think I've said anything that would make you think so.

No my comment was posted because you remind me of a lot of the Leave people I see in the media. They are very quick to jump on the views of others and to criticise, saying that this is wrong and that is wrong, but it seems they seldom ever articulate what they themselves want. Full of saying what's wrong with everything, but slow to offer their own suggestions about how to make things better.

Your reply to my post pretty much confirms this.

My view is as stated above. I don't feel Scotland should separate from the UK and the EU. I think that's pretty clear. What kind of suggestions should I be coming up with if I am not proposing any fundamental and significant changes?

[Hibrandenburg]

I thought he was a hero of the Yes movement, you all love him don't you? ☺

In the same way you love Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson.

[RyeSloan]

https://www.thenational.scot/news/17586824.sturgeon-our-currency-position-is-ambitious-and-credible-it-can-win-us-indy/

Sturgeon clear that the plan does not include austerity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yet she fails to make clear what it does involve.

Pretty much everyone will admit that an iScotland will have a large annual deficit. Yet at the same time NS is suggesting that we could pass the ‘six tests’ in 4 years after Indy. That’s a circle that needs to be squared.

So no real terms government spending cuts can only mean one thing, substantial and significant tax increases across the board. Strangely enough her statement doesn’t seem to include that suggestion.

[Ozyhibby]

Yet she fails to make clear what it does involve.

Pretty much everyone will admit that an iScotland will have a large annual deficit. Yet at the same time NS is suggesting that we could pass the ‘six tests’ in 4 years after Indy. That’s a circle that needs to be squared.

So no real terms government spending cuts can only mean one thing, substantial and significant tax increases across the board. Strangely enough her statement doesn’t seem to include that suggestion.

We have a large annual deficit just now in the uk. It will be funded in the exact same way. By borrowing money. Hopefully over time the deficit will be reduced but that will be up to our elected politicians. You talk as if the UK has been balancing budgets all these years?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Just Alf]

Question.

If Scotland were to become independent do people belive (beyond the 'honeymoon' election) that the SNP are most likely to be in power?

I'm in the pub the now with a quite mixed group and it's currently Labour with SNP/tories and greens a close 2nd. If I was to split the also rans I'm surprised to say the tories are edging it!.... The guys are pi**ed to be fair :-)

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

We have a large annual deficit just now in the uk. It will be funded in the exact same way. By borrowing money. Hopefully over time the deficit will be reduced but that will be up to our elected politicians. You talk as if the UK has been balancing budgets all these years?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the Growth Commision put the deficit at about 6%. The UK is running a deficit of less than 1% now and apart from the 4 or 5 years after the financial crises had nothing like 6% for the decade previously.

Make no mistake a 6% deficit is not a sustainable rate and not one that would support the launch of an Indy currency. Ergo something needs to change to reduce it. As it’s unlikely the economy will make up such a difference in the timescale alluded then that leaves only two main options. Cut spending or raise taxes.

[Ozyhibby]

I think the Growth Commision put the deficit at about 6%. The UK is running a deficit of less than 1% now and apart from the 4 or 5 years after the financial crises had nothing like 6% for the decade previously.

Make no mistake a 6% deficit is not a sustainable rate and not one that would support the launch of an Indy currency. Ergo something needs to change to reduce it. As it’s unlikely the economy will make up such a difference in the timescale alluded then that leaves only two main options. Cut spending or raise taxes.

There are certain things the UK state does that an independent Scottish state may decide not to do. Like taking part in some foreign adventures etc. Some money could certainly be saved there. Large military bases in far flung corners of the earth won’t be needed I would think. That’s just of the top of my head. There are lots of expenses that the UK has to bear that a small country like Ireland doesn’t bother with.
That 6% is based on things we currently do but may not bother with after independence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

On the defecit, in Scotland we are only getting going on the road to raising our own finances through taxation etc, something that we have not had control over until recently.

As the tories are the first to complain about a rise in taxation for the rich and the first to point out the defecit, do we not see the connection? Stop us from making a dent in the defecit and the tories will stop independence.

[RyeSloan]

There are certain things the UK state does that an independent Scottish state may decide not to do. Like taking part in some foreign adventures etc. Some money could certainly be saved there. Large military bases in far flung corners of the earth won’t be needed I would think. That’s just of the top of my head. There are lots of expenses that the UK has to bear that a small country like Ireland doesn’t bother with.
That 6% is based on things we currently do but may not bother with after independence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As far as I am aware the 6% was after factoring in adjustments on defence spending etc.

That precise figure is not really important though but the fact that there is widely accepted belief that the deficit will be substantial is.

Now again that might not have been an immediate issue (although it doesn’t take long to build up a sizeable debt pile with deficits in that range).

But we now know the target is 4 years from Indy to new currency and that there is expected to be a number of sustainable and stable tests to be applied at the end of that period.

And we also now know that there is a promise of no real terms government spending reduction.

So the path looks pretty obvious, large and permanent tax rises. We also know that Scotland does not have enough ‘rich’ just to soak them for the difference so therefore these tax rises will need to be applied quite widely.

This path of course will delight many on here who seem to see higher tax as some sort of desirable outcome and a sign of progress. ;-)

[Ozyhibby]

As far as I am aware the 6% was after factoring in adjustments on defence spending etc.

That precise figure is not really important though but the fact that there is widely accepted belief that the deficit will be substantial is.

Now again that might not have been an immediate issue (although it doesn’t take long to build up a sizeable debt pile with deficits in that range).

But we now know the target is 4 years from Indy to new currency and that there is expected to be a number of sustainable and stable tests to be applied at the end of that period.

And we also now know that there is a promise of no real terms government spending reduction.

So the path looks pretty obvious, large and permanent tax rises. We also know that Scotland does not have enough ‘rich’ just to soak them for the difference so therefore these tax rises will need to be applied quite widely.

This path of course will delight many on here who seem to see higher tax as some sort of desirable outcome and a sign of progress. ;-)

Large and permanent tax rises? What make us different from other nations our size that our tax will need to be so much higher?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

We have a large annual deficit just now in the uk. It will be funded in the exact same way. By borrowing money. Hopefully over time the deficit will be reduced but that will be up to our elected politicians. You talk as if the UK has been balancing budgets all these years?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As a brand new country with no credit record at all I wonder what those borrowing rates will be and how the interest will be paid? By significant cuts or significant tax increases would be an educated guess.

I believe the deficit is c£13BN.

[RyeSloan]

Large and permanent tax rises? What make us different from other nations our size that our tax will need to be so much higher?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What has other countries have to do with anything?

I’m merely trying to get my head around what NS has stated as for her vision of an iScotland and it’s pretty clear to me that means substantially more taxation.

I’ve also said I’m sure some will be fine with that while noting that NS singularly failed to highlight that likelihood in her statement.

[green day]

As far as I am aware the 6% was after factoring in adjustments on defence spending etc.

That precise figure is not really important though but the fact that there is widely accepted belief that the deficit will be substantial is.

Now again that might not have been an immediate issue (although it doesn’t take long to build up a sizeable debt pile with deficits in that range).

But we now know the target is 4 years from Indy to new currency and that there is expected to be a number of sustainable and stable tests to be applied at the end of that period.

And we also now know that there is a promise of no real terms government spending reduction.

So the path looks pretty obvious, large and permanent tax rises. We also know that Scotland does not have enough ‘rich’ just to soak them for the difference so therefore these tax rises will need to be applied quite widely.

This path of course will delight many on here who seem to see higher tax as some sort of desirable outcome and a sign of progress. ;-)

Ahead of getting some (small) control over our taxes, there were widespread disinformation campaigns by mainstream UK parties about the "massive" tax burden that Scottish people would endure.

We are now in the situation where most people in Scotland are not paying more taxes - yes, those on higher rate pay a little more, but many of them are ok with that, as they know it is being targeted and spent wisely (as opposed to just into a whitehall bucket).

I am now self employed, but for years paid higher rate taxes, including the Scottish rate - and the extra tax made next to no difference to me or my lifestyle. A lot of my friends pay this rate, and I have not heard one complain.

Why is this? Partly as I allude to above, accountability of spend, and also partly because people seem to understand that taxing those who earn more is fairer.

I would counter that by saying that (imo) everyone paying a little bit more tax might even be a good thing - some small countries do this well and ensure that the money is spent prudently and for the good of the nation. Not something that can always be said about how London has dealt with the Scottish tax take and subsequent settlement over the years.

[James310]

What has other countries have to do with anything?

I’m merely trying to get my head around what NS has stated as for her vision of an iScotland and it’s pretty clear to me that means substantially more taxation.

I’ve also said I’m sure some will be fine with that while noting that NS singularly failed to highlight that likelihood in her statement.

She would of course never put this in her statement for obvious reasons, depite the calls for more honesty around the case for Independence.

It's yet another 'path', 'road' or 'way' to independence that she seems to trot out to keep the natives silent.

Do the SNP supporters on here still believe her when she says Education is her number one priority? Really? That's what she said she wanted judged on, but seems like Indy is all she really wants.

[grunt]

Do the SNP supporters on here still believe her when she says Education is her number one priority? Really? That's what she said she wanted judged on, but seems like Indy is all she really wants.

I think that the EU referendum was a bit of a game changer with regard to immediate priorities. Out of Europe, no FOM and a declining UK economy means that Independence is now top priority to rescue Scotland from the disaster of Brexit. That's my reading anyway.

[RyeSloan]

Ahead of getting some (small) control over our taxes, there were widespread disinformation campaigns by mainstream UK parties about the "massive" tax burden that Scottish people would endure.

We are now in the situation where most people in Scotland are not paying more taxes - yes, those on higher rate pay a little more, but many of them are ok with that, as they know it is being targeted and spent wisely (as opposed to just into a whitehall bucket).

I am now self employed, but for years paid higher rate taxes, including the Scottish rate - and the extra tax made next to no difference to me or my lifestyle. A lot of my friends pay this rate, and I have not heard one complain.

Why is this? Partly as I allude to above, accountability of spend, and also partly because people seem to understand that taxing those who earn more is fairer.

I would counter that by saying that (imo) everyone paying a little bit more tax might even be a good thing - some small countries do this well and ensure that the money is spent prudently and for the good of the nation. Not something that can always be said about how London has dealt with the Scottish tax take and subsequent settlement over the years.

The difference for someone earning £50k compared to rUK is now about £130 per month.

That’s not pocket money and that’s before we get to closing that deficit.

I suppose I’m not even arguing about the merits or otherwise (although I’m defo in the minority on here with the thought that I’m far from convinced more and more taxation must be a good thing or always classed as ‘fairer’) just that NS’s statement today seems to be laying out only one option and that’s even more taxation and an even bigger disparity to rUK.

[Ozyhibby]

The difference for someone earning £50k compared to rUK is now about £130 per month.

That’s not pocket money and that’s before we get to closing that deficit.

I suppose I’m not even arguing about the merits or otherwise (although I’m defo in the minority on here with the thought that I’m far from convinced more and more taxation must be a good thing or always classed as ‘fairer’) just that NS’s statement today seems to be laying out only one option and that’s even more taxation and an even bigger disparity to rUK.

Yes but Council tax is considerably lower in Scotland thanks to the freeze put in place by the SNP. Someone on that salary is likely to live in a decent house, so saving more. On top of that they have no prescription fees and their kids can go to university for free.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

I think that the EU referendum was a bit of a game changer with regard to immediate priorities. Out of Europe, no FOM and a declining UK economy means that Independence is now top priority to rescue Scotland from the disaster of Brexit. That's my reading anyway.

Well at least you admit it, many on here would not. Although she has said Education was her priority after the EU referendum result. Still think it's pretty damming that putting the basics first like running the country comes before an aspiration.

But as you I think have stated what if there is no Brexit, does she go back to make Education her top priority and drop Indy?

[grunt]

But as you I think have stated what if there is no Brexit, does she go back to make Education her top priority and drop Indy?
Well I can't speak for anyone else, but from a personal perspective, the whole Brexit experience - by which I mean the vote, and the subsequent events and change in the national tone of voice - has shown up two issues which have tempted me towards Indy. First I'm disgusted by the behaviour of many of the English Leavers, to such an extent that I want nothing to do with them. If they really feel that way about immigrants (for example), then I want Indy in order to distance and differentiate my country from them. And secondly, we've seen the attitude of those in power in the Tory Government towards our elected representatives in the Commons. If that's how they treat us now, imagine what it will be like once we're out of the EU. And in answer to your question, those feelings won't go away if by some miracle we don't actually Leave.

So I want Indy. Now. Or as soon as possible please.

[James310]

Well I can't speak for anyone else, but from a personal perspective, the whole Brexit experience - by which I mean the vote, and the subsequent events and change in the national tone of voice - has shown up two issues which have tempted me towards Indy. First I'm disgusted by the behaviour of many of the English Leavers, to such an extent that I want nothing to do with them. If they really feel that way about immigrants (for example), then I want Indy in order to distance and differentiate my country from them. And secondly, we've seen the attitude of those in power in the Tory Government towards our elected representatives in the Commons. If that's how they treat us now, imagine what it will be like once we're out of the EU. And in answer to your question, those feelings won't go away if by some miracle we don't actually Leave.

So I want Indy. Now. Or as soon as possible please.

I agree with you on the right wingers in the Conservatives, guys like Francois have taken the opportunity to show their true colours and I don't agree with what he says, just as I am sure you don't agree with every single thing a SNP MP or MSP says.

As for the way they are treated in parliament then is the Scottish Parliament that much different in the way opposition parties are treated? What was the treatment that so offended you?

[Moulin Yarns]

The difference for someone earning £50k compared to rUK is now about £130 per month.

That’s not pocket money and that’s before we get to closing that deficit.

I suppose I’m not even arguing about the merits or otherwise (although I’m defo in the minority on here with the thought that I’m far from convinced more and more taxation must be a good thing or always classed as ‘fairer’) just that NS’s statement today seems to be laying out only one option and that’s even more taxation and an even bigger disparity to rUK.

£50k? How many people earn that?

I retired a year ago (early 😉) from a well paid position on less than £35k. I had responsibilities that no one else had.

If you can afford more taxes then you have enough.

[jonty]

Yes but Council tax is considerably lower in Scotland thanks to the freeze put in place by the SNP. Someone on that salary is likely to live in a decent house, so saving more. On top of that they have no prescription fees and their kids can go to university for free.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


While there may have been a freeze there were changes in the way E-H ranges were calculated. property band G for example saw an increase of 17.5% in addition to the 3% for year 2017.
Thats an increase from £2500 a year to just under £3000 a one year (in effect returning to the level that would have been if the CT had not been frozen)

A gripe of mine - just becuase you live in a 'nice' house (price set by the builder) doesnt mean that you get better services from the council.

[Fife-Hibee]

Are unionists just going to cling onto the deficit argument again?

A deficit that exists for Scotland as part of the UK and will never be allowed to cease existing as long as we remain part of it?

[Fife-Hibee]

While there may have been a freeze there were changes in the way E-H ranges were calculated. property band G for example saw an increase of 17.5% in addition to the 3% for year 2017.
Thats an increase from £2500 a year to just under £3000 a one year (in effect returning to the level that would have been if the CT had not been frozen)

A gripe of mine - just becuase you live in a 'nice' house (price set by the builder) doesnt mean that you get better services from the council.

Council tax isn't based on how nice your house is. People with more money generally rely less on public services. So the focus of spending is on poorer areas where people are more likely to make use of these services.

The services may not be as available in richer areas, because they don't need to be.

[allmodcons]

I agree with you on the right wingers in the Conservatives, guys like Francois have taken the opportunity to show their true colours and I don't agree with what he says, just as I am sure you don't agree with every single thing a SNP MP or MSP says.

As for the way they are treated in parliament then is the Scottish Parliament that much different in the way opposition parties are treated? What was the treatment that so offended you?

You really don't like the SNP or anything they've done do you and, whilst accepting it's your choice, spend an inordinate amount of time on this thread.

[JeMeSouviens]

I am suggesting Scotland should not go down any route that separates us.

Which is all you need to say. You would rather see Scotland as a destitute region of your lovely UK than a successful country taking its place in the EU family.

[jonty]

Council tax isn't based on how nice your house is. People with more money generally rely less on public services. So the focus of spending is on poorer areas where people are more likely to make use of these services.

The services may not be as available in richer areas, because they don't need to be.

Generally the more money you can borrow (in the form of a mortgage) means you can buy a nicer house. therefore the banding (based on house price) is based on how 'nice' your house it.
3 people living in 4 bed house will use less services than 4 people living in a 4 bed house but if the first house is more expensive then they'll pay more council tax.

Now, I firmly believe you get what you pay for (and if you want something extra, you pay for it) but if you're going to be taxed on having a more expensive house, then lets call it for what it is.
Your being taxed on wages, then being taxed for working hard to get a nice house for you family.
Its not council tax (we all use more or less the same services).

Theres also a wrong assumption in there - just because you live in a nice house/area doesnt mean you can afford such a difference in council tax.
To me, if the services are the same for everyone, then everyone should pay the same (per person, per age group etc).
Those with more money can be taxed at source (salary).
Perhaps theres some sense in a basic income for everyone.

(and no i dont know what the answer is. but hiking the council tax up 20% when everyone claims is frozen, or 3% max, annoys me :greengrin)

[marinello59]

Council tax isn't based on how nice your house is. People with more money generally rely less on public services. So the focus of spending is on poorer areas where people are more likely to make use of these services.

The services may not be as available in richer areas, because they don't need to be.

Which is why the Council Tax freeze was straight out of the Tory play book. It hurt those who needed the services most.

[JeMeSouviens]

Generally the more money you can borrow (in the form of a mortgage) means you can buy a nicer house. therefore the banding (based on house price) is based on how 'nice' your house it.
3 people living in 4 bed house will use less services than 4 people living in a 4 bed house but if the first house is more expensive then they'll pay more council tax.

Now, I firmly believe you get what you pay for (and if you want something extra, you pay for it) but if you're going to be taxed on having a more expensive house, then lets call it for what it is.
Your being taxed on wages, then being taxed for working hard to get a nice house for you family.
Its not council tax (we all use more or less the same services).

Theres also a wrong assumption in there - just because you live in a nice house/area doesnt mean you can afford such a difference in council tax.
To me, if the services are the same for everyone, then everyone should pay the same (per person, per age group etc).
Those with more money can be taxed at source (salary).
Perhaps theres some sense in a basic income for everyone.

(and no i dont know what the answer is. but hiking the council tax up 20% when everyone claims is frozen, or 3% max, annoys me :greengrin)

You realise what you’ve just described is the poll tax, yeah?

[jonty]

You realise what you’ve just described is the poll tax, yeah?

Im too young to remember that in any great detail :wink:

Can we have a living tax and a basic income for everyone, then plough money into a social fund to help those who need it.

yes, i know. this is why i'll never be an economist.

[Moulin Yarns]

Im too young to remember that in any great detail :wink:

Can we have a living tax and a basic income for everyone, then plough money into a social fund to help those who need it.

yes, i know. this is why i'll never be an economist.

You may never be an economist but you can be a Green voter. 😁

[jonty]

You may never be an economist but you can be a Green voter. 😁

as long as its not Tory!
@JeMeSouviens had me worried that i'd have to go to bed thinking i was that way inclined! :greengrin

[James310]

Which is all you need to say. You would rather see Scotland as a destitute region of your lovely UK than a successful country taking its place in the EU family.

It's unfortunate you see your country in that way after 10 years of SNP rule.

[grunt]

It's unfortunate you see your country in that way after 10 years of SNP rule.

Troll.

[James310]

Troll.

😂 If anyone is being trolled it's me. Report me if you have a problem, if the admins think that's what I am doing I am sure I will get a warning or banned.

You do know people have different opinions. You can't shout Troll when someone posts something you don't like.

You never even replied to my questions!

[stoneyburn hibs]

Troll.

Wrong, short memory "mate"

[green day]

The difference for someone earning £50k compared to rUK is now about £130 per month.

That’s not pocket money and that’s before we get to closing that deficit.

I suppose I’m not even arguing about the merits or otherwise (although I’m defo in the minority on here with the thought that I’m far from convinced more and more taxation must be a good thing or always classed as ‘fairer’) just that NS’s statement today seems to be laying out only one option and that’s even more taxation and an even bigger disparity to rUK.

The points about free university funding have already been made.

It should also be pointed out that the percentage of those earning £50k+ is small - between 5 and 7% of the tax paying population.

I'm struggling to see how this is draconian, given the evidence.

[RyeSloan]

The points about free university funding have already been made.

It should also be pointed out that the percentage of those earning £50k+ is small - between 5 and 7% of the tax paying population.

I'm struggling to see how this is draconian, given the evidence.

The numbers obviously move a bit and more will now be in the 41% bracket due to the recent fiscal drag but to some degree that small percentage you have quoted is a huge part of the issue.

(Oh and and I don’t see anywhere that I’ve called it draconian!)

The fact is though that already over 60% of income tax is paid by higher and additional tax payers. So less than 10% of adults are paying over two thirds of the income tax. The top 1% of earners contribute almost 20% of income tax revenues alone.

It’s therefore pretty relevant to the conversation what the differences in taxation is to rUK for this group as the country fundamentally relies on them and the tax they pay.

However any conversation about that quickly veers of into comments like ‘ach well there is not many of them so who cares if they need to pay even more, what about those that don’t earn that’. Which of course completely misses the point of the dangers inherent in relying on such a small group of people.

Scotland heavily relies on these tax payers and with no spending cuts planned then the path to even more taxation is clear.

So unless the plan is to soak that small minority for even more, creating an even larger difference to rUK and build in an even bigger reliance on them (a rather dangerous game I would have suggested) then the only alternative is tax rises for all.

I’m sure there are quite a few who see Indy at any price as a price worth paying but it will be interesting to see how the debate develops off the back of NS’s statement and the formalisation of the GC’s road map and if that debate is an honest one about the true implications of what it means.

Anyhoo I’m sure most of us will have better things to do today so I’m off to my allotment before the game and then will be tucking into a wee chocolate egg or two this evening so Happy Easter to all and c’mon the Hibs [emoji1]

[green day]

The numbers obviously move a bit and more will now be in the 41% bracket due to the recent fiscal drag but to some degree that small percentage you have quoted is a huge part of the issue.

(Oh and and I don’t see anywhere that I’ve called it draconian!)

The fact is though that already over 60% of income tax is paid by higher and additional tax payers. So less than 10% of adults are paying over two thirds of the income tax. The top 1% of earners contribute almost 20% of income tax revenues alone.

It’s therefore pretty relevant to the conversation what the differences in taxation is to rUK for this group as the country fundamentally relies on them and the tax they pay.
[emoji1]

Without being too disrespectful, you need to consider taxation and incomes more broadly than just income tax.

Only about 25% of the governments tax take is income tax

While your stats on tax paid by higher earners is broadly correct, its more accurate to look at the effect of all taxes - direct and indirect.

When you do this, you see that lower earners are currently paying a larger %age of their income due mostly to indirect taxation.

These indirect taxes make up the other 75% of the governments overall tax take - and guess what? The majority of that isnt paid by those who are better off.

Theresa May and her ilk are always keen to tell people that the top 1% pay 28% of the total income tax take - but its nowhere near the burden that headline suggests.

[RyeSloan]

Without being too disrespectful, you need to consider taxation and incomes more broadly than just income tax.

Only about 25% of the governments tax take is income tax

While your stats on tax paid by higher earners is broadly correct, its more accurate to look at the effect of all taxes - direct and indirect.

When you do this, you see that lower earners are currently paying a larger %age of their income due mostly to indirect taxation.

These indirect taxes make up the other 75% of the governments overall tax take - and guess what? The majority of that isnt paid by those who are better off.

Theresa May and her ilk are always keen to tell people that the top 1% pay 28% of the total income tax take - but its nowhere near the burden that headline suggests.

Oh I get that but bang on NI and it’s near 40% of expenditure at UK level.

It is though the key direct tax that is levied and therefore one that most people (those that pay it of course!) are acutely aware of. It’s also the easiest to measure in terms of knowing it will impact receipts and also already a clear favourite in Scotland in terms of making things ‘fairier’ so it’s a critical tax no matter how you look at it.

I take your point on indirect taxes and their regressive nature in that VAT of 20% on most purchases clearly impacts those that have the least the most.

I’ll leave my thoughts on having to pay 20% VAT on purchases from net income to another day though ;-)

But to some degree that’s kind of my point. Without spending cuts then taxes will appear to need to rise across the board and impact all people and just asking the few higher rate income tax payers to pay ‘a wee bit more’ again again (whether you agree with that or not) wont cut it.

[JeMeSouviens]

It's unfortunate you see your country in that way after 10 years of SNP rule.

I don’t. I said that’s what you’d prefer to any iScotland. Even if it was guaranteed to be better than Norway or Switzerland and the UK continued on its current course down the international toilet, you’d choose Britain every time.

[Ozyhibby]

Oh I get that but bang on NI and it’s near 40% of expenditure at UK level.

It is though the key direct tax that is levied and therefore one that most people (those that pay it of course!) are acutely aware of. It’s also the easiest to measure in terms of knowing it will impact receipts and also already a clear favourite in Scotland in terms of making things ‘fairier’ so it’s a critical tax no matter how you look at it.

I take your point on indirect taxes and their regressive nature in that VAT of 20% on most purchases clearly impacts those that have the least the most.

I’ll leave my thoughts on having to pay 20% VAT on purchases from net income to another day though ;-)

But to some degree that’s kind of my point. Without spending cuts then taxes will appear to need to rise across the board and impact all people and just asking the few higher rate income tax payers to pay ‘a wee bit more’ again again (whether you agree with that or not) wont cut it.

It’s not a ‘favourite’, it’s just that it is one of the few we have some control over. Business taxes, VAT etc are still reserved.
I’ve said before that an independent Scotland will be able to cut spending by not doing some of the things the UK does without it impacting on the lives of people here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

Some useful information on the currency debate at the SNP conference. Taken from The National (yes I read it) are any of our posters going to be at the conference?

"Members are being asked to back an experimental currency option which has never been used by any advanced, exporting economy in modern history. It is being asked to agree to be locked into this currency option by adopting six tests it will be extremely painful to meet – if they can be met at all.

It contains a “solidarity payment”, which overstates the debt Scotland should accept and then locks us into paying for the interest of that debt forever, without ever being able to pay the debt off. And it locks Scotland permanently into the UK’s economic model.

The one thing that it does not put on the table is a Scottish currency – only an annual check on the six tests. Most economists believe this package will seriously harm Scotland’s ability to be successful post-independence by adopting new and different policies.

We’ve already seen Unionists starting to pick holes in the case, of which there are many. Can we really afford to wait until after this is policy before it comes under proper scrutiny – by our opponents?

Can Scotland’s future really be shaped fundamentally and for a generation after only a short debate at party conference? When will the motion’s proposers engage with serious questions about what they propose? Is this serious economics or just a loyalty test?

There are so many big questions. It locks in climate change and prevents a Green New Deal. It will certainly mean permanent downwards pressure on public spending and almost certainly austerity. It leaves us largely reliant on Westminster and the London finance markets.

But here are 10 questions which are particularly crucial.

1 THERE are only four countries which use the proposed money system – Panama, Ecuador, Montenegro and Lichtenstein. Why should Scotland become the fifth? No advanced economy (like Scotland’s) has ever used this money system in modern history. Why should Scotland become the first?

2 IF there was any major economic shock while we were sterlingised (such as a financial crisis in London), what would we do? Without control over interest rates, money creation or liquidity and with no scope for fiscal stimulus, would our economy not be utterly devastated?

3 THE six tests include halving the public sector deficit, shaping tax and spend to please international bankers, decoupling from the UK economic cycle and creating foreign currency reserves from thin air. To vote to start a currency in the first parliamentary term of an independent Scotland these tests would need to be met in three years. That’s impossible, isn’t it?

4 IN fact, Keith Brown says a currency could be voted for in a couple of years after a Yes vote while Andrew Wilson says it would take much longer (at least 10 years before even starting). A minimum of 10 years is much more likely, isn’t it?


5 ASSUMING it takes three or four years after a vote to introduce the currency, that means no currency for 15 years. But you can’t join the European Union until you’ve had your own currency for three years. Have we given up on EU membership for two decades or is there a feasible plan for joining if we’re sterlingised?

6 ANDREW Wilson has written that our own currency or a formal currency union are the best options for an independent Scotland. So why is he proposing the worst option? Keith Brown has said an independent Scotland needs to control its own monetary policy. So why does his motion propose the opposite?

7 IS it wise for Scotland to signal in advance (£3 billion) how much it is going to pay as a contribution to UK debt costs? Does this not completely undermine any negotiating position? Why does it propose a system where Scotland will be paying costs for debt “indefinitely” but will never be able to pay off the debt? Why is so much emphasis put on sharing foreign aid budgets and shared services “for an extended period?” Why not set up Scottish systems?


8 THE motion commits Scotland to shrink its public sector as a proportion of the economy to keep overseas moneylenders happy. How do Yes activists sell cuts to public services on the doorstep? Why is a sharp shift to the right an attractive option for centre-left Scotland?


9 WHATEVER else this motion does, one thing it absolutely guarantees is uncertainty – at the time of a second indyref it will be at least five years before we know what currency we’ll use and it is much more likely we won’t know for 10 or more years. Is this much economic uncertainty not just an open goal for our opponents? Is it not bad for our economy?

10 WHAT happens if the SNP isn’t the biggest party in a Scottish Parliament after independence? Having our own currency is so central to being an independent country, why are we giving Unionist politicians a potential veto? If a majority can’t be achieved in parliament, will Scotland be condemned to this unstable currency system forever?

But all of these just show the major weaknesses in the case being put to the SNP membership. There is a bigger and more fundamental question: why don’t we just adopt a Scottish currency as our policy?

How do six tests help? Why does delaying for five (or more likely ten plus) years help? If a currency is our best option (as the report author concedes) and having control of monetary policy is crucial for an independent currency (as the motion’s author concedes), why are we doing the opposite?

This is a question so fundamental that we simply cannot afford to get this wrong.

Can advocates of the Growth Commission give persuasive answers to these questions?

Or is the strategy for SNP members to make this momentous decision in the dark?"

[Moulin Yarns]

Damn,the announcement on Indyref is at the same time as the Leeann interview.

[JeMeSouviens]

Question.

If Scotland were to become independent do people belive (beyond the 'honeymoon' election) that the SNP are most likely to be in power?

I'm in the pub the now with a quite mixed group and it's currently Labour with SNP/tories and greens a close 2nd. If I was to split the also rans I'm surprised to say the tories are edging it!.... The guys are pi**ed to be fair :-)

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Interesting question. I used to think the SNP would break up on indy but now it's had so long as an actual governing party I'm not so sure. I think it might settle down into a broadly centre-left social democratic party and lose some of the people at its left and right edges. Most European countries with PR electoral systems have parties that fit broadly into:

- green
- quite leftish
- centre left (social democrat)
- centre right (often "christian" democrat)
- liberal, in the free market sense but not as socially stuffy as the CDs
- populist/nativist right

I don't think there's any reason to think Scotland would be much different to that. Although it would be great if we were spared the populists I imagine they'll emerge at some point (sigh). In a multi-party PR system the parties can maintain a bit more of a distinct identity and build the coalitions after the electoral fact. There's not the pressure for the binary 2 party left/right distinction.

So you would imagine some of the SNP would leave for a broadly centre-right party based on rebadged Tories (provided the post-Indy Tories ditch the Unionist baggage) and some will leave for the quite leftish Labour or the Greens. But I'd expect the bulk to stay around the centre and form governing coalitions from there.

[JeMeSouviens]

Damn,the announcement on Indyref is at the same time as the Leeann interview.

My guess is there will be nothing much in it anyway*. Brexit is totally unresolved, therefore so is the indy position. I imagine she just wants to get the inevitable can-kick she's being forced to make out of the way before the SNP's conference starts.


* actually probably nothing much in both - NS kicks her can and LD keeps the beans in hers.

[James310]

My guess is there will be nothing much in it anyway*. Brexit is totally unresolved, therefore so is the indy position. I imagine she just wants to get the inevitable can-kick she's being forced to make out of the way before the SNP's conference starts.


* actually probably nothing much in both - NS kicks her can and LD keeps the beans in hers.

I think she will very much kick the can and she has little choice to do anything else, but I think this will not go down well at all. I will be surprised if she is leader of the SNP in 12 months. Joanna Cherry is making her move.

[Ozyhibby]

I think she will very much kick the can and she has little choice to do anything else, but I think this will not go down well at all. I will be surprised if she is leader of the SNP in 12 months. Joanna Cherry is making her move.

[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:rolleyes:

He's here all week, don't forget to tip the waiting staff.

[Moulin Yarns]

I think she will very much kick the can and she has little choice to do anything else, but I think this will not go down well at all. I will be surprised if she is leader of the SNP in 12 months. Joanna Cherry is making her move.

Does your crystal balls give you any insight into who will be leader of the Conservatives? Who will be Prime Minister? When 'meaningful vote #327 will be postponed?

[JeMeSouviens]

NS says indyref2 to be held in this parliament, ie. before 2021 Holyrood election, if Brexit takes place*.



* and Joanna Cherry says it's ok, obv. :wink:

[Moulin Yarns]

NS says indyref2 to be held in this parliament, ie. before 2021 Holyrood election, if Brexit takes place*.



* and Joanna Cherry says it's ok, obv. :wink:
.

Ms Sturgeon says there are are specific steps to be taken now:


act to ensure the option for indyref2 is progressed, with the introduction of legislation
aim for the legislation to be on the statute book by the end of this year

The first minister stresses that the Scottish government does not need a Section 30 order for this bill, but it will be needed for indyref2

[Moulin Yarns]

I think she will very much kick the can and she has little choice to do anything else, but I think this will not go down well at all. I will be surprised if she is leader of the SNP in 12 months. Joanna Cherry is making her move.

Unlike the Maybot, cross partytalksfirst to decide the way forward.


Ms Sturgeon says even for those who oppose independence, there is agreement that more powers should be devolved to increase Scotland's strength within the UK.
There is already "more common ground than we like to admit there is" which we can build from, she says.
The first minister confirms Brexit Secretary Mike Russell will lead cross-party discussions on finding a way forward.
Ms Sturgeon will write to party leaders today and nominated representatives will be put in touch with Mr Russell about these discussions thereafter.

[JeMeSouviens]

Joanna Cherry QC MP
@joannaccherry

Delighted to hear @theSNP leader & @ScotGovFM @NicolaSturgeon announce legislation to facilitate #indyref2 in the lifetime of current @ScotParl & adopt my #CitizensAssembly proposals to build policy consensus #Brexit

Clearly angling to get NS out by fully supporting her. Clever. :wink:

[Ozyhibby]

Clearly angling to get NS out by fully supporting her. Clever. :wink:

Reading that tells me Sturgeon is toast, likely gone by Friday.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

If the vote is to be in the next 18 months then it a much shorter campaign than last time. The Yes movement and Better together 2 better start getting tooled up now.
Staffing Better Together 2 will be a lot harder now than 5 years ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SHODAN]

The statement is pretty much an "Aye we're gonnae dae it, now shut it" directed at people who are getting a little impatient. Fair enough. :wink:

[James310]

All the stuff she has announced today, could this have been done 2 or 3 years ago? As soon as the Brexit vote was known she could have done everything she announced today?

[Peevemor]

All the stuff she has announced today, could this have been done 2 or 3 years ago? As soon as the Brexit vote was known she could have done everything she announced today?

She's always said that Brexit and the terms thereof would probably result in another Indyref. Now she's put a timescale on it and is setting the ball rolling.

[James310]

She's always said that Brexit and the terms thereof would probably result in another Indyref. Now she's put a timescale on it and is setting the ball rolling.

So yes, she could have done everything she announced today as soon as the Brexit result was announced.

[The Modfather]

So yes, she could have done everything she announced today as soon as the Brexit result was announced.

Then I suspect you would just have had a go at her for exploiting Brexit for her own gain rather than working to help us get the best deal (no laughing in the back) before making a call on independence.

[Peevemor]

So yes, she could have done everything she announced today as soon as the Brexit result was announced.

Keep up!

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-36620375

[James310]

Keep up!

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-36620375

Bringing forward legislation? Citizens Assembly? Working with other parties? Must have missed those.

[Peevemor]

Bringing forward legislation? Citizens Assembly? Working with other parties? Must have missed those.

Whatever she does you're going to moan, so what difference does it make?

Cross-party consultation and the Citizens' Assembly seem to me to be positive points, but no doubt you'll find fault anyway.

[Moulin Yarns]

Whatever she does you're going to moan, so what difference does it make?

Cross-party consultation and the Citizens' Assembly seem to me to be positive points, but no doubt you'll find fault anyway.

Well, for a start it isn't how Treesa does it. 😉

[James310]

Whatever she does you're going to moan, so what difference does it make?

Cross-party consultation and the Citizens' Assembly seem to me to be positive points, but no doubt you'll find fault anyway.

So pointing out she never suggested any of those things at all when you implied she had and told me to 'keep up'is finding fault. Why not just say you got it wrong and she never proposed any of those things a few years ago.

[Moulin Yarns]

Bringing forward legislation? Citizens Assembly? Working with other parties? Must have missed those.

Working with other parties? That would never work (at Westminster)

[Peevemor]

So pointing out she never suggested any of those things at all when you implied she had and told me to 'keep up'is finding fault. Why not just say you got it wrong and she never proposed any of those things a few years ago.

She said the day after the Brexit referendum that there would probably be another Indyref.

Now she's put a timescale on it.

The terms under which Britain will leave the EU (if it happens) remain unknown. These terms and their effect will inform peoples' judgement on how to proceed. Cross-party dicussion and a Citizens' Assembly will, serve no purpose until the facts/data are available.

You may be anti-SNP & independance and that's your right, but I don't see what's to criticise about the timing of this announcement.

[James310]

Working with other parties? That would never work (at Westminster)

I would be interested in the terms of reference for these discussions. With the cross party talks in WM then they are debating on the back of a result i.e take the UK out of the EU.

We had a vote as well and said No. OK circumstances have changed but we don't have another vote result to work from, so where is the starting point?

[Moulin Yarns]

I would be interested in the terms of reference for these discussions. With the cross party talks in WM then they are debating on the back of a result i.e take the UK out of the EU.

We had a vote as well and said No. OK circumstances have changed but we don't have another vote result to work from, so where is the starting point?

Except these cross party talks at Westminster is one sided. Brexit, Theresa, agree my deal or there is a chance of Brexit not happening.

Had may had those cross party talks at the beginning to agree a way forward on Brexit I am sure we would now be at the next stage of negotiations with the EU. Instead she tried to get her party to agree, and failed, now she is trying to get Labour to support her deal.

[Moulin Yarns]

I would be interested in the terms of reference for these discussions. With the cross party talks in WM then they are debating on the back of a result i.e take the UK out of the EU.

We had a vote as well and said No. OK circumstances have changed but we don't have another vote result to work from, so where is the starting point?

What are the terms of reference for the Westminster talks between tory and Labour? This is the deal, it's been rejected 3 times so I need your help?

[Moulin Yarns]

I would be interested in the terms of reference for these discussions. With the cross party talks in WM then they are debating on the back of a result i.e take the UK out of the EU.

We had a vote as well and said No. OK circumstances have changed but we don't have another vote result to work from, so where is the starting point?

While we are talking about terms of reference, what were they for the Brexit talks? 37%of the electorate want to leave so we better give them it.

No idea what kind of Brexit but that doesn't matter, Brexit means Brexit.

[JeMeSouviens]

What are the terms of reference for the Westminster talks between tory and Labour? This is the deal, it's been rejected 3 times so I need your help?

Not even that.

It's "I totally ****ed up and I need a charade of pretendy talks with you to get the EU to give me an extension".

Lab and the Tories are now sitting twiddling their thumbs at each other waiting for the other side to be one that collapses the talks.

[James310]

So I ask a question and 4 replies all related to how 'bad' the other cross party talks are rather than how the new ones proposed by Nicola Sturgeon will work.

So it's not just me that can be accused of SNP bad for everything, your all just as guilty but for all the other parties.

I should shout out how it's off topic from the title of the thread! Again something I am accused of but it's ok when others do so.

[JeMeSouviens]

So I ask a question and 4 replies all related to how 'bad' the other cross party talks are rather than how the new ones proposed by Nicola Sturgeon will work.

So it's not just me that can be accused of SNP bad for everything, your all just as guilty but for all the other parties.

You literally brought them up :confused:

FFS

[James310]

You literally brought them up :confused:

FFS

My question was related to the talks proposed today, not how 'bad' the other talks are.

[Moulin Yarns]

My question was related to the talks proposed today, not how 'bad' the other talks are.

Right, putting things in context. Indyref 1 had a white paper. The purpose of the white paper is to put forward proposals.

Brexit referendum had no such plans, Indyref 2 will have proposals from all parties. It might not be a consensus but clearly it will be better than Cameron had before his ill-fated referendum.

I should add, if you have any positive ideas for a future Scotland, then please let your leaders know. 😉

[Radium]

I would be interested in the terms of reference for these discussions. With the cross party talks in WM then they are debating on the back of a result i.e take the UK out of the EU.

We had a vote as well and said No. OK circumstances have changed but we don't have another vote result to work from, so where is the starting point?

Perhaps the result of the last Scottish Parliamentary elections which led to a majority in parliament for parties supporting Independence.

Think these were manifesto commitments and as such bringing them forward now is reasonable.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James310]

Perhaps the result of the last Scottish Parliamentary elections which led to a majority in parliament for parties supporting Independence.

Think these were manifesto commitments and as such bringing them forward now is reasonable.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except the Greens never had any such manifesto pledge for another referendum. (I think) I am not sure what your suggesting, that there should be cross party talks on implementing SNP manifesto pledges?

[James310]

Right, putting things in context. Indyref 1 had a white paper. The purpose of the white paper is to put forward proposals.

Brexit referendum had no such plans, Indyref 2 will have proposals from all parties. It might not be a consensus but clearly it will be better than Cameron had before his ill-fated referendum.

I should add, if you have any positive ideas for a future Scotland, then please let your leaders know. 😉

So your asking non Independence supporting parties to contribute to a proposal for what an independent Scotland would look like before we even know if a vote will happen and what that vote result will be?

So you have the leaders of the Scottish Labour and Scottish Conservatives in the room on day 1 for these talks, what questions do you ask them?

[Moulin Yarns]

Except the Greens never had any such manifesto pledge for another referendum. (I think) I am not sure what your suggesting, that there should be cross party talks on implementing SNP manifesto pledges?

You can't suggest that inviting all parties to the table isn't a good idea. Unlike the cluster**** of the Brexit negotiations.

[Moulin Yarns]

Except the Greens never had any such manifesto pledge for another referendum. (I think) I am not sure what your suggesting, that there should be cross party talks on implementing SNP manifesto pledges?


Know thy enemy


https://greens.scot/scotland-can/be-a-bolder-democracy

[James310]

You can't suggest that inviting all parties to the table isn't a good idea. Unlike the cluster**** of the Brexit negotiations.

So Ms Davidson, as leader of the Scottish Conservatives and Unionist Party what is your preferred currency in an Independent Scotland? That type of thing?

[James310]

Know thy enemy


https://greens.scot/scotland-can/be-a-bolder-democracy

I can see they say what they would do if there is another referendum, but don't see the bit where they make it a pledge to hold one?

[Moulin Yarns]

I can see they say what they would do if there is another referendum, but don't see the bit where they make it a pledge to hold one?

In that case you obviously know very little about the policies of parties in Scotland, you are so beholden to the Westminster rule.

To make it easier for you it says that in a second referendum the Scottish Green Party will campaign for independence.

Is that clear enough?

[James310]

In that case you obviously know very little about the policies of parties in Scotland, you are so beholden to the Westminster rule.

So you will point it out to me?

[Moulin Yarns]

So you will point it out to me?

See my edits above 😁

[Radium]

Except the Greens never had any such manifesto pledge for another referendum. (I think) I am not sure what your suggesting, that there should be cross party talks on implementing SNP manifesto pledges?

Governments will by the fact that they exist at Holyrood or Westminster will have an electoral mandate so starting with their position is not unreasonable.

The proof in any process undertaken by a minority government is where they find agreement - it is really easy to disagree - and how that moves policy. In the proposed cross-party talks, would broad support for fiscal autonomy/ Devo Max be a failure. It wouldn’t meet the independence threshold but would arguably strengthen the parliament.

Re greens, this is from the Holyrood manifesto on their site

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190424/9185db5d991b8fdeb923d7dcabfbbbbc.jpg




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

Governments will by the fact that they exist at Holyrood or Westminster will have an electoral mandate so starting with their position is not unreasonable.

The proof in any process undertaken by a minority government is where they find agreement - it is really easy to disagree - and how that moves policy. In the proposed cross-party talks, would broad support for fiscal autonomy/ Devo Max be a failure. It wouldn’t meet the independence threshold but would arguably strengthen the parliament.

Re greens, this is from the Holyrood manifesto on their site

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190424/9185db5d991b8fdeb923d7dcabfbbbbc.jpg




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

👍

[James310]

Sigh... The 2016 SNP manifesto was clear, they will hold another referendum and list the reasons on what basis this will be.

"The SNP stresses that independence will only be achieved when the majority of people in Scotland want it to happen.

It says the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is "clear and sustained evidence" that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people - or if there is a "significant and material" change in circumstances, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against its will"


The Greens is just a statement about what they would do if there was one, not a pledge to hold one under certain circumstances. If so what were those circumstances, similar to the SNP ones above? Or was it more Patrick Harvie was just happy to follow the leader again and was just "what she says".

[JeMeSouviens]

Sigh... The 2016 SNP manifesto was clear, they will hold another referendum and list the reasons on what basis this will be.

"The SNP stresses that independence will only be achieved when the majority of people in Scotland want it to happen.

It says the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is "clear and sustained evidence" that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people - or if there is a "significant and material" change in circumstances, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against its will"


The Greens is just a statement about what they would do if there was one, not a pledge to hold one under certain circumstances. If so what were those circumstances, similar to the SNP ones above? Or was it more Patrick Harvie was just happy to follow the leader again and was just "what she says".

The Scottish government is not a coalition. The SNP are a minority government. They brought their manifesto policy before the parliament and the parliament approved it.

So **** knows what you're on about.

[Moulin Yarns]

The Scottish government is not a coalition. The SNP are a minority government. They brought their manifesto policy before the parliament and the parliament approved it.

So **** knows what you're on about.

In that case I will have to ask ****.

[James310]

The Scottish government is not a coalition. The SNP are a minority government. They brought their manifesto policy before the parliament and the parliament approved it.

So **** knows what you're on about.

A simple yes or no if the Greens had a manifesto pledge to hold another Scottish Independence referendum and if yes under what circumstances?

[James310]

On topic!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-48043792

A former SNP MP has pled guilty to embezzling more than £25,600 from pro-independence organisations - including money intended for a foodbank.

Natalie McGarry, 37, admitted two charges of embezzlement when she appeared at Glasgow Sheriff Court.

She had not guilty pleas accepted to another embezzlement charge, and a charge that she refused to give police the passcode for a mobile phone.

The case has been adjourned until 1 May.

The Crown has indicated it will attempt to recover the embezzled money through the Proceeds of Crime Act.

McGarry was one of 56 SNP MPs elected to the Commons in the 2015 general election, but withdrew from the party whip when the allegations were first made against her.

She continued as an independent MP, but did not stand in the general election in 2017.

Natalie McGarry
Image caption McGarry was elected as the SNP MP for Glasgow East in 2015, but did not stand two years later
She embezzled the largest amount from the Women for Independence group in her role as treasurer of the organisation, appropriating £21,000 for her own use.

McGarry transferred money raised through fundraising events into her personal bank accounts and failed to transfer charitable donations to Perth and Kinross food bank and to Positive Prison, Positive Future between 26 April 2013 and 30 November 2015.

She also used cheques drawn on the Women for Independence bank account to deposit money into her own account.

McGarry also pled guilty to embezzling £4,661.02 in the course of her role as treasurer, secretary and convener of the Glasgow Regional Association of the SNP between 9 April 2014 and 10 August 2015.

She was charged by police in 2017 over alleged fraud relating to potential missing funds from Women for Independence, which was set up in the run-up to the 2014 Scottish referendum, and Glasgow Regional Association.

She had denied all of the charges against her until pleading guilty to two of them on Wednesday afternoon. She represented herself when she appeared in court, after previously sacking her legal team.

[Moulin Yarns]

A simple yes or no if the Greens had a manifesto pledge to hold another Scottish Independence referendum and if yes under what circumstances?

Read the previous replies and stop being a twat.

[Mibbes Aye]

Read the previous replies and stop being a twat.

Theres been a real step change in your posting in recent months, towards Tornadoes and to James 310 where you are just being abusive.

Sort yourself out.

[Mibbes Aye]

A simple yes or no if the Greens had a manifesto pledge to hold another Scottish Independence referendum and if yes under what circumstances?

There is an unanswered question for the Greens in that they were backing the SNP position in the previous referendum, even though that was built around an argument that oil money would bring us into the broad, sunlit uplands of wealth and honey.

I’ve never quite understood how a Green could vote for an economy based on a non-sustainable, planet-destroying fossil fuel, especially when the UN have said we should stop in the next couple of decades and especially when the figures on oil prices were shown to simply not add up.

[James310]

Read the previous replies and stop being a twat.

😂 So that's a refusal to answer the question then.

[JeMeSouviens]

A simple yes or no if the Greens had a manifesto pledge to hold another Scottish Independence referendum and if yes under what circumstances?

It doesn't matter. They're not the government or part of the government.

[stoneyburn hibs]

Leafleting where I live now will be a whole new level compared to 2014.

Broxburn, does anyone have a spare suit of armour ? 😁😁

[Moulin Yarns]

Theres been a real step change in your posting in recent months, towards Tornadoes and to James 310 where you are just being abusive.

Sort yourself out.

Both ignore the answers when given, which is twattish.

[Mibbes Aye]

Both ignore the answers when given, which is twattish.

No, you go beyond that and I think you know so. I’ve not seen them or others descending to just being abusive in the way you have.

Own it and do something about it, this forum should be better than that.

[Radium]

Sigh... The 2016 SNP manifesto was clear, they will hold another referendum and list the reasons on what basis this will be.

"The SNP stresses that independence will only be achieved when the majority of people in Scotland want it to happen.

It says the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is "clear and sustained evidence" that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people - or if there is a "significant and material" change in circumstances, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against its will"


The Greens is just a statement about what they would do if there was one, not a pledge to hold one under certain circumstances. If so what were those circumstances, similar to the SNP ones above? Or was it more Patrick Harvie was just happy to follow the leader again and was just "what she says".

... with the nuance of our points I would conclude that the greens support independence (having stated they would support it) but did not campaign for another referendum in this parliament.

Suspicion is that will not be a faith breaker with their supporters if they do support any new referendum


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Smartie]

There is an unanswered question for the Greens in that they were backing the SNP position in the previous referendum, even though that was built around an argument that oil money would bring us into the broad, sunlit uplands of wealth and honey.

I’ve never quite understood how a Green could vote for an economy based on a non-sustainable, planet-destroying fossil fuel, especially when the UN have said we should stop in the next couple of decades and especially when the figures on oil prices were shown to simply not add up.

I didn't like the SNP's oil-based vision but I agree with the idea of independence so still voted yes.

In a binary yes/no vote, there might not have been much for those of a green disposition to vote for and "yes" may well have been the lesser of two evils.

As I get older I don't seem to get more right wing (as many do) but I get more and more interested in green politics. For it to gain real traction, I think it needs to be a bit more pragmatic and realistic rather than idealistic.

I don't think Scotland should look upon oil as a burden - exactly the opposite. We have a commodity that is of value to us. In my opinion we need to accept that we need to burn it for a while, or sell it to those who might burn it. If we do that for a while we can plunge the profits into that into proper research and development of renewables, in proper research and development into better nuclear energy and the idea should be that we get to a point that we can afford to leave the oil in the ground.

What is in it for the greens to favour remaining in the UK, moving away from Europe (and the progression that continent is making in green terms) and closer to America, their consumerism and unquenchable desire to burn fuels for fun?

As I see it they chose the lesser of two evils when it came to Scottish independence and would probably do so again.

[Mibbes Aye]

I didn't like the SNP's oil-based vision but I agree with the idea of independence so still voted yes.

In a binary yes/no vote, there might not have been much for those of a green disposition to vote for and "yes" may well have been the lesser of two evils.

As I get older I don't seem to get more right wing (as many do) but I get more and more interested in green politics. For it to gain real traction, I think it needs to be a bit more pragmatic and realistic rather than idealistic.

I don't think Scotland should look upon oil as a burden - exactly the opposite. We have a commodity that is of value to us. In my opinion we need to accept that we need to burn it for a while, or sell it to those who might burn it. If we do that for a while we can plunge the profits into that into proper research and development of renewables, in proper research and development into better nuclear energy and the idea should be that we get to a point that we can afford to leave it in the ground.

What is in it for the greens to favour remaining in the UK, moving away from Europe (and the progression that continent is making in green terms) and closer to America, their consumerism and unquenchable desire to burn fuels for fun?

As I see it they chose the lesser of two evils when it came to Scottish independence and would probably do so again.

See where you are coming from but at the time of the referendum, it wasn't being portrayed as moving away from Europe, it was being portrayed as breaking from the UK with a pretty quick entrance into the EU.

There is something immoral and unethical for Greens to back a case built upon oil wealth. The ends don't justify the means, sorry.

When the UN Secretary-General says that the world is facing a direct existential threat and must rapidly shift from dependence on fossil fuels by 2020 to prevent runaway climate change, then it puts it into perspective.

Throwing away your core values in order to get a different-coloured twirly flag on civic buildings. Throwing away your core values even though it accelerates climate change and wrecks the planet - and incidentally, hits the weakest and most deprived parts of the globe first and hardest.

The Greens, and essentially Patrick Harvie, committed outrageous and flagrant hypocrisy during the first referendum. They have never taken ownership of it and lack any credibility as a consequence.

[Ozyhibby]

See where you are coming from but at the time of the referendum, it wasn't being portrayed as moving away from Europe, it was being portrayed as breaking from the UK with a pretty quick entrance into the EU.

There is something immoral and unethical for Greens to back a case built upon oil wealth. The ends don't justify the means, sorry.

When the UN Secretary-General says that the world is facing a direct existential threat and must rapidly shift from dependence on fossil fuels by 2020 to prevent runaway climate change, then it puts it into perspective.

Throwing away your core values in order to get a different-coloured twirly flag on civic buildings. Throwing away your core values even though it accelerates climate change and wrecks the planet - and incidentally, hits the weakest and most deprived parts of the globe first and hardest.

The Greens, and essentially Patrick Harvie, committed outrageous and flagrant hypocrisy during the first referendum. They have never taken ownership of it and lack any credibility as a consequence.

The greens probably took the pragmatic view that they could have way more influence and therefore implement green policies on an independent Scottish govt than a Westminster govt.
This is shown by the fact they manage to get green policies through every year tacked onto the budget in return for supporting it. They get zero attention paid to them at Westminster.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

The greens probably took the pragmatic view that they could have way more influence and therefore implement green policies on an independent Scottish govt than a Westminster govt.
This is shown by the fact they manage to get green policies through every year tacked onto the budget in return for supporting it. They get zero attention paid to them at Westminster.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can see that and agree. It's also been Green strategy in various European assemblies and parliaments for years, and been effective.

I do think it is ironic that a movement who are all about principle seemed to ditch their values and ditch them in the worst way - endorsing an economic plan based on maximising a proft (that proved false) from fossil fuels. What were they thinking?

[Ozyhibby]

I can see that and agree. It's also been Green strategy in various European assemblies and parliaments for years, and been effective.

I do think it is ironic that a movement who are all about principle seemed to ditch their values and ditch them in the worst way - endorsing an economic plan based on maximising a proft (that proved false) from fossil fuels. What were they thinking?

An economic plan only lasts until the next election. After that everything can change.
Independence would still be right for Scotland even if we were returning right wing govt’s.
It’s the ability to take our own decisions that matters to me. We can then make our own mistakes and enjoy our own successes.
The wind is changing regarding fossil fuels and that will happen no matter what happens with independence. Public opinion and technology is moving against carbon based fuel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bristolhibby]

A simple yes or no if the Greens had a manifesto pledge to hold another Scottish Independence referendum and if yes under what circumstances?

Manifesto or not, they will and do support one in Parliament.

J

[Bristolhibby]

There is an unanswered question for the Greens in that they were backing the SNP position in the previous referendum, even though that was built around an argument that oil money would bring us into the broad, sunlit uplands of wealth and honey.

I’ve never quite understood how a Green could vote for an economy based on a non-sustainable, planet-destroying fossil fuel, especially when the UN have said we should stop in the next couple of decades and especially when the figures on oil prices were shown to simply not add up.

Renewables as part of the energy blend mate, and the chance to have real power in a PR based Independent Parliament.

J

[Mibbes Aye]

An economic plan only lasts until the next election. After that everything can change.
Independence would still be right for Scotland even if we were returning right wing govt’s.
It’s the ability to take our own decisions that matters to me. We can then make our own mistakes and enjoy our own successes.
The wind is changing regarding fossil fuels and that will happen no matter what happens with independence. Public opinion and technology is moving against carbon based fuel.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thats not the case. At the time of the referendum, we were being told that oil wealth would make all the difference, it wasn’t a short term plan, it was a proposition for decades.

And subsequently it was shown to be a crock.

Another thing, I have had this debate with others and never got a satisfactory answer. You talk about ‘we’ and ‘our’. You have no right to use those words in relation to me or many other people in Scotland. What makes you think you do?

Re your last paragraph, while I agree with you, I think it is behind the times. The recent UK protests and the UN statements highlight that we are reaching a tipping point, long overdue, in public awareness and recognition.

[Mibbes Aye]

Renewables as part of the energy blend mate, and the chance to have real power in a PR based Independent Parliament.

J

Hypocrisy and selling out your ethos. Mate.

But maybe it’s okay to just pretend to be Green if you get a ten percent influence on SG policy.

[Bristolhibby]

Hypocrisy and selling out your ethos. Mate.

But maybe it’s okay to just pretend to be Green if you get a ten percent influence on SG policy.

That’s Politics I guess.

Not sure I follow, to get power and influence, compromises must be made. They will still get to have that influence, they might have more than a 10% influence in Policy in a coalition with SNP and/or Indy Labour. They could even be King Makers (see DUP now).

J

[Smartie]

Hypocrisy and selling out your ethos. Mate.

But maybe it’s okay to just pretend to be Green if you get a ten percent influence on SG policy.

Maybe it's ok to accept that a 10% influence on the inside of policy is better than being a principled outsider, pontificating from the wings whilst influencing nothing?

[Mibbes Aye]

That’s Politics I guess.

Not sure I follow, to get power and influence, compromises must be made. They will still get to have that influence, they might have more than a 10% influence in Policy in a coalition with SNP and/or Indy Labour. They could even be King Makers (see DUP now).

J

I see where you are coming from, fair enough.

The DUP get a bit of extra money for pet projects and a guarantee that certain social policies will remain devolved (which means nothing happening).

What differentiates the DUP from the Greens is that the DUP are using their status to secure things they want and stood for. Their ethos is distasteful to me but they are being ruthlessly honest. The Scottish Greens sign up to a fossil fuel plan despite it being at odds with their entire philosophy.

[Mibbes Aye]

Maybe it's ok to accept that a 10% influence on the inside of policy is better than being a principled outsider, pontificating from the wings whilst influencing nothing?

Except i don’t think they have that ten percent, do they?

I would like to see evidence if they had and what they were doing with it.

[JeMeSouviens]

Vote for the union so the Tories will ensure an end to oil extraction?

It’s a novel pitch to say the least.

[Ozyhibby]

Vote for the union so the Tories will ensure an end to oil extraction?

It’s a novel pitch to say the least.

Exactly. Independence or not has no affect on the amount of oil that is extracted. The only thing changing that is the demand for oil.
The SNP govt is doing better than the Westminster one when it come to moving away from fossil fuels.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Smartie]

Except i don’t think they have that ten percent, do they?

I would like to see evidence if they had and what they were doing with it.

It was a number you brought up.

I'm not sure exactly what influence they do have, but if forever more we had to give concessions to the Green Party in order to get backing for budgets etc, I think that is generally a good thing for everyone on the planet.

A bit like having the DUP as kingmakers only as a force for good and not evil.

[Ozyhibby]

Thats not the case. At the time of the referendum, we were being told that oil wealth would make all the difference, it wasn’t a short term plan, it was a proposition for decades.

And subsequently it was shown to be a crock.

Another thing, I have had this debate with others and never got a satisfactory answer. You talk about ‘we’ and ‘our’. You have no right to use those words in relation to me or many other people in Scotland. What makes you think you do?

Re your last paragraph, while I agree with you, I think it is behind the times. The recent UK protests and the UN statements highlight that we are reaching a tipping point, long overdue, in public awareness and recognition.

We, as in people who live in Scotland no matter their views. That includes tories, Lib Dems, black people, Asian people, English people, even Hearts fans. Everyone who lives here. Even if a decision is made I vote against its still our decision. Like the no vote in 2014. It’s ours. When I talk about it I say ‘We voted NO’ even though I personally voted yes. It’s ours, whether I’m born here or just moved here the week before.
As far as oil being a long term plan, don’t listen to those people. They can’t make it a long term plan because no govt can bind it’s successor. A long term plan is 4 or 5 years because that is the election cycle. If the greens won an election you can bet that particular long term plan would be toast.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

M
It was a number you brought up.

I'm not sure exactly what influence they do have, but if forever more we had to give concessions to the Green Party in order to get backing for budgets etc, I think that is generally a good thing for everyone on the planet.

A bit like having the DUP as kingmakers only as a force for good and not evil.

“If” is the most relevant word in your post.

When they did have influence, at the time of the referendum, they sold their jerseys and backed independence based on a financial plan that assumed speculative oil wealth.

It was utter hypocrisy and shown to be crazily irrational as oil prices never matched the arguments made by the Nats. That is before we get to why a Green Party was backing an oil-based economy in principle!

[Mibbes Aye]

We, as in people who live in Scotland no matter their views. That includes tories, Lib Dems, black people, Asian people, English people, even Hearts fans. Everyone who lives here. Even if a decision is made I vote against its still our decision. Like the no vote in 2014. It’s ours. When I talk about it I say ‘We voted NO’ even though I personally voted yes. It’s ours, whether I’m born here or just moved here the week before.
As far as oil being a long term plan, don’t listen to those people. They can’t make it a long term plan because no govt can bind it’s successor. A long term plan is 4 or 5 years because that is the election cycle. If the greens won an election you can bet that particular long term plan would be toast.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You talked about “making our own decisions”. I, along with a majority of people in the Scottish electorate, made our own decision not to separate. Maybe time that those who lost got over it and started dealing with it.

[James310]

Nicola Sturgeon calls for respectful debate while asking Mike Russell who called Tory MPs 'traitors' to lead those talks.

[Ozyhibby]

You talked about “making our own decisions”. I, along with a majority of people in the Scottish electorate, made our own decision not to separate. Maybe time that those who lost got over it and started dealing with it.

We also voted to stay in the EU but it looks like we can’t have both. Guess we have to decide which we want most.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Smartie]

M

“If” is the most relevant word in your post.

When they did have influence, at the time of the referendum, they sold their jerseys and backed independence based on a financial plan that assumed speculative oil wealth.

It was utter hypocrisy and shown to be crazily irrational as oil prices never matched the arguments made by the Nats. That is before we get to why a Green Party was backing an oil-based economy in principle!

I must have missed the part where the "better together" movement made a positive case for the environment. Presumably it can't have been very loud, as the Green Party missed it too. It was probably lost amongst all that "cannae use the pound" stuff.

Whenever I vote for anything it is on a basis of "best fit". I will never 100% endorse everything a party stands for, of course there will be things I disagree with.

The Green Party had 2 options and went for the one they thought suited their needs best. That wasn't a case of snubbing the good guys and opting for the option that sells out all they stand for.

You posts in the past suggest to me that you ARE intelligent enough to understand this, and that you're fishing for the inevitable responses you know you will get.

[Mibbes Aye]

We also voted to stay in the EU but it looks like we can’t have both. Guess we have to decide which we want most.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Again with the 'We'.

More than a million Scots voted to leave the EU. Sixteen and a half million English voters wanted to remain.

You can't claim the words 'we' or 'our'.

They're not yours to use.

[G B Young]

On topic!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-48043792

A former SNP MP has pled guilty to embezzling more than £25,600 from pro-independence organisations - including money intended for a foodbank.

Natalie McGarry, 37, admitted two charges of embezzlement when she appeared at Glasgow Sheriff Court.

She had not guilty pleas accepted to another embezzlement charge, and a charge that she refused to give police the passcode for a mobile phone.

The case has been adjourned until 1 May.

The Crown has indicated it will attempt to recover the embezzled money through the Proceeds of Crime Act.

McGarry was one of 56 SNP MPs elected to the Commons in the 2015 general election, but withdrew from the party whip when the allegations were first made against her.

She continued as an independent MP, but did not stand in the general election in 2017.

Natalie McGarry
Image caption McGarry was elected as the SNP MP for Glasgow East in 2015, but did not stand two years later
She embezzled the largest amount from the Women for Independence group in her role as treasurer of the organisation, appropriating £21,000 for her own use.

McGarry transferred money raised through fundraising events into her personal bank accounts and failed to transfer charitable donations to Perth and Kinross food bank and to Positive Prison, Positive Future between 26 April 2013 and 30 November 2015.

She also used cheques drawn on the Women for Independence bank account to deposit money into her own account.

McGarry also pled guilty to embezzling £4,661.02 in the course of her role as treasurer, secretary and convener of the Glasgow Regional Association of the SNP between 9 April 2014 and 10 August 2015.

She was charged by police in 2017 over alleged fraud relating to potential missing funds from Women for Independence, which was set up in the run-up to the 2014 Scottish referendum, and Glasgow Regional Association.

She had denied all of the charges against her until pleading guilty to two of them on Wednesday afternoon. She represented herself when she appeared in court, after previously sacking her legal team.

Quite a blunder appointing her as treasurer to the Women for Independence group.

What's especially pitiful about this case is that she denied all charges right up until today.

On the subject of ex-SNP MPs in court, there are clearly all sorts of hurdles to be overcome before Sturgeon gets anywhere near her hoped-for second referendum (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-48039049) but another issue lurking in wait is the Salmond case. If that comes to court during the next year it's going to generate all sorts of unwanted headlines, particularly if he were to be found guilty of the charges he's facing.

[Ozyhibby]

Again with the 'We'.

More than a million Scots voted to leave the EU. Sixteen and a half million English voters wanted to remain.

You can't claim the words 'we' or 'our'.

They're not yours to use.

Who’s are they to use or should they never be used?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

I must have missed the part where the "better together" movement made a positive case for the environment. Presumably it can't have been very loud, as the Green Party missed it too. It was probably lost amongst all that "cannae use the pound" stuff.

Whenever I vote for anything it is on a basis of "best fit". I will never 100% endorse everything a party stands for, of course there will be things I disagree with.

The Green Party had 2 options and went for the one they thought suited their needs best. That wasn't a case of snubbing the good guys and opting for the option that sells out all they stand for.

You posts in the past suggest to me that you ARE intelligent enough to understand this, and that you're fishing for the inevitable responses you know you will get.

Shame about your last sentence.

I still don't get any rationale for why a Green Party would back a financial plan based on oil wealth.

To suggest it is pragmatism surely undermines the whole point of the Greens, which is they stand on principles.

Anyway, I'm probably closer to your stance than you might think. I struggle with all of the official policy of any of the parties I've ever voted for and am willing to be realistic and pragmatic when necessary.

[Mibbes Aye]

Who’s are they to use or should they never be used?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not entirely sure what you mean but to be on the safe side, I would avoid using 'we' or 'our' to reference something that isn't 'we' or 'our'.

[Ozyhibby]

Not entirely sure what you mean but to be on the safe side, I would avoid using 'we' or 'our' to reference something that isn't 'we' or 'our'.

I’ll keep using whenever I think it’s appropriate. You’ve clearly got a better understanding of the language than me but I’m fairly sure people will know what I mean.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[G B Young]

Again with the 'We'.

More than a million Scots voted to leave the EU. Sixteen and a half million English voters wanted to remain.

You can't claim the words 'we' or 'our'.

They're not yours to use.

Not far off 40% of those who voted in fact. A far from insignificant minority, yet going by Sturgeon, Russell and Blackford's relentless rhetoric you'd think the entire Scottish nation voted to remain.

Their clamour for the majority Scottish voice to be heard is ironic, given how little credence they give to the clear majority who voted no to independence.

[Mibbes Aye]

I’ll keep using whenever I think it’s appropriate. You’ve clearly got a better understanding of the language than me but I’m fairly sure people will know what I mean.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't want to fall out with you C, but I get riled when I hear 'we' or 'our' and I know it isn't representative of a lot of people, me included.

[James310]

Quite a blunder appointing her as treasurer to the Women for Independence group.

What's especially pitiful about this case is that she denied all charges right up until today.

On the subject of ex-SNP MPs in court, there are clearly all sorts of hurdles to be overcome before Sturgeon gets anywhere near her hoped-for second referendum (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-48039049) but another issue lurking in wait is the Salmond case. If that comes to court during the next year it's going to generate all sorts of unwanted headlines, particularly if he were to be found guilty of the charges he's facing.

The criminal court case is one thing, I think the enquiry into the handling of the whole sorry affair will throw up some surprises as well. Deleted meetings with no explanation , emails going missing etc.

[James310]

Not far off 40% of those who voted in fact. A far from insignificant minority, yet going by Sturgeon, Russell and Blackford's relentless rhetoric you'd think the entire Scottish nation voted to remain.

Their clamour for the majority Scottish voice to be heard is ironic, given how little credence they give to the clear majority who voted no to independence.

2014 Scottish Referendum result ignored by SNP
2016 EU Referendum result ignored by SNP
2017 Catalonia hold an illegal referendum and the SNP say that the result must be respected.

[Tornadoes70]

Theres been a real step change in your posting in recent months, towards Tornadoes and to James 310 where you are just being abusive.

Sort yourself out.

Och he's harmless enough Mibbes. There's a whole of a lot worse said across the spectrum and hibs.net must be one of the best places that avoids the worst of it probably due to the mods being so reasonable and they normally have a lot of good enlightening input.

But its always good to keep on top of the debate getting a wee bitty out of hand right enough my man :aok:

I've been getting more drunk recently which I hope to get on top of soon as per my bestest buddy being diagnosed with a serious cancer.

Kind of puts things in perspective and sobering albeit incongrous with my getting tipsy.

God bless each and every one of us no matter the political colours as we all bleed Hibernian FC.

Mon the Cabbage!!!

:flag:

[Mibbes Aye]

Och he's harmless enough Mibbes. There's a whole of a lot worse said across the spectrum and hibs.net must be one of the best places that avoids the worst of it probably due to the mods being so reasonable and they normally have a lot of good enlightening input.

But its always good to keep on top of the debate getting a wee bitty out of hand right enough my man :aok:

I've been getting more drunk recently which I hope to get on top of soon as per my bestest buddy being diagnosed with a serious cancer.

Kind of puts things in perspective and sobering albeit incongrous with my getting tipsy.

God bless each and every one of us no matter the political colours as we all bleed Hibernian FC.

Mon the Cabbage!!!

:flag:

A very honest post.

We aren’t on the same page in terms of our political viewpoints by a fair distance. Nevertheless we both seem to be resistant to the nationalist arguments albeit from maybe slightly different stances :dunno::greengrin

I am sorry to hear about your friend. I can understand it is a difficult time for you and I hope you get through it as best you can.

Loss and grief is hard to bear and there is no right or wrong as to how we deal with it. All the best.

[Tornadoes70]

A very honest post.

We aren’t on the same page in terms of our political viewpoints by a fair distance. Nevertheless we both seem to be resistant to the nationalist arguments albeit from maybe slightly different stances :dunno::greengrin

I am sorry to hear about your friend. I can understand it is a difficult time for you and I hope you get through it as best you can.

Loss and grief is hard to bear and there is no right or wrong as to how we deal with it. All the best.

100% appreciated feller.

The mind goes into different stratosphere's when coping with learning one's best friend, lover, wife etc has a life changing condition. I'm no different from anyone else.

I'll leave it there as this isn't thread for this.

God bless mate and every other Hibernian Supporter or anyone else for that matter who's trying to cope with loss, illness or other such conditions.

Mon the Cabbage!!!

:flag:

[Mibbes Aye]

100% appreciated feller.

The mind goes into different stratosphere's when coping with learning one's best friend, lover, wife etc has a life changing condition. I'm no different from anyone else.

I'll leave it there as this isn't thread for this.

God bless mate and every other Hibernian Supporter or anyone else for that matter who's trying to cope with loss, illness or other such conditions.

Mon the Cabbage!!!

:flag:

It is entirely up to you but you can start a fresh thread and put how you are feeling out there.

I think that whatever you are going through will strike a chord with many of us, you won’t be alone, although your individual circumstances are always going to be unique and personal to you.

You may well have other avenues for this, but having read and admired the ‘depression and anxiety’ thread I would suggest that if you feel okay with it, there is no harm starting a thread talking about what’s going on and how it feels. Might be good for you but will probably be good for a whole bunch rest of us, as it starts a conversation.

[Tornadoes70]

It is entirely up to you but you can start a fresh thread and put how you are feeling out there.

I think that whatever you are going through will strike a chord with many of us, you won’t be alone, although your individual circumstances are always going to be unique and personal to you.

You may well have other avenues for this, but having read and admired the ‘depression and anxiety’ thread I would suggest that if you feel okay with it, there is no harm starting a thread talking about what’s going on and how it feels. Might be good for you but will probably be good for a whole bunch rest of us, as it starts a conversation.

Amazing post mate.

I might just do that soon as to the pertinence of potentially aiding others into speaking out as to the loneliness and heartache one feels when their nearest and bestest might be soon or has been taken from them.

When one thinks about the needless deaths from ridiculous monetary greed or revenge types it makes the blood boil when good folk are taken by sooner then expected conditions.

Mon the Cabbage!!!

:flag:

[Mibbes Aye]

Amazing post mate.

I might just do that soon as to the pertinence of potentially aiding others into speaking out as to the loneliness and heartache one feels when their nearest and bestest might be soon or has been taken from them.

When one thinks about the needless deaths from ridiculous monetary greed or revenge types it makes the blood boil when good folk are taken by sooner then expected conditions.

Mon the Cabbage!!!

:flag:

Your call and do what feels right for you, when it feels right for you.

But, if and when, you want to post about the emotional stuff, I guarantee there will be a positive response. All the politics stuff goes aside. We are all human, and we all have to try and deal with loss and pain. Maybe a different thread but it will be one that folk respond to.

It sounds like things are quite acute for you and that must be hard. Don’t be shy to share it, you won’t be on your own.

[Bristolhibby]

Again with the 'We'.

More than a million Scots voted to leave the EU. Sixteen and a half million English voters wanted to remain.

You can't claim the words 'we' or 'our'.

They're not yours to use.

Yes they are, he just did.

J

[G B Young]

The criminal court case is one thing, I think the enquiry into the handling of the whole sorry affair will throw up some surprises as well. Deleted meetings with no explanation , emails going missing etc.

Yes, you're probably right:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-47812531

"Scottish government computer systems automatically delete material not saved onto the corporate record system after a period of time".

[jonty]

Yes, you're probably right:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-47812531

"Scottish government computer systems automatically delete material not saved onto the corporate record system after a period of time".







which isn't an uncommon practice when following data governance.

[grunt]

which isn't an uncommon practice when following data governance.
:agree:

[cabbageandribs1875]

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/poll-when-would-you-like-indyref2-to-be-held-1-4914459?ff&fbclid=IwAR1IyeOmemO1tJnv1Z6WU82hLSbGx_tMTseiiVRdu xCcfiE3EKS8TFSa2o4


get your votes in



When would you like a Scottish second independence referendum to be held?

[JeMeSouviens]

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/poll-when-would-you-like-indyref2-to-be-held-1-4914459?ff&fbclid=IwAR1IyeOmemO1tJnv1Z6WU82hLSbGx_tMTseiiVRdu xCcfiE3EKS8TFSa2o4


get your votes in



When would you like a Scottish second independence referendum to be held?

Self selecting polls are a pointless waste of time. :wink:

[Fife-Hibee]

Got to laugh at all the gammons coming out in the media saying that they won't "allow" an independence referendum in Scotland. How exactly do they intend on preventing a country from exercising it's democratic right?

[Smartie]

Got to laugh at all the gammons coming out in the media saying that they won't "allow" an independence referendum in Scotland. How exactly do they intend on preventing a country from exercising it's democratic right?

The result of our referendum the last time means they are under no obligation whatsoever to comply with our requests.

We made our bed.

[Bristolhibby]

The result of our referendum the last time means they are under no obligation whatsoever to comply with our requests.

We made our bed.

Except the best way to guarantee independence is for The Tories in Westminster (England) to say we can’t.

J

[JeMeSouviens]

The result of our referendum the last time means they are under no obligation whatsoever to comply with our requests.

We made our bed.

Actually that's not true. It's future votes that count, not past ones. The mandate for an indyref in the event of Brexit is pretty cast iron. But we have to get there first. Personally I'd rather reverse Brexit and get a new mandate in 2021.

[JeMeSouviens]

Except the best way to guarantee independence is for The Tories in Westminster (England) to say we can’t.

J

Hmmm, not sure about that. It all depends on the reaction of the electorate. An even more hacked off 45% is still only 45%. There is a big chunk of resolute anti-indy voters who will love this.

[Moulin Yarns]

Hmmm, not sure about that. It all depends on the reaction of the electorate. An even more hacked off 45% is still only 45%. There is a big chunk of resolute anti-indy voters who will love this.

Can you think of anyone in particular 😉

[Bristolhibby]

Hmmm, not sure about that. It all depends on the reaction of the electorate. An even more hacked off 45% is still only 45%. There is a big chunk of resolute anti-indy voters who will love this.

Thing is, those resolute anti Indy voters aren’t the ones to convince, they are a total waste of time.

It’s the soft no’s, the Pro EU no’s, the don’t knows and the didn’t vote who we need to convince.

J

[James310]

Actually that's not true.

I could make a comment about this being an example of more lies?

I will let it lie though.

[Smartie]

Actually that's not true. It's future votes that count, not past ones. The mandate for an indyref in the event of Brexit is pretty cast iron. But we have to get there first. Personally I'd rather reverse Brexit and get a new mandate in 2021.

I disagree (without wanting to get into the whole "lies" nonsense).

Everyone eligible to vote in Scotland could vote SNP, we could have all of our MPs, MSPs and councillors SNP and have them elected with any sort of mandate.

We need permission from elsewhere to hold a referendum to enact independence.

That's the way it works.

(In fairness, if it ended up how I describe, I don't doubt that permission would granted. Just that we would still need to be granted permission.)

[grunt]

We need permission from elsewhere to hold a referendum to enact independence.Do you not think that this very fact is a strong incentive to vote for independence?

[cabbageandribs1875]

21946


it's so confusing :rolleyes:

[Fife-Hibee]

The result of our referendum the last time means they are under no obligation whatsoever to comply with our requests.

We made our bed.

I didn't say they were obligated to comply. But all they're doing is digging a deeper hole for themselves. How can the sell a positive case for British Unionism, when they have to try and force their members to stay?

[G B Young]

I didn't say they were obligated to comply. But all they're doing is digging a deeper hole for themselves. How can the sell a positive case for British Unionism, when they have to try and force their members to stay?

How are they being forced to stay? The result of the Scottish independence referendum was clear. The majority voted to remain part of the union of their own free will and assumed the issue had been put to bed.

If anything, it feels as though the SNP are trying their best to force that majority to leave against their will with their endless sabre rattling.

[hibsbollah]

How are they being forced to stay? The result of the Scottish independence referendum was clear. The majority voted to remain part of the union of their own free will and assumed the issue had been put to bed.

If anything, it feels as though the SNP are trying their best to force that majority to leave against their will with their endless sabre rattling.

That's an idiotic use of the 'sabre rattling' idiom. It's not wartime.
One thing you can be sure of with the current Scottish Govt is there is no military dimension to it's politics. It's just quite predictable democratic maneouvring, and with the continuing brexitmitosis i'm surprised she hasn't said it sooner. If you're a unionist who loves democracy (as opposed to a Democratic Unionist, of course), you'll welcome the opportunity to exercise your mandate and win again, no?

[Smartie]

Do you not think that this very fact is a strong incentive to vote for independence?

Yes.

I do.

[Fife-Hibee]

How are they being forced to stay? The result of the Scottish independence referendum was clear. The majority voted to remain part of the union of their own free will and assumed the issue had been put to bed.

If anything, it feels as though the SNP are trying their best to force that majority to leave against their will with their endless sabre rattling.

You can't "force" a majority to support anything against their will. You can however keep giving them the option, as long as you're voted into office with a promise to do so.

The SNP are sticking to the manifesto pledge that they were democratically voted into office to do. The UK Conservative party didn't have any commitment in their manifesto to oppose any future referendums and even if they did, it would be irrelevant, considering they have zero mandate in Scotland to do so.

So my advice to people like yourself is to either put up or shut up. The SNP are doing exactly what they were voted in to do.

[James310]

You can't "force" a majority to support anything against their will. You can however keep giving them the option, as long as you're voted into office with a promise to do so.

The SNP are sticking to the manifesto pledge that they were democratically voted into office to do. The UK Conservative party didn't have any commitment in their manifesto to oppose any future referendums and even if they did, it would be irrelevant, considering they have zero mandate in Scotland to do so.

So my advice to people like yourself is to either put up or shut up. The SNP are doing exactly what they were voted in to do.

You need to get on the campaign trail and knocking on people's doors. They will love you.

[Fife-Hibee]

You need to get on the campaign trail and knocking on people's doors. They will love you.

Don't need to. I strongly believe it's the no side that's going to need to do that this time. Which is going to be a real problem for them, seeing as they don't have one single coherent argument to make on the matter.

[G B Young]

Don't need to. I strongly believe it's the no side that's going to need to do that this time. Which is going to be a real problem for them, seeing as they don't have one single coherent argument to make on the matter.

Sounds more like the yes camp who would have their work cut out if the latest poll is anything to go by. Seems only one in five voters in Scotland back a second referendum:

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17598776.scottish-independence-poll-one-in-five-scots-back-nicola-sturgeons-indyref2-plan/

[James310]

Sounds more like the yes camp who would have their work cut out if the latest poll is anything to go by. Seems only one in five voters in Scotland back a second referendum:

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17598776.scottish-independence-poll-one-in-five-scots-back-nicola-sturgeons-indyref2-plan/

I genuinely think people just want a break from more division and the resulting arguments they cause. They want our governments to focus on the things that matter like Education (number 1 priority remember), Health and Transport. I think this poll backs that up, the polls don't LIE. It's telling that after all that has gone on the last few years support for Indy has not risen at all, Nicola Sturgeon used to say support needed to be consistently at 60% before she would call for another referendum, it's never even been close to that.

Nicola Sturgeon tweeted that the Tories were obsessed with Independence, but we can see it's very much the other way.

[danhibees1875]

I genuinely think people just want a break from more division and the resulting arguments they cause. They want our governments to focus on the things that matter like Education (number 1 priority remember), Health and Transport. I think this poll backs that up, the polls don't LIE. It's telling that after all that has gone on the last few years support for Indy has not risen at all, Nicola Sturgeon used to say support needed to be consistently at 60% before she would call for another referendum, it's never even been close to that.

Nicola Sturgeon tweeted that the Tories were obsessed with Independence, but we can see it's very much the other way.

The first part of your post sums it up well for me to be honest. The uncertainty, the division, and likelihood of a close result that gets us nowhere all happening again - not particularly keen on that.

We're seeing first hand what happens when there is a call for change from a slender majority, it's not easy or pretty.

Shelve referendums, focus on policy at both a UK and Scottish level, get the country going forward again. There's no way that almost 10 years of referendum planning, executing, and fallout hasn't had a detrimental impact on day to day management. It's time to move past that.

By all means get more powers devolved, and start using them in as effective a way as possible. Show a good cross-party approach to issues and find solutions that work for the majority. That's how you get people on board with further powers, and full independence. Then in a reasonable amount of time (a generation for instance) if there is a hearty majority then crack on with it.