SNP Growth Commission Report

[Glory Lurker]

I basically googled "has Scotland swung an election" and this was the first hit

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11552991/The-general-elections-where-Scotland-decided-who-ran-the-UK.html

I seem to remember during the days of the independence referendum that it was stated more than once that Scotland, for being only 1 in 10, has had more than its "fair" share of influence at WM,,,, I could argue all day what is fare and what is our share, but hey ho,,,,

Could you copy and paste the article, please? Also could you remind us of the statements about us punching above our weight?

[speedy_gonzales]

Could you copy and paste the article, please?

On my mobile, so the link there is as good as it'll get



Also could you remind us of the statements about us punching above our weight?

Erm, are you confusing me with someone else? I don't believe I've ever claimed we've punched above our weight?

[Glory Lurker]

On my mobile, so the link there is as good as it'll get


Erm, are you confusing me with someone else? I don't believe I've ever claimed we've punched above our weight?

No, I was picking up on your second paragraph? Am I getting you the wrong way round?

[speedy_gonzales]

No, I was picking up on your second paragraph? Am I getting you the wrong way round?
I'm not sure which way you are getting me, someone suggested the Scottish electorate carries no weight amongst politics UK, I posted a link with information suggesting otherwise and it has been said that in recent times (well, the last 60 years) Scotland has had more than "fair" representation.
Some may beg to differ but if the facts are correct then who am I/we to argue?

[Glory Lurker]

I'm not sure which way you are getting me, someone suggested the Scottish electorate carries no weight amongst politics UK, I posted a link with information suggesting otherwise and it has been said that in recent times (well, the last 60 years) Scotland has had more than "fair" representation.
Some may beg to differ but if the facts are correct then who am I/we to argue?

Cheers. I'll not click through to a telegraph link, so I guess I will never know! :-)

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Cheers. I'll not click through to a telegraph link, so I guess I will never know! :-)

"The results show that in three -- and possibly four -- of the 18 elections, the way Scots voted and the MPs they returned actually decided who won and who governed the whole of the UK."

The elections it discusses are 1951, 1964, 1974, 2010.

Of course it's worth noting that the current bloc of snp mps could have secured a govt also and bought Scotland considerably influence at the moment, a la the DUP - that we didn't was a political choice, but one that in itself demonstrates impact as it substantially weakens the govt, strengthen Labour and puts the snp in a position to obtain concessions.

[Hibrandenburg]

I voted against Brexit but it was a UK referendum and leave voters won.

In terms of the policy of Brexit negotiations, there will be people in Scotland who think May is making a shambles of it, me included, but that stands true for people all around the UK. And there were over a million Scots who voted to leave.

So no influence over the result?

[johnbc70]

So Scotland has no influence in politics or at institution's like the BoE? Quickly proved wrong with some facts.

Some will ignore the facts as it distorts their hard done by and persecution agenda.

I see that Kate Forbes MSP who was a commission member has been caught out for making stuff up on question time.

[Mr Grieves]

"The results show that in three -- and possibly four -- of the 18 elections, the way Scots voted and the MPs they returned actually decided who won and who governed the whole of the UK."

The elections it discusses are 1951, 1964, 1974, 2010.

Of course it's worth noting that the current bloc of snp mps could have secured a govt also and bought Scotland considerably influence at the moment, a la the DUP - that we didn't was a political choice, but one that in itself demonstrates impact as it substantially weakens the govt, strengthen Labour and puts the snp in a position to obtain concessions.

In an independent Scotland the electorate would decide on who governed Scotland 100% of the time.

And the telegraph are pushing it with the 2010 result!

[Mr Grieves]

So Scotland has no influence in politics or at institution's like the BoE? Quickly proved wrong with some facts.

Some will ignore the facts as it distorts their hard done by and persecution agenda.

I see that Kate Forbes MSP who was a commission member has been caught out for making stuff up on question time.

I think you're confusing fact and opinion.

Anyway, have you actually read the report, John? You appear to have a lot to say but it's mainly been childish comments about the SNP.

[ronaldo7]

So Scotland has no influence in politics or at institution's like the BoE? Quickly proved wrong with some facts.

Some will ignore the facts as it distorts their hard done by and persecution agenda.

I see that Kate Forbes MSP who was a commission member has been caught out for making stuff up on question time.


What's the stuff that kate forbes has been making up?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

So no influence over the result?

So you only have influence over a vote if you are on the winning side?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

In an independent Scotland the electorate would decide on who governed Scotland 100% of the time.

And the telegraph are pushing it with the 2010 result!

Only those who voted for the winning party, by that rationale.

How much influence would an independent Scotland's three MEP's have in the European Parliament?

[ronaldo7]

Only those who voted for the winning party, by that rationale.

How much influence would an independent Scotland's three MEP's have in the European Parliament?

Would we only have 3 Mep's in an independent Scotland?

We currently have six.

Ireland currently have 11.

[johnbc70]

What's the stuff that kate forbes has been making up?

http://chokkablog.blogspot.com/2018/06/kate-forbes-snp-msp-question-time-claim.html?m=1

Quite technical but he makes his point. If you disagree with him then I would welcome your review of his findings.

[ronaldo7]

http://chokkablog.blogspot.com/2018/06/kate-forbes-snp-msp-question-time-claim.html?m=1

Quite technical but he makes his point. If you disagree with him then I would welcome your review of his findings.

On my phone so can't open the link, do you have the jist of the story? And who wrote it?

[PeeJay]

I voted against Brexit but it was a UK referendum and leave voters won.



Seems a fair point to me - London voted against Brexit too - does that mean London has no influence on running the UK? If so, who is running it?? :greengrin

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

http://chokkablog.blogspot.com/2018/06/kate-forbes-snp-msp-question-time-claim.html?m=1

Quite technical but he makes his point. If you disagree with him then I would welcome your review of his findings.

I'm no economist, but that seems quite interesting. I would be interested know Kate Forbes or Andrew Wilson's rebuttal of that blog.

It also illustrates the overarching problem with this whole debate - that any and all forecasts are difficult.

Ultimately, the truth of the matter is that an Indy Scotland could be one of the richest and most prosperous countries in the world. It could equally sink into becoming some moribund backwater with years of a sluggish economy and no investment - and all points in between.

The Indy debate is about the principle of where the decisions that would lead to either of those outcomes, or the multitude of other possible outcomes, would be taken and by whom.

All things being equal, I think Scots making those decisions for themselves (as much as that is ever possible within the auspices of EU, WTO are etc) here in edinburgh would be the best thing.

But given our starting point, the question is is the tumult of disentangling two completely integrated economies, and the certain economic shocks that would bring, following on the back of a decade of lost growth due to financial crash, worth it?

That's why I'm quite content to continue with devolution, and to let Indy happen, if it is to happen, in as organic as a manner as possible, so that it happens almost by osmosis.

The growth case report lays bare that the economic shock, our level of debt and our deficit from the outset, would make the economic start of Indy Scotland st the moment very difficult, and anyone who thinks we would sail off into some utopia of high public spending would be in for quite a sobering time.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Would we only have 3 Mep's in an independent Scotland?

We currently have six.

Ireland currently have 11.

Fair enough, but the question remains- how much influence would six or eleven MEP's have in Strasbourg and Brussels?

[JeMeSouviens]

Fair enough, but the question remains- how much influence would six or eleven MEP's have in Strasbourg and Brussels?

Not much at all.

Membership of the commission and especially the council of ministers otoh would have considerable influence.

[JeMeSouviens]

I'm no economist, but that seems quite interesting. I would be interested know Kate Forbes or Andrew Wilson's rebuttal of that blog.

It also illustrates the overarching problem with this whole debate - that any and all forecasts are difficult.

Ultimately, the truth of the matter is that an Indy Scotland could be one of the richest and most prosperous countries in the world. It could equally sink into becoming some moribund backwater with years of a sluggish economy and no investment - and all points in between.

The Indy debate is about the principle of where the decisions that would lead to either of those outcomes, or the multitude of other possible outcomes, would be taken and by whom.

All things being equal, I think Scots making those decisions for themselves (as much as that is ever possible within the auspices of EU, WTO are etc) here in edinburgh would be the best thing.

But given our starting point, the question is is the tumult of disentangling two completely integrated economies, and the certain economic shocks that would bring, following on the back of a decade of lost growth due to financial crash, worth it?

That's why I'm quite content to continue with devolution, and to let Indy happen, if it is to happen, in as organic as a manner as possible, so that it happens almost by osmosis.

The growth case report lays bare that the economic shock, our level of debt and our deficit from the outset, would make the economic start of Indy Scotland st the moment very difficult, and anyone who thinks we would sail off into some utopia of high public spending would be in for quite a sobering time.

Agreed except I think being stuck with Brexit could be like having Terry But her as manager.

[JeMeSouviens]

http://chokkablog.blogspot.com/2018/06/kate-forbes-snp-msp-question-time-claim.html?m=1

Quite technical but he makes his point. If you disagree with him then I would welcome your review of his findings.

If you’re going to throw a tantrum every time ronaldo links to wings then please don’t start introducing links to Kevin bloody Hague!

[Moulin Yarns]

Only those who voted for the winning party, by that rationale.

How much influence would an independent Scotland's three MEP's have in the European Parliament?


Would we only have 3 Mep's in an independent Scotland?

We currently have six.

Ireland currently have 11.

Don't have time to go back looking for it, but I seem to remember that IScotland would have between 9 and 11 MEPs, in the event of a Yes vote in 2014. Now the rUK are leaving the EU I think there would be a larger share of MEPs available in the event of Scotland becoming independent and rejoining the EU.

[johnbc70]

If you’re going to throw a tantrum every time ronaldo links to wings then please don’t start introducing links to Kevin bloody Hague!

There has been no links to Wings for a long time now, so no tantrums!

[johnbc70]

On my phone so can't open the link, do you have the jist of the story? And who wrote it?

On phone as well, I am sure you can review at a later time.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Agreed except I think being stuck with Brexit could be like having Terry But her as manager.

Agreed about brexit, and that could be a game changer depending on how it pans out.

[JeMeSouviens]

It's interesting.

I read Linda Colley's book years ago about how a 'British identity' was formed - it very much rested on three pillars. First was the existential threat from war with Spain and more importantly France, second was through religion, specifically the consequences of the Reformation, and third was through trade and Empire, incorporating the Industrial Revolution.

Those drivers don't seem to exist nowadays, which perhaps explains why nationalists struggle for a convincing argument - and by convincing, I don't mean 'genuine', I mean something that can capture the mood of a large majority.

As to whether 'Scotland' or the UK can be 'modern'? I seem to recall that some of the earliest legislation introduced by the Scottish Parliament was to stop bans on public breastfeeding and some real game-changing land reform. That did seem modern and progressive. Likewise one of their first acts was to repeal Clause 28, despite the determined efforts of Brian Souter, the notorious SNP bankroller :greengrin

By the same token, UK government has shown a capacity to be progressive and 'modern'. There are countless examples of positive, forward-looking pieces of legislation going back decades.

And at the same time, EU membership has meant the adoption of many progressive laws and directives

I'm not sure the comparison with the US and Australia is valid - Scotland isn't a colony. Yugoslavia might have been a more appropriate analogy though obviously without the sectarian and ethnic warfare.

I want meritocracy, egalitarianism, open to immigrants, enthusiastic for our place in Europe. I’m not saying there aren’t UK pols committed to all these things but they are up against it. There is an entrenched privileged elite that is well dug in there and obsessed by its fading post-imperial glory.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Not much at all.

Membership of the commission and especially the council of ministers otoh would have considerable influence.

Hmm, the Council yeah, although in reality the small countries influence is limited by real politic, but I take your point.

The Commission? I'm not sure, I don't see how having an unelected single Scot in an appointed position on the Commission gives Scotland more influence (or has any more legitimacy) than having an elected Scot, elected by the Scottish people as PM, or Home Sec, or Defence Sec or whatever of the UK, along with 10% of the parliament.

And it's not as if Scots Don't, or haven't achieved positions of great influence from within the union - George Robertson ran NATO, the most powerful military bloc in the world in the recent past. We have Scots in leading positions in the UK media, business, and almost always in govt. And Scottish banks and bankers were hugely influential in the UK economy until the crash.

Hell, lest we get too sanctimonious about brexit, we even have Scots playing a leading role in that particular escapade.

[JeMeSouviens]

Hmm, the Council yeah, although in reality the small countries influence is limited by real politic, but I take your point.

The Commission? I'm not sure, I don't see how having an unelected single Scot in an appointed position on the Commission gives Scotland more influence (or has any more legitimacy) than having an elected Scot, elected by the Scottish people as PM, or Home Sec, or Defence Sec or whatever of the UK, along with 10% of the parliament.

And it's not as if Scots Don't, or haven't achieved positions of great influence from within the union - George Robertson ran NATO, the most powerful military bloc in the world in the recent past. We have Scots in leading positions in the UK media, business, and almost always in govt. And Scottish banks and bankers were hugely influential in the UK economy until the crash.

Hell, lest we get too sanctimonious about brexit, we even have Scots playing a leading role in that particular escapade.

Yeah, fair enough, I didn’t think the commissioner thing through.

[JeMeSouviens]

I want meritocracy, egalitarianism, open to immigrants, enthusiastic for our place in Europe. I’m not saying there aren’t UK pols committed to all these things but they are up against it. There is an entrenched privileged elite that is well dug in there and obsessed by its fading post-imperial glory.

And also Britain is just too big and way over centralised on London. A federal setup has potential but there is no way to get there. Indy within the EU seems by far the best setup actually on offer to me.

[PeeJay]

And also Britain is just too big and way over centralised on London. A federal setup has potential but there is no way to get there. Indy within the EU seems by far the best setup actually on offer to me.

Interesting - seems to me however, that the Scottish devolved Parliament could have been an ideal way to put forward that very case, but the Scottish electorate handed it over to the "nationalists/separatists" who have no interest in using it to better Scotland's position "within the UK", but rather to use it solely as a wedge to lever Scotland out of the UK. If it had been put to its intended use, and if it was successful other regions of the UK that are comparably sized to Scotland, could have used it as an example and demanded something similar, thereby helping to draw power away from the centralised base of London?

Why look to the EU, the UK could have had something federalist in manner ... the possibility was there?

[Hibrandenburg]

So you only have influence over a vote if you are on the winning side?

No, you only have influence over a vote if you can win it. In The UK, any vote where Scottish interests are pitted against English interests, Scotland will always lose.

[Glory Lurker]

Interesting - seems to me however, that the Scottish devolved Parliament could have been an ideal way to put forward that very case, but the Scottish electorate handed it over to the "nationalists/separatists" who have no interest in using it to better Scotland's position "within the UK", but rather to use it solely as a wedge to lever Scotland out of the UK. If it had been put to its intended use, and if it was successful other regions of the UK that are comparably sized to Scotland, could have used it as an example and demanded something similar, thereby helping to draw power away from the centralised base of London?

Why look to the EU, the UK could have had something federalist in manner ... the possibility was there?

“..handed it over..” - you mean elected the SNP as the largest party in three consecutive elections. They have unarguably bettered Scotland’s position “within the UK” over the last 11 years and made Holyrood something Westminster has to be wary of (although that is all). Not quite nemo me impune lacesit, but Scotland has increased its influence under the SNP’s watch.

What is devolution’s intended use that it has failed to perform?

Federalism will never, ever happen. I’m not sure how the operation of a devolved parliament is relevant at all to the arguments in favour of it. It’s a different system. There is no interest in it outside Scotland. And then perhaps the nub of the matter - “...other regions of the UK that are comparable to Scotland...”. You mean Northern Ireland and Britain (i.e. England and Wales as one entity)? I know you don’t, and I think that’s why we will probably never agree. Scotland is supposedly an equal partner in the Union. That’s equal with the other nations, not with West Midlands, East Anglia or whatever. Your approach doesn’t consider Scotland a nation, which does not reflect legal and political reality. You are obviously entitled to that view, but it is actually a novel one that needs change to the structure and culture of the UK and in particular reduction of Scotland’s current status.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

No, you only have influence over a vote if you can win it. In The UK, any vote where Scottish interests are pitted against English interests, Scotland will always lose.

I dont agree. The DUP and the Lib Dems couldn't win the GE yet have been involved in two of our last three UK govt (which the SN P could have been part of in theory) and the Lib and greens have exerted influence at Holyrood

Also what is a 'Scottish' interest? Scotland doesn't vote as a single, unitary bloc.

Lastly, if what you say is true, it would suggest that the EU is very unrepresentative, and that 'Scottish interests' would be diluted by huge amount, wouldn't it?

[Mibbes Aye]

No, you only have influence over a vote if you can win it. In The UK, any vote where Scottish interests are pitted against English interests, Scotland will always lose.

That doesn't happen though. There is no such thing as a homogeneous Scottish interest.

Pretending there is is simply trying to stoke the fires of fake difference, grievance and resentment.

[Slavers]

No, you only have influence over a vote if you can win it. In The UK, any vote where Scottish interests are pitted against English interests, Scotland will always lose.

Scotland voted to remain part of the UK. That is a very good example of Scottish interests having influence within UK politics.

[johnbc70]

Scotland voted to remain part of the UK. That is a very good example of Scottish interests having influence within UK politics.

Very true, we had the power to break up the UK. That's quite an influencial position to be in?

[snooky]

Very true, we had the power to break up the UK. That's quite an influencial position to be in?

In the same way the wee boy in the class has the power to give the neighbourhood bully a beating.

[Mibbes Aye]

In the same way the wee boy in the class has the power to give the neighbourhood bully a beating.

Yeah, that works if you live in a world where you think I'm Scottish and I'm the wee boy in the class and there's a big boy in the class and he's English and he's a bully. It's a bit of a painful stretch, isn't it?

Most of us folk don't think that way, I suspect.......thankfully.

[Mibbes Aye]

There's been many and various threads on nationalism and 'independence' as long as I've been posting on here.

In all that time I've yet to see an answer to a simple question.

What is the rational and intellectual case for nationalism and/or independence?

It's not a big ask, just explain why?

[johnbc70]

In the same way the wee boy in the class has the power to give the neighbourhood bully a beating.

Why for some is there always an oppressive tone to nationalist narrative? If you don't like the English just be honest and say so.

[JeMeSouviens]

Scotland voted to remain part of the UK. That is a very good example of Scottish interests having influence within UK politics.

Yeah, that is true. The Catalunya/Spain situation makes you realise how lucky we are in that regard.

[johnbc70]

I think you're confusing fact and opinion.

Anyway, have you actually read the report, John? You appear to have a lot to say but it's mainly been childish comments about the SNP.

So when the BoE spokesperson says they look across the whole UK, and its a quote, are you saying that's not a fact, did I read it wrong?

So if someone dares question the report it's childish?

Do you have an example of a childish comment I made on this thread? Apologies if I have.

[Mon Dieu4]

There's been many and various threads on nationalism and 'independence' as long as I've been posting on here.

In all that time I've yet to see an answer to a simple question.

What is the rational and intellectual case for nationalism and/or independence?

It's not a big ask, just explain why?

My rational case for Independence is that any decision made should be made as close to source as possible from people who really have a stake in the game and who can be held accountable for their actions and performance

[RyeSloan]

My rational case for Independence is that any decision made should be made as close to source as possible from people who really have a stake in the game and who can be held accountable for their actions and performance

I think most folk would recognise that as some sort of driver but the problem is that rationale can be extended all the way up and down though and somewhat stands at odds with independence in the EU as well as the obvious fact that if that held true why are we still talking about Indy after those at the very source of the decision (the Scottish electorate) voted against it?

There is also the fact that supranational bodies like the WTO, IMF, UN, OECD, Euro court of justice etc etc will all still exist and influence our country. So if that really is your rationale why does it not extend to these bodies as well when our influence and ability to direct their work pales into insignificance compared to the representation of Scots at a U.K. level?

The GC report also suggests, as per earlier discussion, using a currency where we would have zero influence and therefore zero accountability for the decisions made around the monetary policy of that currency...how does that fit into that rationale?

Then there is the fact that there is a huge swathes of devolved powers already in Scotland at a local and national level where local sections and accountability don’t appear to have driven much improvement in areas like education where Scotland has been steadily sliding down the international league tables.

[Mr Grieves]

So when the BoE spokesperson says they look across the whole UK, and its a quote, are you saying that's not a fact, did I read it wrong?

So if someone dares question the report it's childish?

Do you have an example of a childish comment I made on this thread? Apologies if I have.

Have you read the report that you're so vigorously questioning?

[Mr Grieves]

I think most folk would recognise that as some sort of driver but the problem is that rationale can be extended all the way up and down though and somewhat stands at odds with independence in the EU as well as the obvious fact that if that held true why are we still talking about Indy after those at the very source of the decision (the Scottish electorate) voted against it?

There is also the fact that supranational bodies like the WTO, IMF, UN, OECD, Euro court of justice etc etc will all still exist and influence our country. So if that really is your rationale why does it not extend to these bodies as well when our influence and ability to direct their work pales into insignificance compared to the representation of Scots at a U.K. level?

The GC report also suggests, as per earlier discussion, using a currency where we would have zero influence and therefore zero accountability for the decisions made around the monetary policy of that currency...how does that fit into that rationale?

Then there is the fact that there is a huge swathes of devolved powers already in Scotland at a local and national level where local sections and accountability don’t appear to have driven much improvement in areas like education where Scotland has been steadily sliding down the international league tables.

I think you're comparing apples and oranges. All those organisations that you've mentioned hold influence over independent countries around the world but it isn't really comparable to the power that's held at Westminster in relation to Scotland, is it?

[RyeSloan]

I think you're comparing apples and oranges. All those organisations that you've mentioned hold influence over independent countries around the world but it isn't really comparable to the power that's held at Westminster in relation to Scotland, is it?

Fair enough but they in their totality (and even more so if you include the EU) have considerable influence. Which no matter which way you look at it flies in the face of the general ‘local decisions for local people’ rationale stated above?

To some degree It smacks of the ‘take back control’ message of Brexit which seems to be squared by sweeping generalisations like we will use the control to be ‘fair’ and ‘egalitarian’ when of course any Brexit supporter is simply in it for themselves and their dreams of a new empire...both however are proponents of a very similar narrative in places.

Anyhoo unbelievably I have other things to do today so will bow out of this for now. It is interesting though that despite years of campaigning and lots and lots of chat on here it’s still not clear to me (and I’m sure others) just what the key drivers and desired outcomes of Indy are and why it only focusses on Westminster.

[Mibbes Aye]

My rational case for Independence is that any decision made should be made as close to source as possible from people who really have a stake in the game and who can be held accountable for their actions and performance

That reads like a case for localism rather than independence. There has been some discussion about federalism. For somewhere like Edinburgh, surely devolved powers to the Lothians would better match your argument?

[Mon Dieu4]

That reads like a case for localism rather than independence. There has been some discussion about federalism. For somewhere like Edinburgh, surely devolved powers to the Lothians would better match your argument?

I would like it filtered down to a local level yes, but you have to start somewhere and I think an independent Scotland would be a good place to start, I'm not opposed to federalism and think if the opposition were smart enough they would have put it forward as an option but they will regret not doing so when independence happens, it's only a matter of time in my opinion

[CropleyWasGod]

That reads like a case for localism rather than independence. There has been some discussion about federalism. For somewhere like Edinburgh, surely devolved powers to the Lothians would better match your argument?The accountability of the Scottish Parliament is, for me, one of its attractions over WM. PR gives all of us more than 1 access route to the elected reps. It's also so much easier for the public, and the third sector, to have a say in the legislative process.

None of that, in itself, is an argument for independence ...it's more of an argument for reforming WM. But, since I can't see that happening, the SP....and extension of its powers...feels like a preferable model in accountability terms.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

The accountability of the Scottish Parliament is, for me, one of its attractions over WM. PR gives all of us more than 1 access route to the elected reps. It's also so much easier for the public, and the third sector, to have a say in the legislative process.

None of that, in itself, is an argument for independence ...it's more of an argument for reforming WM. But, since I can't see that happening, the SP....and extension of its powers...feels like a preferable model in accountability terms.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I think that’s a reasonable point. Since devolution the third sector has had a considerable influence in policy making and I agree it is probably more so, or more diverse, than could occur through Westminster. At the same time, it hasn’t meant there is coherence. Too often there seems to be conflicting policy from different parts of government, often driven by hardcore lobbying. There’s also an issue around localism and centralisation, with the rhetoric not matching the reality.

As you say, the accountability/co-production factor in itself isn’t an argument for independence. I’ve posted on here numerous times that there should be pragmatism - the issues that are critical for Currie and Clermiston are not the issues that are critical for Caithness generally. Form should follow function, which would reap the benefits of decision-making close to people’s lives without all the nonsense of some false social construction of nationhood that the majority rejected.

[snooky]

Yeah, that works if you live in a world where you think I'm Scottish and I'm the wee boy in the class and there's a big boy in the class and he's English and he's a bully. It's a bit of a painful stretch, isn't it?

Most of us folk don't think that way, I suspect.......thankfully.

Just for the record, the 'big boy' is Westminster NOT the English. WM bullies regions of England too.

[JeMeSouviens]

I think that’s a reasonable point. Since devolution the third sector has had a considerable influence in policy making and I agree it is probably more so, or more diverse, than could occur through Westminster. At the same time, it hasn’t meant there is coherence. Too often there seems to be conflicting policy from different parts of government, often driven by hardcore lobbying. There’s also an issue around localism and centralisation, with the rhetoric not matching the reality.

As you say, the accountability/co-production factor in itself isn’t an argument for independence. I’ve posted on here numerous times that there should be pragmatism - the issues that are critical for Currie and Clermiston are not the issues that are critical for Caithness generally. Form should follow function, which would reap the benefits of decision-making close to people’s lives without all the nonsense of some false social construction of nationhood that the majority rejected.

I absolutely urge you to do all you can to base the Unionist campaign in Indyref2 on the premise that Scots rejected their nationhood! Gold. :greengrin

Having said that, I do agree the SNP has an unfortunate controlling tendency to centralise at Holyrood. A Scotland made up of Swiss style cantons would be ideal if you ask me (which obv you wouldn’t!)

[Moulin Yarns]

A few recent posts suggested localism. Democracy at the most local state is one of the Scottish Green Party key policies.

A bit like Norway 😉

[Mibbes Aye]

I absolutely urge you to do all you can to base the Unionist campaign in Indyref2 on the premise that Scots rejected their nationhood! Gold. :greengrin

Having said that, I do agree the SNP has an unfortunate controlling tendency to centralise at Holyrood. A Scotland made up of Swiss style cantons would be ideal if you ask me (which obv you wouldn’t!)

I think we are maybe closer in our thinking than either of us would have assumed! :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

Just for the record, the 'big boy' is Westminster NOT the English. WM bullies regions of England too.

Fair enough but I would challenge the notion of Westminster being some sort of 'other'. There are dozens of Scottish MPs there and as posted earlier, Scottish MPs disproportionately held power for two-thirds of the last twenty years.

Talking about 'Westminster' in that fashion is similar to the way Nats talk about 'Scotland'. It's a false construction designed to reinforce a narrative that isn't reality but suits the agenda of those employing it.

[JeMeSouviens]

So, having read the report (well, the summary :rolleyes:) here's my take:

Absolutely agree with SiMar - where are the pictures?! :wink:

It's a sober and sobering analysis of where we stand. In general it seems better at working out what needs fixed than how to fix it.

Things I like:

- oil revenue treated as windfall
- immigration and inward relocation keys to growth. Us inside single market - this is our big competitive advantage so put it front and centre! :agree:
- very centrist balance between deficit reduction and spending (despite some pro/anti media spin in either direction)
- takes GERS/OBR figures as base so no secret oilfield/tin hat stuff

Things I don't:

- defence spending above European average - why?
- not so sure putting a number on "solidarity payment" was wise ahead of negotiation, but I suppose they wanted to show some working
- the presentation of the currency issue. I think sterlingisation may well be a necessary short/medium term step but the aspiration to our own currency should be firmer/definite imo
- lots of woolly stuff about having "best in class" this and world class the other without saying how/what to measure (maybe there's more in the full report)


The politics:

I'm really not sure what this does. On the one hand it may scare the horses, on the other it presents a realistic way out of the terminal decline I think is a given for post-Brexit Scotland in UK. I guess if we're going to win independence I'd rather we won it with our eyes open. So if this is too big a short term price to pay, then so be it?

[JeMeSouviens]

Other takes - the Fraser of Allander Institute:

https://fraserofallander.org/scottish-economy/fiscal-policy/some-early-thoughts-on-the-sustainable-growth-commission-report/


Today’s report is an important contribution to the debate on Scotland’s economic future.

It offers one view of the potential options for an independent Scotland. It outlines some of the opportunities for Scotland – particularly over the long-term – but also highlights some tough choices in getting there.

In this regard, whilst offering important insights for the Scottish Government, it also puts forward some significant challenges which Ministers will now have to respond to.

But it also represents a challenge to other political parties. They too need to set out their vision for Scotland and how they seek to deliver economic prosperity in the years ahead.

In this regard, we hope that the debate that follows today’s publication focuses upon the substance of the arguments on both sides and discusses the risks and opportunities from all potential constitutional models for Scotland in a transparent and respectful manner.

[JeMeSouviens]

Other takes - John Kay in the FT:

https://www.ft.com/content/f38ec3e4-64ef-11e8-bdd1-cc0534df682c


Scotland builds its economic muscle to fight again for independence
Nationalists ditch the wishlist in favour of credible plans for life outside the UK

June 1, 2018
Watching the progress of Scottish nationalism is like watching a teenager grow up. Last year, at the age of 18, Scotland’s devolved parliament finally took the step it has always had the power, but never before the courage, to implement. It set a higher rate of income tax in Scotland than that of the rest of the UK. But Holyrood still finds time for things that grown-ups are too busy to do, such as discussing the proper positioning of the Shetland Islands on maps of Scotland.

The economic case for independence presented before the 2014 referendum bore many resemblances to the classic school essay: what I would like to do when I grow up. Everything would be the same, only better. The Scottish government’s white paper mostly contained a list of things the devolved government already had the legal authority (but not the money) to achieve.

The budget projections were based on wishful thinking about oil revenues. And the pro-independence campaign made a serious error by announcing that there would be a currency union with the rest of the UK. Rather like saying that you will be independent but of course mum and dad, or in this case the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street, will always be there to bail you out if needed. Mum and dad quite reasonably retorted that once you left home, you were on your own.

The report of the Scottish National party’s Sustainable Growth Commission, two years in the making and published last week, is an altogether more mature document. Its emphasis on fiscal responsibility has angered leftwing critics: those within the party who want independence, as well as those in Scottish Labour who oppose it.

But it is inescapable that an independent Scotland would inherit its share of the UK’s unpromising fiscal position and lose the benefit of the subsidy from England implied by the convoluted “Barnett formula”, which has determined public expenditure levels in Scotland for the past 40 years. Any nationalists who believe that independence would mean freedom from budgetary constraints are indulging a fantasy.

Balancing Scotland’s books depends on healthier growth . And so the report belies the leftist image of Scottish politics with a strong pro-business focus, recognising that the success of small economies depends on the ability of strong domestic industries to sell specialised products in global markets. Its exemplars are Denmark, New Zealand and Finland, providing the world with insulin, butter, paper and, not that long ago, mobile phones. The social homogeneity of these small states promotes an inclusiveness and stability that has enabled some to achieve faster growth rates than the countries of the G7.

But it has downsides. Inclusivity can easily become exclusivity. Witness the parliamentary success of the populist True Finns, Danish People’s party and New Zealand First, which has taken them all to positions in government. And the crony capitalism of Ireland and Iceland that preceded the global financial crisis is a problem that small states struggle to escape.

This time, the currency question is sensibly dealt with by noting that there is no need for an independent Scotland to do anything at all. The world has moved on from the days when money was distinguished by the head of the sovereign — or perhaps has gone back to the days when gold was a medium of exchange that knew no boundaries.

Currency is no longer tied to nationality and, even if Scotland did at some time adopt a currency of its own or the euro, it is likely that many individuals and businesses in Scotland would maintain accounts in sterling.

Of course, the Bank of England would no longer be there to bail out failed lenders as Royal Bank of Scotland was in 2008. But the lesson of the financial crisis — only partly learnt — is that no one should be there to bail out failed banks. The report proposes a scheme by which the Scottish government would protect retail depositors in Scottish banks. International capital markets can look after themselves.

The report falls short of presenting an economic case for independence. But it demonstrates that if other arguments led to a second, successful independence referendum, economic issues would not prevent a “yes” vote, and describes a possible more prosperous route ahead.

But hanging over all this debate, as it does over every issue in British politics today, is the shadow of Brexit. Whether Scotland remains part of the UK, or becomes independent, its position is similar to that of Northern Ireland and indeed the Irish Republic. Like them, Scotland benefits from being part of a European single market — and a substantial majority of Scots voted to remain part of one — but, like them, Scotland needs a single market with England more.

The UK government has committed to giving Northern Ireland the best of both worlds, but has failed to explain how this can be done. And whether Scotland is inside or outside the UK, or inside or outside the EU, it will want the best of both worlds too.

The economic consequences of Brexit changed the terms of the independence debate in Scotland. And so did the political consequences. Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP’s leader, is a commanding figure as first minister, and Ruth Davidson a sufficiently effective leader of the opposition that many English Conservatives wish she were leading the party on both sides of the border.

Scottish politics looks like an oasis of sense and stability in a Westminster desert devoid of ideas and effective leadership. Perhaps the child has finally outgrown its parents.



"John Kay has been writing a column on economics and business since 1995. He is currently a visiting professor at the London School of Economics. He also had a career in the policy world which established the Institute for Fiscal Studies"

[JeMeSouviens]

Other takes - Simon French in the Times:


Italy, like Scotland, should take the high road to reclaiming sovereignty

Sovereignty is back as front-page news. This week Italy’s three-month struggle to form a government has attracted global attention. The influence of Brussels and Berlin on Italian politics in recent years managed to unite the left and right in common cause and in parliamentary elections in March Italian voters strongly backed candidates supporting the return of decision-making powers to Rome.

Investors in European bonds and shares have been forced to consider whether Brexit is about to get a lexicographic companion in the form of “Quitaly”. This is the term being used on City dealing desks to describe a potential departure of Italy from the European monetary union. The government-elect’s nomination of a Eurosceptic finance minister was enough to scare financial markets already concerned about more than €2 trillion of Italian government debt. It is unlikely to be the last time they take fright this summer.

While the immediate risk of Quitaly appears to be low — by a ratio of three to one, Italians want to remain in the eurozone — it again poses the question of where responsibility should sit for big economic decisions. It is a question that politicians at all levels, across all countries, keep coming back to. Local, regional, national and supranational institutions will continue to face insurgent politicians seeking to take back control.

There is a good reason for these regular insurgencies. Across the world, there exists a patchwork of responsibility for making economic decisions. The decision about who pulls the levers to set interest rates, levy taxes, regulate markets and allocate public spending owes itself to a combination of historic military conflicts, natural geographic borders and ethnocultural alignments. If these collectively have resulted in an optimal approach for deciding big economic questions, it would be nothing short of pure chance. There is fertile ground for those who can identify, communicate and ultimately deliver a better way.

Unpicking often entrenched and long-dated alignments is tricky, though. Should it be Italy’s relatively recent accession to the eurozone, Britain’s rather more established place in the EU or Scotland’s multi-century place in the United Kingdom, advocates of an alternative approach need a plan. This makes the release last week of an SNP-sponsored growth commission report for Scotland all the more interesting. It has attracted too little attention south of the border, given what the report creditably attempts to achieve: a framework for an economically independent Scotland.

The commission has managed to do what Brexit advocates manifestly failed to do and Italy’s populists risk duplicating: it brings together a plan for reclaiming economic sovereignty. It takes a mature approach to a question that will remain perpetually open. The report has managed to annoy significant sections of the nationalist movement: that in itself should be a measure of success for Andrew Wilson, its chairman, and his fellow commissioners. A credible plan for reclaiming sovereignty is not one that aims to have its cake and eat it; rather it is one that highlights the trade-offs that come with taking back control and dispensing with the undoubted benefits of pooled economic sovereignty. As the report none-too-subtly points out: “[Scotland] has not had enough of experts.”


The momentum of Scottish independence stalled after the referendum of 2014. It became clear that gaps existed in the nationalists’ plans for currency and economic hegemony. Floating voters sensed, correctly, that precious little detail existed on what type of economic policy would be delivered by an independent Scottish government. Had the Yes campaign won in 2014, it would be facing similar challenges to those facing the UK government attempting to deliver Brexit. Namely, how do you appease a coalition of divergent views from across the political spectrum that temporarily suspended hostilities to achieve a common aim — a coalition that immediately and inevitably fractures once the campaigning shifts to implementation?

So the Scottish sustainable growth commission has countered this threat by setting out a blueprint for independence, including a path to a sovereign currency, estimates for appropriate divorce payments — cutely branded “solidarity payments” — and some of those trade-offs that would have to be accepted by taking back sovereign control from Westminster. By not presenting a socialist Shangri-La and advocating a period of fiscal discipline, alignment and sharing of services with the remainder of the UK, the commission drew a hostile reaction from some elements of the independence movement. That approach was necessary to make progress if not, ultimately, sufficient.

What is now required is for Nicola Sturgeon, the first minister, and her leadership either to own or disown the commission’s recommendations. Whether that will happen is, at present, unclear. Ambiguity and burying the trade-offs would show that the SNP has no credible plan for a second independence referendum. While economists are notoriously bad at political predictions, I would venture that the Scottish electorate would sense this, too.

So sovereignty insurgents from Italy to the UK, from Scotland to Catalonia, need a plan. Often in economic history Scotland has taken the high road, from Adam Smith to David Hume, and it has done so again. Should Italy’s march to reclaiming sovereignty have any chance of success they will need to follow suit.



"Simon French is chief economist at Panmure Gordon"

[RyeSloan]

Some interesting comments on those articles JMS.

It’s also curious to note that some reaction has been scathing of the ‘money market’ approach to debt funding while others (mainly established economists) praise that as mature and sensible. Just goes to show.

One thing the report has probably done is at least put to bed the ‘land of milk and honey’ view of what Indy means and I agree with one of the articles where it says the SNP need to tackle that head on and not bury their head in the sand about it. I would though suggest that their muted support of the paper even on release day suggests they are already trying to avoid some of the more difficult lines in the report about Scotland’s starting fiscal position.

[CropleyWasGod]

Some interesting comments on those articles JMS.

It’s also curious to note that some reaction has been scathing of the ‘money market’ approach to debt funding while others (mainly established economists) praise that as mature and sensible. Just goes to show.

One thing the report has probably done is at least put to bed the ‘land of milk and honey’ view of what Indy means and I agree with one of the articles where it says the SNP need to tackle that head on and not bury their head in the sand about it. I would though suggest that their muted support of the paper even on release day suggests they are already trying to avoid some of the more difficult lines in the report about Scotland’s starting fiscal position.

....lay all the economists in the world end-to-end on the ground, and they still wouldn't reach a conclusion. :greengrin

[RyeSloan]

....lay all the economists in the world end-to-end on the ground, and they still wouldn't reach a conclusion. :greengrin

Ha ha well yeah I could tell you a great economist joke but there is not enough demand.... [emoji13]

[johnbc70]

A strategy for more strategies is a fairly good description I read.

[JeMeSouviens]

Some interesting comments on those articles JMS.

It’s also curious to note that some reaction has been scathing of the ‘money market’ approach to debt funding while others (mainly established economists) praise that as mature and sensible. Just goes to show.

One thing the report has probably done is at least put to bed the ‘land of milk and honey’ view of what Indy means and I agree with one of the articles where it says the SNP need to tackle that head on and not bury their head in the sand about it. I would though suggest that their muted support of the paper even on release day suggests they are already trying to avoid some of the more difficult lines in the report about Scotland’s starting fiscal position.

Just goes to show indeed. :greengrin

I agree about the tackling head on. It is possible that the lukewarm response is to allow the SNP's internal discussion to take place so they can at least pretend the membership own the report.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Just goes to show indeed. :greengrin

I agree about the tackling head on. It is possible that the lukewarm response is to allow the SNP's internal discussion to take place so they can at least pretend the membership own the report.

I think they are genuinely still trying to work out what to do with this, and where it takes them, us and the debate.

[Moulin Yarns]

As JMS has been giving us some articles that give opinions on the Growth Commission Report I thought it worth looking further afield. the Report cites New Zealand, well here is a view from an MP in New Zealand, Gareth Hughes.


My mother recently returned from Scotland visiting where my grandmother was born and like many tourists brought back her clan tartan tie for me. Despite never visiting Scotland I wear it proudly in the New Zealand Parliament. There’s a connection between our countries that crosses oceans.



As a New Zealand MP it’s flattering for my country to be singled-out doing something right in the report but my message to my long-lost Scottish relatives is: it’s not the size of the country – it’s what you do with it that matters.


The No Campaign often suggested that Scotland was too small for independence. As a similar-sized nation I’d point out we work fine, thank you very much, even if there’s only 4.7 million of us. We have our own defence forces, have signed trade deals with multiple countries and even recently sat on the United Nations Security Council. It’s not my place to comment on Scottish independence but it’s a red herring to suggest a nation of 5.3 million can’t successfuly operate on the world stage when plenty of others do.


The real issue isn’t the size of a country but what its policies are and the direction it’s going in.

As the last British Dominion that only received its full independence in 1947 I think New Zealand offers

some salutary lessons what it’s like to go it alone.

Our independence gave us the freedom to go nuclear-free in the 1980s but also to drastically change our economic and social direction. We had our own Thatcher, a man named Douglas.


In my lifetime New Zealand went from one of the most state-involved economies outside of the Communist Block to one of the most market-driven and neoliberal. Since our own Antipodian Thatcherism revolution in the 1980s we went from one of the most egalitarian countries that one British wit Austin Mitchell described as the ‘Quarter-acre, pavlova paradise’ to one of the most unequal. In fact since 1984 we saw the fastest growth of inequality in the developed world. The OECD estimates this rising inequality has acted like a hand break and reduced our economic potential by about a tenth. We’ve seen a dramatic rise in homelessness, precarious working conditions and child poverty. Families with young children are sleeping in uninsulated garages and children sent to school with no food in their lunchboxes because there is no food at home.


For the last three decades New Zealand has focused on light-handed regulation, a smaller role for the state, punitive welfare reforms and employer-friendly employment law. As an independent nation we’ve had the freedom to adopt our own policies. The freedom to make bad decisions. It wasn’t our size that did it, it was government policies.


However since September 2017 with the election of a new Government we have embarked on a new direction. We’ve achieved the biggest wealth transfer in a generation – towards the poorest Kiwis. Our national Budget will no longer myopically focus on Gross Domestic Product and surplus or deficit will but now include genuine progress indicators. The country has set an ambitious zero carbon goal by 2050 and a target to have 100% renewable electricity by 2035. We are doubling investment in R&D and supporting science. The state is no longer leaving housing to the developers and it aims to build 100,000 new homes.


After decades of a trickle-down, austerity-ideology we’re changing direction. It’s flattering to be looked at as an exemplar by Scottish researchers but while you look at where we’ve been, please also look to where we are going.

[Bristolhibby]

Fair enough but I would challenge the notion of Westminster being some sort of 'other'. There are dozens of Scottish MPs there and as posted earlier, Scottish MPs disproportionately held power for two-thirds of the last twenty years.

Talking about 'Westminster' in that fashion is similar to the way Nats talk about 'Scotland'. It's a false construction designed to reinforce a narrative that isn't reality but suits the agenda of those employing it.

Scotland is a false construction? What are you on about?

J

[Mibbes Aye]

Scotland is a false construction? What are you on about?

J

I said the way that Nats talk about 'Scotland' and 'Westminster' is a false construction. It's subjective and contentious but portrayed as objective

Although regardless, one can argue that all nations are social constructions - it's not a good or bad thing, it just reflects the way people create shared understandings for things.

[RyeSloan]

It appears that there will be no formal debate or discussion or resolution on the growth commission report at the SNP conference this year. While they appear to have time to debate the siege in Gaza and changing places toilets the report is rather conspicuous by its absence.

For a document that was first trailed as some sort of solution then rather quickly morphed into something that was merely informing the debate it now appears to have been sidelined already.

I know few of the SNP diehards will actually turn on Nicola but there must be quite a few ardent Indy supporters that are starting to wonder just what her strategy is here. With a rather botched and premature effort to generate the demand for a second referendum off the back of the Brexit vote now compounded by a frankly puzzling response to the very report she commissioned which was surely meant to be the fulcrum to which Indy supporters would be asked to gather round to begin a renewed drive to Indy.

There may be a cunning plan behind it all but to me at least that’s pretty damn hard to see from where I’m sitting.

[johnbc70]

It appears that there will be no formal debate or discussion or resolution on the growth commission report at the SNP conference this year. While they appear to have time to debate the siege in Gaza and changing places toilets the report is rather conspicuous by its absence.

For a document that was first trailed as some sort of solution then rather quickly morphed into something that was merely informing the debate it now appears to have been sidelined already.

I know few of the SNP diehards will actually turn on Nicola but there must be quite a few ardent Indy supporters that are starting to wonder just what her strategy is here. With a rather botched and premature effort to generate the demand for a second referendum off the back of the Brexit vote now compounded by a frankly puzzling response to the very report she commissioned which was surely meant to be the fulcrum to which Indy supporters would be asked to gather round to begin a renewed drive to Indy.

There may be a cunning plan behind it all but to me at least that’s pretty damn hard to see from where I’m sitting.

As I said earlier, the silence from Indy supporters is deafening.

It will slowly be swept under the carpet, but looks like a big own goal.

[grunt]

It appears that there will be no formal debate or discussion or resolution on the growth commission report at the SNP conference this year. This is just the Spring conference, no? I expect that much of the Autumn conference will be devoted to the report and SNP plans. Once Brexit is a bit clearer. (I know!)

[RyeSloan]

This is just the Spring conference, no? I expect that much of the Autumn conference will be devoted to the report and SNP plans. Once Brexit is a bit clearer. (I know!)

Fair point....had forgotten they had two conferences a year!

And first time I’ve seen Brexit and clear in the same sentence for quite a while [emoji23]

[ronaldo7]

As I said earlier, the silence from Indy supporters is deafening.

It will slowly be swept under the carpet, but looks like a big own goal.

As someone on the thread asked if you'd read it, your silence is deafening. 😮

Why can't you and your Tory pals come up with a plan for Scotland, or will it happen after you've swiped away our devolved powers for 7 long years.

[RyeSloan]

As someone on the thread asked if you'd read it, your silence is deafening. [emoji50]

Why can't you and your Tory pals come up with a plan for Scotland, or will it happen after you've swiped away our devolved powers for 7 long years.

Ahh R7 so you do know this thread exists!

I would be much more interested in your thoughts on the report and what it means for the direction the SNP need to take now rather than some deflection about how the returning powers from the EU will be dealt with ;-)

[weecounty hibby]

As I said earlier, the silence from Indy supporters is deafening.

It will slowly be swept under the carpet, but looks like a big own goal.

I don't think there has been silence, your using that phrase for your own agenda. There has been lots of debate about the report from both supporters of independence and those against. It was as recently as yesterday a topic for discussion on Radio Scotland's Good Morning Scotland show. It has done exactly what it was meant for and that has been to generate debate. It had even had folk as far afield as NZ debating it. Not just throwing soundbites out but actual debate

[ronaldo7]

Ahh R7 so you do know this thread exists!

I would be much more interested in your thoughts on the report and what it means for the direction the SNP need to take now rather than some deflection about how the returning powers from the EU will be dealt with ;-)

I've been watching the thread deteriorate from a distance. When I get the opportunity to complete the report, I might be able to respond to it.

I'm sure the discussions at the National assemblies with take the report apart, and we'll have a final position to put to the people of Scotland, when required.

Meanwhile, I'm waiting on the UK gov coming up with some sort of plan for our future.

I'm just loving Mr Davies, ripping the PM a new one.

Anybody seen the polls this morning? 🌞

[RyeSloan]

I've been watching the thread deteriorate from a distance. When I get the opportunity to complete the report, I might be able to respond to it.

I'm sure the discussions at the National assemblies with take the report apart, and we'll have a final position to put to the people of Scotland, when required.

Meanwhile, I'm waiting on the UK gov coming up with some sort of plan for our future.

I'm just loving Mr Davies, ripping the PM a new one.

Anybody seen the polls this morning? [emoji274]

My cyclical mind reads that like you were rather disappointed in the whole thing but can’t really bring yourself to say so but hey once we’ve had an assembly or two to change most of it we’ll be fine [emoji12]

Government plans for the future are rarely worth waiting on and are even more rarely delivered so I wouldn’t hold your breath if I was you...

[ronaldo7]

My cyclical mind reads that like you were rather disappointed in the whole thing but can’t really bring yourself to say so but hey once we’ve had an assembly or two to change most of it we’ll be fine [emoji12]

Government plans for the future are rarely worth waiting on and are even more rarely delivered so I wouldn’t hold your breath if I was you...

You need to stay off the wacky gear, it does strange things to the mind, so I'm told, 💭

I'll get round to it sometime, honest. I've had other things to do recently.

I'm catching up with the frothing from the uber's from time to time though.

Anyone seen the recent polls?😜

Have a nice day. 🌞

[RyeSloan]

You need to stay off the wacky gear, it does strange things to the mind, so I'm told, [emoji189]

I'll get round to it sometime, honest. I've had other things to do recently.

I'm catching up with the frothing from the uber's from time to time though.

Anyone seen the recent polls?[emoji12]

Have a nice day. [emoji274]

Aha so I was right then [emoji23]

[ronaldo7]

Aha so I was right then [emoji23]

😂😂

I'd have thought the UK gov, stealing our devolved powers, and leading us into uncharted constitutional territory might have been a game changer for you. 😁

[marinello59]

I've been watching the thread deteriorate from a distance. When I get the opportunity to complete the report, I might be able to respond to it.

I'm sure the discussions at the National assemblies with take the report apart, and we'll have a final position to put to the people of Scotland, when required.

Meanwhile, I'm waiting on the UK gov coming up with some sort of plan for our future.

I'm just loving Mr Davies, ripping the PM a new one.

Anybody seen the polls this morning? 🌞

Managed to read this report yet? :wink:

[Mibbes Aye]

Managed to read this report yet? :wink:

The IFS did.

They published their thoughts on it yesterday and said if what we have been living with in the UK is austerity, then an independent Scotland would experience austerity for a further ten years at least. They also said Scottish public spending would be slower to increase than it currently is in the UK.

They do however come across as balanced and they acknowledged on a number of occasions that it was commendable to try and actually get under the rhetoric and get some projections that were as objective as possible, within all the usual caveats.

[marinello59]

The IFS did.

They published their thoughts on it yesterday and said if what we have been living with in the UK is austerity, then an independent Scotland would experience austerity for a further ten years at least. They also said Scottish public spending would be slower to increase than it currently is in the UK.

They do however come across as balanced and they acknowledged on a number of occasions that it was commendable to try and actually get under the rhetoric and get some projections that were as objective as possible, within all the usual caveats.

It’s a a shame R7 still doesn’t feel qualified to comment on this as he hasn’t read it yet. :faf::faf:

[ronaldo7]

It’s a a shame R7 still doesn’t feel qualified to comment on this as he hasn’t read it yet. :faf::faf:

I've not, you're correct(for once), I've had too much on my plate lately, but I'll get round to it.

As you're now responding to my posts, I take it I'm out of the deep freeze. How exciting.

[JeMeSouviens]

The IFS did.

They published their thoughts on it yesterday and said if what we have been living with in the UK is austerity, then an independent Scotland would experience austerity for a further ten years at least. They also said Scottish public spending would be slower to increase than it currently is in the UK.

They do however come across as balanced and they acknowledged on a number of occasions that it was commendable to try and actually get under the rhetoric and get some projections that were as objective as possible, within all the usual caveats.

Thanks for flagging this. The headline being attached is slightly misleading in that the IFS comment contends that UK austerity has been relaxed to the point where it no longer is austerity and so the GC plan is fiscal tightness but short of austerity also.

[JeMeSouviens]

Link to IFS commentary:

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/13072

[JeMeSouviens]

The IFS did.

They published their thoughts on it yesterday and said if what we have been living with in the UK is austerity, then an independent Scotland would experience austerity for a further ten years at least. They also said Scottish public spending would be slower to increase than it currently is in the UK.

They do however come across as balanced and they acknowledged on a number of occasions that it was commendable to try and actually get under the rhetoric and get some projections that were as objective as possible, within all the usual caveats.

Speaking of caveats, I think it’s also worth noting that any statement like “public spending would be slower to increase than it currently is in the UK” should be caveated by “as long as rUK puts up with the inequitable and disproportionate funding of Scottish public services” which, if the threat of independence recedes, is very far from a given.

[cabbageandribs1875]

SNP Bathgate Branch has welcomed 29 new members in the past week, increasing membership to 260 :agree:

[One Day Soon]

SNP Bathgate Branch has welcomed 29 new members in the past week, increasing membership to 260 :agree:

Does the SNP still send new members to Branches decided centrally or is it now the case that you're a member of the area you live in?

[weecounty hibby]

Does the SNP still send new members to Branches decided centrally or is it now the case that you're a member of the area you live in?

Maybe I'm being thick but I don't understand the question. I am certainly a member of my nearest branch. There are another couple close at hand as well though

[One Day Soon]

Maybe I'm being thick but I don't understand the question. I am certainly a member of my nearest branch. There are another couple close at hand as well though

It used to be the case - quite a long time ago - that when you joined the SNP you would fill in your form, pay your membership and once accepted the party would contact you to tell you where you were a member. So if you joined in Edinburgh they could tell you to be a member in, say, Leith or Liberton if those were areas where the local branch needed to build up its membership base and activities on the ground.

Quite an odd way to do things but also with a fair bit of common sense about it organisationally for campaigning purposes. This was a LONG time ago and I just wondered whether it was still the case, though in the current days of mass membership it really wouldn't make sense any more.

[weecounty hibby]

It used to be the case - quite a long time ago - that when you joined the SNP you would fill in your form, pay your membership and once accepted the party would contact you to tell you where you were a member. So if you joined in Edinburgh they could tell you to be a member in, say, Leith or Liberton if those were areas where the local branch needed to build up its membership base and activities on the ground.

Quite an odd way to do things but also with a fair bit of common sense about it organisationally for campaigning purposes. This was a LONG time ago and I just wondered whether it was still the case, though in the current days of mass membership it really wouldn't make sense any more.
Ok, I get you now. Clever strategy to be honest. Really don't know if it still happens but I am definitely in my nearest branch and there is a couple nearby as well that I could have been put if it was still the same. I think that with the number of members and also the number of real activists now I'm not sure the SNP needs to do that anymore

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Ok, I get you now. Clever strategy to be honest. Really don't know if it still happens but I am definitely in my nearest branch and there is a couple nearby as well that I could have been put if it was still the same. I think that with the number of members and also the number of real activists now I'm not sure the SNP needs to do that anymore

I think they stooped doing it long before the current post- 2014 surge.

[Tornadoes70]

Wouldn't any report regarding separation from the nats be better named the - 'Inevitable Chaos, Division and Meltdown of the Economy with State Bankruptcy'?

Labour are the re-emerging party that are fighting for social justice, protecting jobs and wages, increasing and assuring benefits across the board in stark contrast to the Snp who will lead us into chaos, division, bankruptcy and poverty never seen before.

Mon Scottish Labour!

:flag:

[Moulin Yarns]

Wouldn't any report regarding separation from the nats be better named the - 'Inevitable Chaos, Division and Meltdown of the Economy with State Bankruptcy'?

Labour are the re-emerging party that are fighting for social justice, protecting jobs and wages, increasing and assuring benefits across the board in stark contrast to the Snp who will lead us into chaos, division, bankruptcy and poverty never seen before.

Mon Scottish Labour!

:flag:

:rolleyes:

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/06/voting-intention-scotland-snp-41-con-26-lab-25-1-5/

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ftpvjhppow/ScotlandinUnion_Results_June18_Client_2_website.pd f

[Jack]

Wouldn't any report regarding separation from the nats be better named the - 'Inevitable Chaos, Division and Meltdown of the Economy with State Bankruptcy'?

Labour are the re-emerging party that are fighting for social justice, protecting jobs and wages, increasing and assuring benefits across the board in stark contrast to the Snp who will lead us into chaos, division, bankruptcy and poverty never seen before.

Mon Scottish Labour!

:flag:

Labour has had many opportunities to do the things you mention in the time they've been in power both in the UK and Scotland.

They got their ***** kicked in Scotland for not doing anything very much and treating the electorate with contempt. Not to mention the dictatorial attitude they had towards those on the ground delivering their English policies.

Which was a shame as the SNP has shown that Scotland can be a showcase for alternative ways of doing the same thing.

[grunt]

:rolleyes:

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/06/voting-intention-scotland-snp-41-con-26-lab-25-1-5/

That's a year old? We've had a general election since then ...

[grunt]

Wouldn't any report regarding separation from the nats be better named the - 'Inevitable Chaos, Division and Meltdown of the Economy with State Bankruptcy'?

Labour are the re-emerging party that are fighting for social justice, protecting jobs and wages, increasing and assuring benefits across the board in stark contrast to the Snp who will lead us into chaos, division, bankruptcy and poverty never seen before.

Mon Scottish Labour!


Why do you keep posting these empty sloganizing posts, which contain nothing other than vague unsubstantiated rhetoric? You never answer any questions. Are you trying to bore us into voting Labour? It's not working. (Where have I heard that before?)

[The Modfather]

Wouldn't any report regarding separation from the nats be better named the - 'Inevitable Chaos, Division and Meltdown of the Economy with State Bankruptcy'?

Labour are the re-emerging party that are fighting for social justice, protecting jobs and wages, increasing and assuring benefits across the board in stark contrast to the Snp who will lead us into chaos, division, bankruptcy and poverty never seen before.

Mon Scottish Labour!

:flag:

As someone without any political allegiances and long disengaged from politics given each party, and the politicians within, are interchangeable as they are all in it for themselves. Your posting style only further re-iterates my disdain for the political landscape that it makes no material difference who is in power.

I enjoy reading informative and constructive debates from all sides on here as I’d genuinely like to not feel apolitical, but you don’t debate. You just drone on with sound bites and repeat the same things over and over. You aren’t alone in this of course, but your posting style, rather than get me on board for Labour further re-inforces my apolitical view.

SNP/Labour/Tories etc meh, what difference does it make. The only time I felt engaged was the Indipendebce referendum as that is something that means something to me, even if it is on an emotional level as much as anything else. The SNP might be my best avenue for independence but doesn’t change the fact they are still as interchangeable as all the other self serving parties IMO.

[marinello59]

Labour has had many opportunities to do the things you mention in the time they've been in power both in the UK and Scotland.

They got their ***** kicked in Scotland for not doing anything very much and treating the electorate with contempt. Not to mention the dictatorial attitude they had towards those on the ground delivering their English policies.

Which was a shame as the SNP has shown that Scotland can be a showcase for alternative ways of doing the same thing.

All of the devolved Goverments since devolution began, no matter which party or grouping that was, have done a decent job. Up until Sturgeon’s SNP that is who are failing on several levels. What radically different way of doing things are they showcasing? Try and do that without listing the ‘free’ stuff.
They have been in power for ten years now. Labour fell because they took it for granted that the electorate would continue to back them in droves no matter what they did. Much like the SNP and some of their more triumphalist supporters are doing now. Take the independence issue away and the SNP are exposed as a centre right party who are really not much different from any of the others.

[Jack]

All of the devolved Goverments since devolution began, no matter which party or grouping that was, have done a decent job. Up until Sturgeon’s SNP that is who are failing on several levels. What radically different way of doing things are they showcasing? Try and do that without listing the ‘free’ stuff.
They have been in power for ten years now. Labour fell because they took it for granted that the electorate would continue to back them in droves no matter what they did. Much like the SNP and some of their more triumphalist supporters are doing now. Take the independence issue away and the SNP are exposed as a centre right party who are really not much different from any of the others.

Without using free stuff as an example, although it's free, if give you the NHS in Scotland. The policy behind it is quite different from England now and I'd suggest working better for patients.

When I worked in health, albeit I retired 5 years ago I was having a discussion with a senior medical chap from England. During that discussion he agreed if he was to become ill anywhere in the UK Scotland would be his choice.

While different parts of the NHS in England compete with each other and the private sector Scotland had a much more collaborative approach. It's not perfect by any means but it is a substantial divergence from the English.

[Moulin Yarns]

That's a year old? We've had a general election since then ...

Oops. That's Google for you. :-)

[Tornadoes70]

All of the devolved Goverments since devolution began, no matter which party or grouping that was, have done a decent job. Up until Sturgeon’s SNP that is who are failing on several levels. What radically different way of doing things are they showcasing? Try and do that without listing the ‘free’ stuff.
They have been in power for ten years now. Labour fell because they took it for granted that the electorate would continue to back them in droves no matter what they did. Much like the SNP and some of their more triumphalist supporters are doing now. Take the independence issue away and the SNP are exposed as a centre right party who are really not much different from any of the others.

Excellent post.

The Snp are of course centered around their pivotal issue of separating Scotland from the rest of the UK and are also in my opinion when absent of it are much more in tune with the Tories than they are with either Labour or the Liberal Democrats.

They really couldn't care less about the poorest in society and the truly disenfranchised.

Both UK Labour and Scottish Labour now have leaders who do not take the electorate for granted in any shape or form and are working very hard behind the scenes to ensure our fight for jobs and wages, protecting the NHS, growing the economy, increasing benefits and living standards, eradicating homelessness and fighting for social justice across the board among many other very worthwhile causes continues.

To some Snp leaning separatchiks they may well sound like throwaway slogans, however, to me personally and very probably to millions of other Labour supporters they are Red Flag Labour Party ideals and principles that are well worth fighting for and are always worth reminding folk exactly what we stand and fight for.

On the other hand the Snp are failing the Scottish electorate and if they ever did get their wish of separation then prepare for abject misery and poverty as the Scottish economy nosedives into chaos and Greek style meltdown among countless other extreme volatile reactions.

The Snp have lost their mainstream popularity and are on course for their share of the vote to reduce with their number of seats decreasing at future elections while in stark contrast Scottish Labour will be increasing their share of the votes and adding to their number of seats.

Richard Leonard's Scottish Labour are the party that cares about Scotland and all of its folk within.

Mon Scottish Labour!

:flag:

[Jack]

Excellent post.

The Snp are of course centered around their pivotal issue of separating Scotland from the rest of the UK and are also in my opinion when absent of it are much more in tune with the Tories than they are with either Labour or the Liberal Democrats.

They really couldn't care less about the poorest in society and the truly disenfranchised.

Both UK Labour and Scottish Labour now have leaders who do not take the electorate for granted in any shape or form and are working very hard behind the scenes to ensure our fight for jobs and wages, protecting the NHS, growing the economy, increasing benefits and living standards, eradicating homelessness and fighting for social justice across the board among many other very worthwhile causes continues.

To some Snp leaning separatchiks they may well sound like throwaway slogans, however, to me personally and very probably to millions of other Labour supporters they are Red Flag Labour Party ideals and principles that are well worth fighting for and are always worth reminding folk exactly what we stand and fight for.

On the other hand the Snp are failing the Scottish electorate and if they ever did get their wish of separation then prepare for abject misery and poverty as the Scottish economy nosedives into chaos and Greek style meltdown among countless other extreme volatile reactions.

The Snp have lost their mainstream popularity and are on course for their share of the vote to reduce with their number of seats decreasing at future elections while in stark contrast Scottish Labour will be increasing their share of the votes and adding to their number of seats.

Richard Leonard's Scottish Labour are the party that cares about Scotland and all of its folk within.

Mon Scottish Labour!

:flag:

If you are are what Labour has become then there's no hope. Then again you could be from another political party doing your best to put people off Labour. You're doing a great job!

Yours sincerely

Floating socialist.

[Tornadoes70]

If you are are what Labour has become then there's no hope. Then again you could be from another political party doing your best to put people off Labour. You're doing a great job!

Yours sincerely

Floating socialist.

A 'floating socialist' who doesn't recognise or resonate with the core socialist ideals as the ones I referred to - fighting against poverty and inequality, working with trade unions to protect jobs and wages, eradicating homelessness, fighting for social justice, safeguard the NHS, increasing benefits for those out of work and who cannot work etc etc?

Labour have always been the party of socialism and have two true champions of it in the form of Jeremy Corbyn and Richard Leonard.

You sound much aligned with the Snp separatchiks who champion austerity and cuts among other capitalist ideals than a real 'floating socialist'.

If you want to argue or vote for the in my opinion puritan tories in disguise Snp please make your case for them and refrain from snidely pretending your'e a 'floating socialist'.

Mon Richard Leonard's Scottish Labour!

:flag:

[johnbc70]

Without using free stuff as an example, although it's free, if give you the NHS in Scotland. The policy behind it is quite different from England now and I'd suggest working better for patients.

When I worked in health, albeit I retired 5 years ago I was having a discussion with a senior medical chap from England. During that discussion he agreed if he was to become ill anywhere in the UK Scotland would be his choice.

While different parts of the NHS in England compete with each other and the private sector Scotland had a much more collaborative approach. It's not perfect by any means but it is a substantial divergence from the English.

Let's just hope he never needed any sterilised equipment.

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/our-region/edinburgh/eri-cancels-ops-due-to-lack-of-sterilised-equipment-1-4758990/amp?

[Jack]

A 'floating socialist' who doesn't recognise or resonate with the core socialist ideals as the ones I referred to - fighting against poverty and inequality, working with trade unions to protect jobs and wages, eradicating homelessness, fighting for social justice, safeguard the NHS, increasing benefits for those out of work and who cannot work etc etc?

Labour have always been the party of socialism and have two true champions of it in the form of Jeremy Corbyn and Richard Leonard.

You sound much aligned with the Snp separatchiks who champion austerity and cuts among other capitalist ideals than a real 'floating socialist'.

If you want to argue or vote for the in my opinion puritan tories in disguise Snp please make your case for them and refrain from snidely pretending your'e a 'floating socialist'.

Mon Richard Leonard's Scottish Labour!

:flag:

It's a shame Labour in Westminster gave up the fight and side more with Tory policies than they champion the traditional values you speak of. Your list doesn't reflect Labour MPs voting record.

Has Richard Leonard been properly briefed as to what has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament yet?

Sort that out and maybe there would be fewer floating socialists wondering what had happened to the party they once followed.

[Tornadoes70]

It's a shame Labour in Westminster gave up the fight and side more with Tory policies than they champion the traditional values you speak of. Your list doesn't reflect Labour MPs voting record.

Has Richard Leonard been properly briefed as to what has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament yet?

Sort that out and maybe there would be fewer floating socialists wondering what had happened to the party they once followed.

Yet again as is the normal for the Snp separatchiks they simply won't be drawn into attempting to defend their party.

The Snp are a party of failure and will destroy the Scottish economy and lots more if they ever get their wish that is to break up the UK.

I doubt they ever will due to their being an inward looking, secretive and regressive party that is sending the message out to its supporters to say as little as possible and put the boot into any other party and its supporters in the hope that'll be enough to drag separation over the line while at the same time deceiving the Scottish folk.

The Snp separatists would deceive the Scottish folk into separation while in the knowledge it would undoubtedly mean severe austerity and cuts while increasing poverty and much anxiety among the poorest in Scotland for generations to come.

We in Labour on the other hand have no problem in voicing our strongest objections to tory like Snp austerity and cuts and Greek style meltdown and chaos of the Scottish economy if the separatchiks ever got their separatist wishes.

We believe in our core socialist ideals and principle of fighting austerity and inequality, eradicating homelessness, protecting the NHS and working with the Trade Unions to fight for jobs and wages while actively seeking to increase benefits for those who're not in work and cannot work while being part of the shared risk UK.

In stark contrast the Snp are growing ever more secretively unresponsive to making a case for their singular chaos theory of separatism and getting busy putting the boot into those other honest party supporters who feel able to make a case for their own socialist party credentials who continue to fight for the oppressed and against austerity, cuts and chaos in general.

Mon Scottish Labour!

:flag:

[Bristolhibby]

Yet again as is the normal for the Snp separatchiks they simply won't be drawn into attempting to defend their party.

The Snp are a party of failure and will destroy the Scottish economy and lots more if they ever get their wish that is to break up the UK.

I doubt they ever will due to their being an inward looking, secretive and regressive party that is sending the message out to its supporters to say as little as possible and put the boot into any other party and its supporters in the hope that'll be enough to drag separation over the line while at the same time deceiving the Scottish folk.

The Snp separatists would deceive the Scottish folk into separation while in the knowledge it would undoubtedly mean severe austerity and cuts while increasing poverty and much anxiety among the poorest in Scotland for generations to come.

We in Labour on the other hand have no problem in voicing our strongest objections to tory like Snp austerity and cuts and Greek style meltdown and chaos of the Scottish economy if the separatchiks ever got their separatist wishes.

We believe in our core socialist ideals and principle of fighting austerity and inequality, eradicating homelessness, protecting the NHS and working with the Trade Unions to fight for jobs and wages while actively seeking to increase benefits for those who're not in work and cannot work while being part of the shared risk UK.

In stark contrast the Snp are growing ever more secretively unresponsive to making a case for their singular chaos theory of separatism and getting busy putting the boot into those other honest party supporters who feel able to make a case for their own socialist party credentials who continue to fight for the oppressed and against austerity, cuts and chaos in general.

Mon Scottish Labour!

:flag:

You can still vote Labour in Independent Scotland.

I think they will do well. The best way to get rid of the SNP is to vote yes in IndyRef2.

J

[murray26]

Yet again as is the normal for the Snp separatchiks they simply won't be drawn into attempting to defend their party.

The Snp are a party of failure and will destroy the Scottish economy and lots more if they ever get their wish that is to break up the UK.

I doubt they ever will due to their being an inward looking, secretive and regressive party that is sending the message out to its supporters to say as little as possible and put the boot into any other party and its supporters in the hope that'll be enough to drag separation over the line while at the same time deceiving the Scottish folk.

The Snp separatists would deceive the Scottish folk into separation while in the knowledge it would undoubtedly mean severe austerity and cuts while increasing poverty and much anxiety among the poorest in Scotland for generations to come.

We in Labour on the other hand have no problem in voicing our strongest objections to tory like Snp austerity and cuts and Greek style meltdown and chaos of the Scottish economy if the separatchiks ever got their separatist wishes.

We believe in our core socialist ideals and principle of fighting austerity and inequality, eradicating homelessness, protecting the NHS and working with the Trade Unions to fight for jobs and wages while actively seeking to increase benefits for those who're not in work and cannot work while being part of the shared risk UK.

In stark contrast the Snp are growing ever more secretively unresponsive to making a case for their singular chaos theory of separatism and getting busy putting the boot into those other honest party supporters who feel able to make a case for their own socialist party credentials who continue to fight for the oppressed and against austerity, cuts and chaos in general.

Mon Scottish Labour!

:flag:

I’ve read some mince in my time but that is right up there with anything..

[JeMeSouviens]

I’ve read some mince in my time but that is right up there with anything..

SNP troll I think. I get a little surer every post.

[Just Alf]

Totally agree I'm afraid... so many contradictions on what's said compared to how Labour have actually voted for example (or abstained) and a complete lack of ANYTHING to actually vote for its all just sound bite stuff... also known as pish and wind.

Oh, and if he is Labour he's done a major disservice to his party, and if, as looks increasingly likely, he's an SNP toll, he's done his job but starting to ruin it by looking like a complete prat

GGTTH!



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Tornadoes70]

Of course what I write as a lifelong Labour supporter will be absolute 'mince' to the Snp separatchiks. That's simply a given. Anyone who agrees with the separatists would of course not be subject to their pathetic taunts and sneering that appears to be their weapon of choice when faced with Labour supporters such as myself who spell out the reality of their proposed madness of flag waving nationalistic separation that would certainly lead to chaos and poverty never seen for many a year here in Scotland.

The Scottish folk deservedfar better than the Snp nationalistic nonsense that's being dished out to them from the separatists and we at Scottish Labour continue as ever to fight for an open outward looking Scotland within the shared risk UK and to build for the future by growing the economy, protecting the NHS, working with employers and the Trade Unions to protect jobs and wages while fighting for those who find themselves in need of a helping hand by increasing benefits for those who're not in work and those who cannot work through illness or disability.

The Snp are failing Scotland and its folk. They're far too busy falsely constructing divisions within the UK as said by one of their own Jim Sillars. They're a disaster for Scotland.

In stark contrast Labour cares very much about the Scottish folk and will continue to fight for our time served vision of socialism and a brighter future for all of us.

Mon Scottish Labour!

:flag:

[Mibbes Aye]

All of the devolved Goverments since devolution began, no matter which party or grouping that was, have done a decent job. Up until Sturgeon’s SNP that is who are failing on several levels. What radically different way of doing things are they showcasing? Try and do that without listing the ‘free’ stuff.
They have been in power for ten years now. Labour fell because they took it for granted that the electorate would continue to back them in droves no matter what they did. Much like the SNP and some of their more triumphalist supporters are doing now. Take the independence issue away and the SNP are exposed as a centre right party who are really not much different from any of the others.

:agree:

There was some outstanding legislation in the early days of devolved government that really showed a commitment to progressive politics and a rights-based approach. It's slowed somewhat but while I'll never be an SNP supporter, I'm happy to agree that at least some policy stays true to that progressive agenda. There's certainly a big thrust at the moment on human rights-based approaches and I think that highlights how you can shape policy when it's at a level that devolved government allows.

[McD]

Of course what I write as a lifelong Labour supporter will be absolute 'mince' to the Snp separatchiks. That's simply a given. Anyone who agrees with the separatists would of course not be subject to their pathetic taunts and sneering that appears to be their weapon of choice when faced with Labour supporters such as myself who spell out the reality of their proposed madness of flag waving nationalistic separation that would certainly lead to chaos and poverty never seen for many a year here in Scotland.

The Scottish folk deservedfar better than the Snp nationalistic nonsense that's being dished out to them from the separatists and we at Scottish Labour continue as ever to fight for an open outward looking Scotland within the shared risk UK and to build for the future by growing the economy, protecting the NHS, working with employers and the Trade Unions to protect jobs and wages while fighting for those who find themselves in need of a helping hand by increasing benefits for those who're not in work and those who cannot work through illness or disability.

The Snp are failing Scotland and its folk. They're far too busy falsely constructing divisions within the UK as said by one of their own Jim Sillars. They're a disaster for Scotland.

In stark contrast Labour cares very much about the Scottish folk and will continue to fight for our time served vision of socialism and a brighter future for all of us.

Mon Scottish Labour!

:flag:



you’ve been asked several times on other threads to provide examples of these claims, yet you haven’t?

Simply repeating the same thing over and over, or copy and pasting the same things over and over, isn’t an answer.

Also, How does labour (Scottish or UK) propose to protect the nhs, grow the economy, protect jobs, and increase benefits? I would love to hear this, and I’m not being sarcastic, I’m being genuine. A party which can provide a clear, credible and achievable plan to deliver these would be a strong runner for being in government, so please, can you share with us how the Labour Party will deliver on these promises you’ve described?

[Jack]

you’ve been asked several times on other threads to provide examples of these claims, yet you haven’t?

Simply repeating the same thing over and over, or copy and pasting the same things over and over, isn’t an answer.

Also, How does labour (Scottish or UK) propose to protect the nhs, grow the economy, protect jobs, and increase benefits? I would love to hear this, and I’m not being sarcastic, I’m being genuine. A party which can provide a clear, credible and achievable plan to deliver these would be a strong runner for being in government, so please, can you share with us how the Labour Party will deliver on these promises you’ve described?

What makes you think you're so special? ;-)

He's not replied to anyone else.

[McD]

What makes you think you're so special? ;-)

He's not replied to anyone else.


Nor me so far, but I live in hope 😂