SNP are lying b******s as well !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Berwickhibby

No 11 SNP MP’s crossed the chamber and sided with a vote of no confidence against the Labour Government, giving the Tories enough votes to call a General Election. Only plus point was that 9 of the 1l lost their seat and said election.

---

So did 13 Libdems, 5 UUP, 1 UUUP, 1 DUP and 1 Independent.

But Callaghan lost by 1 vot, how can you be sure it was the SNP vote and not one of the others????

Should there be a thread for those who imagine politics and democracy finished in 2014? Maybe another for those who imagine it was 1979?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

Should there be a thread for those who imagine politics and democracy finished in 2014? Maybe another for those who imagine it was 1979?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

Great idea, but I think that it will be an echo chamber for the same 3 or 4 posters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

:agree: The hypocrisy is quite breathtaking when unionists use a couple of throwaway statements from the yes side as argumentation against a referendum but completely ignore the lies and promises made during the last one.

---

If the comments had been made by a couple of lesser SNP lights then sure, it would be stretching things to say they carried much long-term clout, but the independence movement has Alex Salmond to thank for making it relevant and it's not unreasonable to attach significant weight to what he (and Sturgeon) said. When it became clear that Scotland had voted no I have a clear memory of thinking 'thank *****, now we can get back on with our lives without all this p*sh'. Hard as it might be for 'yes' voters to absorb, 'no' voters were rightly hacked off to discover that 'once in a generation' turned out to mean that the bleating for another go began pretty much the very next day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

If the comments had been made by a couple of lesser SNP lights then sure, it would be stretching things to say they carried much long-term clout, but the independence movement has Alex Salmond to thank for making it relevant and it's not unreasonable to attach significant weight to what he (and Sturgeon) said. When it became clear that Scotland had voted no I have a clear memory of thinking 'thank *****, now we can get back on with our lives without all this p*sh'. Hard as it might be for 'yes' voters to absorb, 'no' voters were rightly hacked off to discover that 'once in a generation' turned out to mean that the bleating for another go began pretty much the very next day.

---

This 'what someone said eight years ago means that a referendum now would be wrong' has all the weight of 'homosexuality is wrong because of what someone said in The Bible'. You have to close down all your rational faculties for it to have any merit at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

If the comments had been made by a couple of lesser SNP lights then sure, it would be stretching things to say they carried much long-term clout, but the independence movement has Alex Salmond to thank for making it relevant and it's not unreasonable to attach significant weight to what he (and Sturgeon) said. When it became clear that Scotland had voted no I have a clear memory of thinking 'thank *****, now we can get back on with our lives without all this p*sh'. Hard as it might be for 'yes' voters to absorb, 'no' voters were rightly hacked off to discover that 'once in a generation' turned out to mean that the bleating for another go began pretty much the very next day.

---

Should the losing side in an election just accept the result forever?

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

So did 13 Libdems, 5 UUP, 1 UUUP, 1 DUP and 1 Independent.

But Callaghan lost by 1 vot, how can you be sure it was the SNP vote and not one of the others????

---

Labour had committed to support for a Scottish Assembly and in the general election of 1974 the SNP gained won a record 11 seats. For them to cut a deal with the leader of an opposition party which opposed devolution, let alone independence, was very much a case (as Callaghan said) of turkeys voting for Christmas. Little surprise that playing a key role in Thatcher's ascension saw them lose all but two of their seats and enter decades in the doldrums. Plaid Cymru's MPs, incidentally, voted with the Labour government.

Sure, it was 40 plus years ago, but it remains an indelible, if inconvenient, part of the SNP's history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

When it became clear that Scotland had voted no I have a clear memory of thinking 'thank *****, now we can get back on with our lives without all this p*sh'.

---

Agree! Because life under the Tories is brilliant!! I love living in a country governed by a party that the country hasn't voted for in 66 years. Like a real democracy should be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steven79

Should the losing side in an election just accept the result forever?

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

---

No, obviously not when your raison d'etre is to achieve independence. I'm just pointing out that it's not unreasonable to use the once in a generation/lifetime claim as a stick to beat them with, given that it was the leading light of the losing side who stated it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

If the comments had been made by a couple of lesser SNP lights then sure, it would be stretching things to say they carried much long-term clout, but the independence movement has Alex Salmond to thank for making it relevant and it's not unreasonable to attach significant weight to what he (and Sturgeon) said.

---

Can you really not tell the difference between an exhortation to vote and a legal statute?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

No, obviously not when your raison d'etre is to achieve independence. I'm just pointing out that it's not unreasonable to use the once in a generation/lifetime claim as a stick to beat them with, given that it was the leading light of the losing side who stated it.

---

Oh so you don't believe it, you're just using it to stir up the thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

Agree! Because life under the Tories is brilliant!! I love living in a country governed by a party that the country hasn't voted for in 66 years. Like a real democracy should be.

---

Depends whether you regard living in the UK as 'life under the Tories' I guess. As I've made clear, there are numerous more meaningful aspects of being British for me than who happens to be in power at Westminster.

It's not so long ago, though, that we had a Labour government in power for over a decade, one which the Scottish electorate voted for in droves. The mantra that we never get what we vote for is a myth which suits the SNP to perpetuate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

Oh so you don't believe it, you're just using it to stir up the thread?

---

It's just my opinion. I don't expect independence supporters to agree with it, but IMHO it's reasonable and shared by many.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

Oh so you don't believe it, you're just using it to stir up the thread?

---

Just because you don't agree with poster A or B doesn't mean they are trolling or stirring. They just have a different opinion to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Labour had committed to support for a Scottish Assembly and in the general election of 1974 the SNP gained won a record 11 seats. For them to cut a deal with the leader of an opposition party which opposed devolution, let alone independence, was very much a case (as Callaghan said) of turkeys voting for Christmas. Little surprise that playing a key role in Thatcher's ascension saw them lose all but two of their seats and enter decades in the doldrums. Plaid Cymru's MPs, incidentally, voted with the Labour government.

Sure, it was 40 plus years ago, but it remains an indelible, if inconvenient, part of the SNP's history.

---

Cut a deal??? Where is your proof? 1 vote, out of more than 20. Go on prove that the single vote was an snp vote!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

It's just my opinion. I don't expect independence supporters to agree with it, but IMHO it's reasonable and shared by many.

---

Maybe you could read this from someone who was there. It might refresh your memory.

It might even give you an incite into what actually happened. The deal that could have kept Callaghan in government which they decided not to do, and much more. Poor old Alfred Broughton was told not to bother turning up for the vote.

I get that Britnats will want to bash the Scotnats at all times, but their was too much going on in 1979, and the proceeding years to pin it all on the SNP, although that's been your want.

Happy reading. :aok:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-1979-thatcher

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

Well we do have some insight as to why people voted and what influenced them, the EU was not a major factor in how people voted.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-ashcroft-poll

---

It says in that article that 15% of people that voted No stated the prospect of leaving the EU was a major factor in their vote.

Three other major factors stated by No voters were 'Pensions', 'Defence & Security', 'Oil and Benefits'... all part of Project Fear.


You really need to read articles properly before posting them as evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith_M

It says in that article that 15% of people that voted No stated the prospect of leaving the EU was a major factor in their vote.

Three other major factors stated by No voters were 'Pensions', 'Defence & Security', 'Oil and Benefits'... all part of Project Fear.


You really need to read articles properly before posting them as evidence.

---

Eh? Not even 2 out of 10 people said it was a major issue. That makes it NOT a major factor for the vast majority by some considerable margin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

Eh? Not even 2 out of 10 people said it was a major issue. That makes it NOT a major factor for the vast majority by some considerable margin.

---

I'm not sure you can come to that conclusion when respondents were limited to "2 or 3" major issues in their replies. There may have been other issues which loomed larger (NHS, pensions) but by artificially limiting replies you can't be certain that the EU was not a major issue, it just wasn't in the top 2 or 3 for most people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

I'm not sure you can come to that conclusion when respondents were limited to "2 or 3" major issues in their replies. There may have been other issues which loomed larger (NHS, pensions) but by artificially limiting replies you can't be certain that the EU was not a major issue, it just wasn't in the top 2 or 3 for most people.

---

I came to that conclusion because if the EU factor was a major issue it would have scored higher than most of the other major issues, it didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

I came to that conclusion because if the EU factor was a major issue it would have scored higher than most of the other major issues, it didn't.

---

You're not paying attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

Cut a deal??? Where is your proof? 1 vote, out of more than 20. Go on prove that the single vote was an snp vote!!!

---

There's nothing to 'prove'. The irrefutable fact is that the SNP agreed to vote with the Tories. Without that agreement Thatcher would obviously not have gone ahead with the vote of no confidence. It wasn't as though there was a sharp intake of breath as the 'Tartan Tories' walked through the lobby with the Tories. She knew she had them in her pocket.

As Callaghan put it during the no-confidence debate: "We can truly say that once the Leader of the Opposition discovered what the Liberals and the SNP would do, she found the courage of their convictions. So, tonight, the Conservative Party, which wants the Act repealed and opposes even devolution, will march through the Lobby with the SNP, which wants independence for Scotland, and with the Liberals, who want to keep the Act. What a massive display of unsullied principle! The minority parties have walked into a trap. If they win, there will be a general election. I am told that the current joke going around the House is that it is the first time in recorded history that turkeys have been known to vote for an early Christmas."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

Maybe you could read this from someone who was there. It might refresh your memory.

It might even give you an incite into what actually happened. The deal that could have kept Callaghan in government which they decided not to do, and much more. Poor old Alfred Broughton was told not to bother turning up for the vote.

I get that Britnats will want to bash the Scotnats at all times, but their was too much going on in 1979, and the proceeding years to pin it all on the SNP, although that's been your want.

Happy reading. :aok:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-1979-thatcher

---

The post you've replied to was in relation to Salmond's once in a generation/lifetime quote, but thanks for this anyway. I've read that Hattersley piece before but will do so again when I have time to wade through it as I remember it being excellent. I've also seen James Graham's play This House, which relates to the Broughton issue and is also superb. Hard to imagine such honour among whips these days.

I've never suggested the downfall of that Labour government could all be pinned on the SNP. However, there's simply no way of getting round the fact they voted with the Tories and in doing so helped to hasten the election which ushered in the Thatcher era.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

There's nothing to 'prove'. The irrefutable fact is that the SNP agreed to vote with the Tories. Without that agreement Thatcher would obviously not have gone ahead with the vote of no confidence. It wasn't as though there was a sharp intake of breath as the 'Tartan Tories' walked through the lobby with the Tories. She knew she had them in her pocket.

As Callaghan put it during the no-confidence debate: "We can truly say that once the Leader of the Opposition discovered what the Liberals and the SNP would do, she found the courage of their convictions. So, tonight, the Conservative Party, which wants the Act repealed and opposes even devolution, will march through the Lobby with the SNP, which wants independence for Scotland, and with the Liberals, who want to keep the Act. What a massive display of unsullied principle! The minority parties have walked into a trap. If they win, there will be a general election. I am told that the current joke going around the House is that it is the first time in recorded history that turkeys have been known to vote for an early Christmas."

---

I don't suppose the defections of 3 labour mps in 1976 would have helped 🤣🤣🤣

Or indeed the lib-lab pact hadn't collapsed in 1978

Or maybe, just maybe, a Labour mp in England hadn't rigged the devolution referendum in March 1979.


If all of these things hadn't happened before the vote of confidence in Callaghan's government then thatcher might have been a bit more cautious about calling the VOC.

But, of course it's all the SNP fault 🙄

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

Eh? Not even 2 out of 10 people said it was a major issue. That makes it NOT a major factor for the vast majority by some considerable margin.

---

Eh! 2 out of 10 is 20%. In a vote that ended 55% to 45% that makes it a huge factor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

Eh! 2 out of 10 is 20%. In a vote that ended 55% to 45% that makes it a huge factor.

---

What?

Sure ok it was a massive issue and scored above Pensions, the economy, the NHS, the pound, defence and security and tax and public spending.

I mean it's such a huge issue now that the polls for Yes have moved significantly since 2016 and then the disaster that is Brexit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

What?

Sure ok it was a massive issue and scored above Pensions, the economy, the NHS, the pound, defence and security and tax and public spending.

I mean it's such a huge issue now that the polls for Yes have moved significantly since 2016 and then the disaster that is Brexit.

---

If 20% of the electorate were swayed by the fact (for fact read lie) that voting no meant Scotland would stay in the EU then that has major implications for the validity of the last referendum. If that fact (lie) was why 20% voted for No, then it had a major impact on the results of the 2014 referendum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

If 20% of the electorate were swayed by the fact (for fact read lie) that voting no meant Scotland would stay in the EU then that has major implications for the validity of the last referendum. If that fact (lie) was why 20% voted for No, then it had a major impact on the results of the 2014 referendum.

---

It wasn't 20% it was 15% of No voters who said it was in the top 2 or 3 major issues. Which means it wasn't a top 2 or 3 major issue for 85% of No voters.

It wasn't a lie as in 2014 nobody could predict the future.

But believe whatever you like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

The post you've replied to was in relation to Salmond's once in a generation/lifetime quote, but thanks for this anyway. I've read that Hattersley piece before but will do so again when I have time to wade through it as I remember it being excellent. I've also seen James Graham's play This House, which relates to the Broughton issue and is also superb. Hard to imagine such honour among whips these days.

I've never suggested the downfall of that Labour government could all be pinned on the SNP. However, there's simply no way of getting round the fact they voted with the Tories and in doing so helped to hasten the election which ushered in the Thatcher era.

---

I suppose if labour had done the deal with the liberals, Maggie wouldn't have got her chance, well, at least for another 6 months.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

It wasn't 20% it was 15% of No voters who said it was in the top 2 or 3 major issues. Which means it wasn't a top 2 or 3 major issue for 85% of No voters.

It wasn't a lie as in 2014 nobody could predict the future.

But believe whatever you like.

---

Just trying to use the figures you mentioned, even a 15% sway would have validity implications for the 2014 referendum. No need to predict what would happen regarding Brexit today, it's already happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

Who is the EU? It's an organisation and she worked for it in a senior position.

---

The EU is a democratically elected organisation, I know you Tories don't understand that but it makes democratic decisions based on its treaties agreed upon by each member state. Reding isn't the EU's dictator, she is one voice amongst many.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

Eh? Not even 2 out of 10 people said it was a major issue. That makes it NOT a major factor for the vast majority by some considerable margin.

---

You really are into selective reading.

I mentioned a number of issues that, when added together, makes a significant difference in a vote that ended 55 to 45.

But if you want to take the EU issue alone, that's 15% of the 55% that voted No.

If even two thirds of those had voted otherwise on what they felt was a major issue, the vote would have been 50.5% Yes and 49.5% No.


Are you getting it yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

The EU is a democratically elected organisation, I know you Tories don't understand that but it makes democratic decisions based on its treaties agreed upon by each member state. Reding isn't the EU's dictator, she is one voice amongst many.

---

That's fine, you went from denying any statement had been made to rubbishing the statement that had been made. It was a clear statement from someone senior in the EU, that's good enough for me. I am sure if it said the opposite it would be used as evidence of the opposite. The policies the SNP had in 2014 made it clear we would have left the EU and had to apply to rejoin, things like not having your own currency and central bank being one such policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

That's fine, you went from denying any statement had been made to rubbishing the statement that had been made. It was a clear statement from someone senior in the EU, that's good enough for me. I am sure if it said the opposite it would have it being used as evidence of the opposite. The policies the SNP had in 2014 made it clear we would have left the EU and had to apply to rejoin, things like not having your own currency and central bank being one such policy.

---

No, I've went from saying the EU didn't make a statement to saying the EU as an organisation didn't make a statement because you can't distinguish between an individual in the EU and the EU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

That's fine, you went from denying any statement had been made to rubbishing the statement that had been made. It was a clear statement from someone senior in the EU, that's good enough for me. I am sure if it said the opposite it would be used as evidence of the opposite. The policies the SNP had in 2014 made it clear we would have left the EU and had to apply to rejoin, things like not having your own currency and central bank being one such policy.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m__wmsIn99E

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

No, I've went from saying the EU didn't make a statement to saying the EU as an organisation didn't make a statement because you can't distinguish between an individual in the EU and the EU.

---

It's a moot point at the end of the day, the policies of the SNP meant Scotland could never have just automatically joined the EU upon Independence, not when they would be using the pound in an unofficial currency union and still relying on the Bank of England which would basically be a foreign countrys central bank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m__wmsIn99E

---

What on earth is that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

It's a moot point at the end of the day, the policies of the SNP meant Scotland could never have just automatically joined the EU upon Independence, not when they would be using the pound in an unofficial currency union and still relying on the Bank of England which would basically be a foreign countrys central bank.

---

None will be an issue next time.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

None will be an issue next time.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Is that true? We have Ian Blackford saying Sterling will be used for "years" and then the SNP pass policies at conference saying 6 tests need to be met before a new currency is introduced and then others saying a new currency would be introduced within weeks of Independence. It's still all over the place.

I am sure the paper on currency whenever it's due will give us some insight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

It's still all over the place.

---

One day you complain that the ScotGov is wasting money planning for a referendum and the next day you complain that all the details for independence aren't completely worked out (and published so you can trash them). You're nothing if not inconsistent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

One day you complain that the ScotGov is wasting money planning for a referendum and the next day you complain that all the details for independence aren't completely worked out (and published so you can trash them). You're nothing if not inconsistent.

---

I do think that ultimately it's going to be a waste of money yes, and effort and resources that could be put into something else. But the more I think about it the more I believe what's happening now is best for Nicola Sturgeon, rather than what's best for the Independence movement. She can leave office in a few years and say well I did all I could. But if the Supreme Court rules as expected and there is no referendum next year and she turns the General Election into a "defacto referendum" and gets less than 50% then basically that's IndyRef2 lost, and that could put back the Independence movement years. But she will be fine, did all she could etc, time for someone else to take it forward. Off to some UN job somewhere no doubt.

I know I am pretty much alone in thinking this but even some SNP and Indy supporters must be having some doubts.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

I do think that ultimately it's going to be a waste of money yes, and effort and resources that could be put into something else. But the more I think about it the more I believe what's happening now is best for Nicola Sturgeon, rather than what's best for the Independence movement. She can leave office in a few years and say well I did all I could. But if the Supreme Court rules as expected and there is no referendum next year and she turns the General Election into a "defacto referendum" and gets less than 50% then basically that's IndyRef2 lost, and that could put back the Independence movement years. But she will be fine, did all she could etc, time for someone else to take it forward. Off to some UN job somewhere no doubt.

I know I am pretty much alone in thinking this but even some SNP and Indy supporters must be having some doubts.....

---

That is another straw that is being clutched at by unionists. And the Indy supporters you see claiming that are the ones who are still clinging to the hope that Salmond is going to ride in on his charger shouting a freedom and unite everyone behind Alba. Never going to happen! NS has spent her entire adult life campaigning for independence. I’m sure she will still do so after the next referendum if it doesn’t go the right way. Albeit not as FM or leader of the SNP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

One day you complain that the ScotGov is wasting money planning for a referendum and the next day you complain that all the details for independence aren't completely worked out (and published so you can trash them). You're nothing if not inconsistent.

---

That's actually grossly unfair. :tsk tsk:

There is an iron consistency there in saying absolutely anything and everything that's anti-Indy regardless of truth, context, internal logical conistency etc, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

I do think that ultimately it's going to be a waste of money yes, and effort and resources that could be put into something else. But the more I think about it the more I believe what's happening now is best for Nicola Sturgeon, rather than what's best for the Independence movement. She can leave office in a few years and say well I did all I could. But if the Supreme Court rules as expected and there is no referendum next year and she turns the General Election into a "defacto referendum" and gets less than 50% then basically that's IndyRef2 lost, and that could put back the Independence movement years. But she will be fine, did all she could etc, time for someone else to take it forward. Off to some UN job somewhere no doubt.

I know I am pretty much alone in thinking this but even some SNP and Indy supporters must be having some doubts.....

---

Here we go again. NS is both obsessed by gaining independence but also willing to set it back to protect her legacy.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Here we go again. NS is both obsessed by gaining independence but also willing to set it back to protect her legacy.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Someone mentioned being all over the place earlier on. 🙈

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

That's actually grossly unfair. :tsk tsk:

There is an iron consistency there in saying absolutely anything and everything that's anti-Indy regardless of truth, context, internal logical conistency etc, etc.

---

Why do you always reply to other posters to make your little points against me, you can reply to me as well you know. You are like the boy who punches from behind and then runs away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Here we go again. NS is both obsessed by gaining independence but also willing to set it back to protect her legacy.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

A legacy of late ferries and that time she took her mask off. Sad times. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

None will be an issue next time.[emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I thought the policy was still to use the pound, so that is still true

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

A legacy of late ferries and that time she took her mask off. Sad times. :rolleyes:

---

She should really have resigned for that, TBF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skol

I thought the policy was still to use the pound, so that is still true

---

Is that the case now? I'm not really up to date on that part, so I honestly don't know.


My preference would be to (eventually) adopt the Euro, but there's usually some scare stories going round about that and I wonder if they're worried if that might put some people off.

It's a bit like retaining Royalty. I don't believe many people in the SNP genuinely want to do it, but I suspect it's an attempt to appeal to certain demographics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skol

I thought the policy was still to use the pound, so that is still true

---

Nah it’s beebaws and Smackeroonies ….

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skol

I thought the policy was still to use the pound, so that is still true

---

That assumes it was true in the first place.

Amazingly! It's not.

The criteria for EU accession - https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-e...-membership_en

Having your own currency is a condition of joining the Eurozone, not the EU. To join the EU, an iScotland would have to commit in principle to joining the Eurozone, but there is no timescale applied to that. There are 8 EU countries not currently using the Euro: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Sweden.

Sweden has been committed to join since 1995, but has not met the conditions (purposefully, ie. they've decided up until now to keep their own currency).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Berwickhibby

Nah it’s beebaws and Smackeroonies ….

---

I think "groats" is the favoured hilarious put down of choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Berwickhibby

Nah it’s beebaws and Smackeroonies ….

---

We could trade in haggis and still do a better job than the Westminster

From this page quoted.

https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-e...-membership_en


"The first step is for the country to meet the key criteria for accession. These were mainly defined at the European Council in Copenhagen in 1993 and are hence referred to as 'Copenhagen criteria'."

Using the pound informally is the current position of the SNP based on their Growth Commission report. In terms of joining the EU, It is a non-starter. The economic criteria of ‘functioning market economy’ which is a feature of the Copenhagen Agreement is measured by showing a track record in managing monetary policies such as Interest rates and quantitative easing; which Scotland couldn’t show as it would all be decided in the non-EU rUK.

Kirsty Hughes is widely recognised as an expert in this area and is a huge supporter of Scottish Independence, she says;

https://twitter.com/KirstyS_Hughes/s...hvOVGxXTw&s=19

"Other issues will come to the fore too: if an indy Scotland adopts the pound for several years & UK is out of the EU, that will mean Scotland doesn't meet EU accession criteria."

And

https://twitter.com/KirstyS_Hughes/s...8r9aNnG4A&s=19


Unlikely to take indy Scotland 10 years to rejoin EU https://t.co/03EyeUv06m. But there is a problem of using pound, if rUK has left EU: member states not in euro are meant to target price stability & treat their exchange rate w euro as matter of common concern.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/20...lackford-says/

"An independent Scotland could keep British pound for years, Ian Blackford says"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

From this page quoted.

https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-e...-membership_en


"The first step is for the country to meet the key criteria for accession. These were mainly defined at the European Council in Copenhagen in 1993 and are hence referred to as 'Copenhagen criteria'."

Using the pound informally is the current position of the SNP based on their Growth Commission report. In terms of joining the EU, It is a non-starter. The economic criteria of ‘functioning market economy’ which is a feature of the Copenhagen Agreement is measured by showing a track record in managing monetary policies such as Interest rates and quantitative easing; which Scotland couldn’t show as it would all be decided in the non-EU rUK.

Kirsty Hughes is widely recognised as an expert in this area and is a huge supporter of Scottish Independence, she says;

https://twitter.com/KirstyS_Hughes/s...hvOVGxXTw&s=19

"Other issues will come to the fore too: if an indy Scotland adopts the pound for several years & UK is out of the EU, that will mean Scotland doesn't meet EU accession criteria."

And

https://twitter.com/KirstyS_Hughes/s...8r9aNnG4A&s=19


Unlikely to take indy Scotland 10 years to rejoin EU https://t.co/03EyeUv06m. But there is a problem of using pound, if rUK has left EU: member states not in euro are meant to target price stability & treat their exchange rate w euro as matter of common concern.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/20...lackford-says/

"An independent Scotland could keep British pound for years, Ian Blackford says"

---

There are already exceptions to areas and citizens in the EU using currencies that are not their own. The EU has shown flexibility elsewhere so why not Scotland? Too wee?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

There are already exceptions to areas and citizens in the EU using currencies that are not their own. The EU has shown flexibility elsewhere so why not Scotland? Too wee?

---

Which EU member state uses another countries currency?

Kirsty Hughes is founder and Director of the Scottish Centre on European Relations. Are we now at the Brexit stage of ignoring the experts?

Turkish lira is used in Cyprus, Swiss Frank is used in both Italy and Germany. While these countries are in the eurozone there are areas, which for historical reasons still use 'foreign' currency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

Turkish lira is used in Cyprus, Swiss Frank is used in both Italy and Germany. While these countries are in the eurozone there are areas, which for historical reasons still use 'foreign' currency.

---

Lol, the official currency of Cyprus is the Euro.

https://european-union.europa.eu/pri...iles/cyprus_en

Currency: euro. Euro area member since 1 January 2008

I don't need to tell you what the official currency of Italy and Germany is.

Your examples are not of whole countries using a different currency, not even close.

If I posted such a tenuous link it would be ridiculed.

This feels very Brexity, ignore the expert's and assume we will get some kind of special deal just because.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

Which EU member state uses another countries currency?

Kirsty Hughes is founder and Director of the Scottish Centre on European Relations. Are we now at the Brexit stage of ignoring the experts?

---

Norther Cyprus is one example, whilst being legally within the EU its official currency is the Turkish Lira. Campionne d'Italia is also a strange exception after becoming part of the EU in 2020. Officially their currency is now the Euro but in reality all that is accepted is the Swiss Franc.

Like everything in the EU, where there's a will there's a way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

Lol, the official currency of Cyprus is the Euro.

https://european-union.europa.eu/pri...iles/cyprus_en

Currency: euro. Euro area member since 1 January 2008

I don't need to tell you what the official currency of Italy and Germany is.

Your examples are not of whole countries using a different currency, not even close.

If I posted such a tenuous link it would be ridiculed.

This feels very Brexity, ignore the expert's and assume we will get some kind of special deal just because.

---

The fact is there are exceptions to the scenario you paint, why wouldn't Scotland be offered similar flexibility by the EU? Too wee, too stupid or too poor?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

Norther Cyprus is one example, whilst being legally within the EU its official currency is the Turkish Lira. Campionne d'Italia is also a strange exception after becoming part of the EU in 2020. Officially their currency is now the Euro but in reality all that is accepted is the Swiss Franc.

Like everything in the EU, where there's a will there's a way.

---

The fact we are at the stage of saying Scotland is similar to Northern Cyrpus, which is only legally recognized by Turkey, or a commune in Italy with a population of under 2,000 people then it's more desperate than I thought.

There is no formal EU member state that uses another countries currency.

Why can't the answer be along the lines of yes it's an issue, something that we need answers on and hopefully we get them instead of referring to communes in Italy with under 2,000 people and the size of an Edinburgh suburb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

Norther Cyprus is one example, whilst being legally within the EU its official currency is the Turkish Lira. Campionne d'Italia is also a strange exception after becoming part of the EU in 2020. Officially their currency is now the Euro but in reality all that is accepted is the Swiss Franc.

Like everything in the EU, where there's a will there's a way.

---

It seems some folk just want to put blockers in the way of progress, can't see a different future, and prefer the status quo. They'll tell you different, but never will they put up a positive about joining Europe. It's always what can't be done, rather than what can.

As you say, where there's a will there's a way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

The fact is there are exceptions to the scenario you paint, why wouldn't Scotland be offered similar flexibility by the EU? Too wee, too stupid or too poor?

---

Sorry I just don't take it seriously that the examples you quote are in any way comparable. If they were we would see them being used regularly and often by Independence supporters, we never have.

If you think they are relevant examples then that's great. We can agree to disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

The fact we are at the stage of saying Scotland is similar to Northern Cyrpus, which is only legally recognized by Turkey, or a commune in Italy with a population of under 2,000 people then it's more desperate than I thought.

There is no formal EU member state that uses another countries currency.

Why can't the answer be along the lines of yes it's an issue, something that we need answers on and hopefully we get them instead of referring to communes in Italy with under 2,000 people and the size of an Edinburgh suburb.

---

Nobody is saying that. We're saying there are exceptions to the scenario you think is set in stone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

Lol, the official currency of Cyprus is the Euro.

https://european-union.europa.eu/pri...iles/cyprus_en

Currency: euro. Euro area member since 1 January 2008

I don't need to tell you what the official currency of Italy and Germany is.

Your examples are not of whole countries using a different currency, not even close.

If I posted such a tenuous link it would be ridiculed.

This feels very Brexity, ignore the expert's and assume we will get some kind of special deal just because.

---

Hibrandenburg has also given you the same information. Such a shame you can't help but be negative all the time.

You asked if any EU state used another currency and have been given the same answer twice. It may not be the whole country but that is not what you asked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

It seems some folk just want to put blockers in the way of progress, can't see a different future, and prefer the status quo. They'll tell you different, but never will they put up a positive about joining Europe. It's always what can't be done, rather than what can.

As you say, where there's a will there's a way.

---

This could have been said word for word by a Brexiteer about Brexit.

The arguments and challenges are looking really similar now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

Hibrandenburg has also given you the same information. Such a shame you can't help but be negative all the time.

You asked if any EU state used another currency and have been given the same answer twice. It may not be the whole country but that is not what you asked.

---

A commune in Italy is not an EU member state! Northern Cyrpus is not recognized by anyone except Turkey. The official currency of Cyrpus is the Euro.

If you believe these are great examples and you have got me here then crack on.

And I asked if an existing EU state joined the EU using another countries currency, big difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

Turkish lira is used in Cyprus, Swiss Frank is used in both Italy and Germany. While these countries are in the eurozone there are areas, which for historical reasons still use 'foreign' currency.

---

Lived in Germany for a reasonable length of time both as Military and as a Civilian, I have seen the West DM used and the Euro…never seen the Swiss Frank used even in Bavaria

Is the Euro (or a promise to adopt it) mandatory for joining the Single Market?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

This could have been said word for word by a Brexiteer about Brexit.

The arguments and challenges are looking really similar now.

---

Nonsense.

Brexit was about going it alone. Independence for Scotland is looking outward in the world, and joining other countries for the common good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

From this page quoted.

https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-e...-membership_en


"The first step is for the country to meet the key criteria for accession. These were mainly defined at the European Council in Copenhagen in 1993 and are hence referred to as 'Copenhagen criteria'."

Using the pound informally is the current position of the SNP based on their Growth Commission report. In terms of joining the EU, It is a non-starter. The economic criteria of ‘functioning market economy’ which is a feature of the Copenhagen Agreement is measured by showing a track record in managing monetary policies such as Interest rates and quantitative easing; which Scotland couldn’t show as it would all be decided in the non-EU rUK.

Kirsty Hughes is widely recognised as an expert in this area and is a huge supporter of Scottish Independence, she says;

https://twitter.com/KirstyS_Hughes/s...hvOVGxXTw&s=19

"Other issues will come to the fore too: if an indy Scotland adopts the pound for several years & UK is out of the EU, that will mean Scotland doesn't meet EU accession criteria."

And

https://twitter.com/KirstyS_Hughes/s...8r9aNnG4A&s=19


Unlikely to take indy Scotland 10 years to rejoin EU https://t.co/03EyeUv06m. But there is a problem of using pound, if rUK has left EU: member states not in euro are meant to target price stability & treat their exchange rate w euro as matter of common concern.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/20...lackford-says/

"An independent Scotland could keep British pound for years, Ian Blackford says"

---

Looks problematic but not insurmountable. I'd rather have a problem which leads to a better place than live in our current kleptocracy.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Is the Euro (or a promise to adopt it) mandatory for joining the Single Market?

---

Nope.

Iceland, Lichtenstein, and Norway, are members.

The options for an independent Scotland include Efta, and much more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Is the Euro (or a promise to adopt it) mandatory for joining the Single Market?

---

No, and in fact you can't join the Eurozone without being in the EU. Kosovo and Montenegro both use the Euro without being Eurozone members.

I'm pretty sure the reality of the situation is that iScotland would be "parked" in the EEA pre-accession and would take a few years to transition to full EU membership. During that time, we would also transition from any period of Sterlingisation to our own currency.

Thanks, both.

Kinda knew that, but was confused by some of the more extreme chat going on there.

It's therefore up to the Yes side to make all of that explicit, so that it's not hidden by the smoke of the No side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ronaldo7

Nonsense.

Brexit was about going it alone. Independence for Scotland is looking outward in the world, and joining other countries for the common good.

---

Just as long as we're not joined to the b*****d English tho :wink:

Joking aside, how does that sunny outlook square with more than a third of SNP supporters voting for Brexit?

I've never bought into this supposed love for the EU that Scotland has allegedly always had. I doubt if I ever gave it a second thought pre-Brexit and even now a Yes Minister episode about the consistency of sausages (or something like that...it's the one where Hacker becomes PM) is pretty much the first thing I associate with the EU!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Thanks, both.

Kinda knew that, but was confused by some of the more extreme chat going on there.

It's therefore up to the Yes side to make all of that explicit, so that it's not hidden by the smoke of the No side.

---

You may be surprised to hear I agree. The SNP policy is full EU membership for Scotland, nothing less. If they had some kind of roadmap that said stage 1 we will do this, stage 2 we will do this which them leads onto stage 3 etc then it would stop some of the noise.

We have nothing like that at all though. It's just we will join the EU, so any noise will be around what joining the EU means until they clarify otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Just as long as we're not joined to the b*****d English tho :wink:

Joking aside, how does that sunny outlook square with more than a third of SNP supporters voting for Brexit?

I've never bought into this supposed love for the EU that Scotland has allegedly always had. I doubt if I ever gave it a second thought pre-Brexit and even now a Yes Minister episode about the consistency of sausages (or something like that...it's the one where Hacker becomes PM) is pretty much the first thing I associate with the EU!

---

That's a terrible first sentence. Shame on you.

The English and Welsh are welcome to come along when they can stand on their own without Scotland's resources. Not sure the rest of the EU would accept them though.

Im all for working with my European neighbours as an equal partner. I can always wave at my English friends as I swan through border control.

Do you have an up to date figure for those SNP members who voted for Brexit 6 years ago?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by He's here!

Just as long as we're not joined to the b*****d English tho :wink:

Joking aside, how does that sunny outlook square with more than a third of SNP supporters voting for Brexit?

I've never bought into this supposed love for the EU that Scotland has allegedly always had. I doubt if I ever gave it a second thought pre-Brexit and even now a Yes Minister episode about the consistency of sausages (or something like that...it's the one where Hacker becomes PM) is pretty much the first thing I associate with the EU!

---

Does this mean that the fabled 60% voted against Brexit?


Asking for a friend? 🤣

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

Does this mean that the fabled 60% voted against Brexit?


Asking for a friend? 🤣

---

Aw, I was hoping for a random YouTube video. What was that previous one all about by the way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

You may be surprised to hear I agree. The SNP policy is full EU membership for Scotland, nothing less. If they had some kind of roadmap that said stage 1 we will do this, stage 2 we will do this which them leads onto stage 3 etc then it would stop some of the noise.

We have nothing like that at all though. It's just we will join the EU, so any noise will be around what joining the EU means until they clarify otherwise.

---

Will the no side provide a similar roadmap to how we get out of the post Brexit managed decline we’re in? You only want to talk about the difficulties of independence, of which there are many, but avoid at all costs talking about the difficulties that come with a second no vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

You may be surprised to hear I agree. The SNP policy is full EU membership for Scotland, nothing less. If they had some kind of roadmap that said stage 1 we will do this, stage 2 we will do this which them leads onto stage 3 etc then it would stop some of the noise.

We have nothing like that at all though. It's just we will join the EU, so any noise will be around what joining the EU means until they clarify otherwise.

---

Promise? :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Promise? :greengrin

---

Well maybe just a different kind of noise!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Thanks, both.

Kinda knew that, but was confused by some of the more extreme chat going on there.

It's therefore up to the Yes side to make all of that explicit, so that it's not hidden by the smoke of the No side.

---

Which the yes and snp have frustratingly not been doing since 2014 and instead concentrated on other ridiculous policies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zambernardi1875

Which the yes and snp have frustratingly not been doing since 2014 and instead concentrated on other ridiculous policies

---

Like running the country?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Like running the country?

---

8 years on and the snp still haven’t addressed the issues around currency or timescales on joining the EU. Until they are the no side will always have that as a trump card. I’m surprised and frustrated this has happened yet to convince people on the fence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zambernardi1875

8 years on and the snp still haven’t addressed the issues around currency or timescales on joining the EU.

---

Do you think that choosing a currency for a newly independent country is like buying a car? "I'll have that one, in yellow, with a diesel engine and alloy wheels". Same with timescales. Once we vote for independence there will be difficult discussions and negotiations to be had both with rUK and with the EU. Neither of these discussions can go very far at present because the rUK are denying that Scotland will ever be independent, and the EU can't openly have such discussions with us until we've made some progress with a referendum.

So I expect there's a lot of thinking going on at SG, and there will ultimately be a white paper setting out some broad principles around both currency and timetable. As said above, where there's a will there's a way. We will get to these things, at the appropriate time.

I keep seeing where there is a will there's a way, I knew I had seen it before. Yes it's common phrase but I am sure at the time this would have been criticised by the very same people saying it now.

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/hunt-where...083720541.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

Do you think that choosing a currency for a newly independent country is like buying a car? "I'll have that one, in yellow, with a diesel engine and alloy wheels". Same with timescales. Once we vote for independence there will be difficult discussions and negotiations to be had both with rUK and with the EU. Neither of these discussions can go very far at present because the rUK are denying that Scotland will ever be independent, and the EU can't openly have such discussions with us until we've made some progress with a referendum.

So I expect there's a lot of thinking going on at SG, and there will ultimately be a white paper setting out some broad principles around both currency and timetable. As said above, where there's a will there's a way. We will get to these things, at the appropriate time.

---

After 2014 the SG should’ve brought out its own Scottish currency. Pegged ti the pound like the idea in Bristol but with maybe incentives on using that currency instead. Therefore now we’d have a better argument to say look we have our own currency and then also after joining the EU either used both. But this “all will be revealed later” isn’t swaying voters

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zambernardi1875

After 2014 the SG should’ve brought out its own Scottish currency. Pegged ti the pound like the idea in Bristol but with maybe incentives on using that currency instead. Therefore now we’d have a better argument to say look we have our own currency and then also after joining the EU either used both. But this “all will be revealed later” isn’t swaying voters

---

Apart from the fact that that's probably not legal, there is no central bank to support it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

I keep seeing where there is a will there's a way, I knew I had seen it before. Yes it's common phrase but I am sure at the time this would have been criticised by the very same people saying it now.

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/hunt-where...083720541.html

---

I guess you mean me. And QED, Hunt was right. Johnson was so determined to "get Brexit done" that he went back on his word and pushed Brexit through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

I guess you mean me. And QED, Hunt was right. Johnson was so determined to "get Brexit done" that he went back on his word and pushed Brexit through.

---

You are not the only one that has said it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Apart from the fact that that's probably not legal, there is no central bank to support it.

---

Maybe he is onto something.

https://twitter.com/RideoutTim/statu...KLtqsizeg&s=19


I wonder what the exchange rate is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

Maybe he is onto something.

https://twitter.com/RideoutTim/statu...KLtqsizeg&s=19


I wonder what the exchange rate is?

---

2 smackeroonies and bawbee to the pound…looks like a Ponzi scam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Berwickhibby

2 smackeroonies and bawbee to the pound…looks like a Ponzi scam

---

He is the guy suspended by the SNP for making racist comments and runs the fake Bank. He seems a bit of a fantasist. It's like playing shops when you were younger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

No, and in fact you can't join the Eurozone without being in the EU. Kosovo and Montenegro both use the Euro without being Eurozone members.

I'm pretty sure the reality of the situation is that iScotland would be "parked" in the EEA pre-accession and would take a few years to transition to full EU membership. During that time, we would also transition from any period of Sterlingisation to our own currency.

---

Like I said earlier, where there's a will there's a way. The EU can and have shown flexibility in the past. It's ludicrous to say they'd take a hard line with Scotland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

Like I said earlier, where there's a will there's a way. The EU can and have shown flexibility in the past. It's ludicrous to say they'd take a hard line with Scotland.

---

Are you aware of the EU relaxing the rules for anyone else? Montenegro applied for EU membership in 2008 and is still waiting, why are they not being flexible with them?

The EU said in a paper from 2014.

https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-e...er_2013_en.pdf

"The accession process today is more rigorous and comprehensive than in the past. This reflects the evolution of EU policies as well as lessons learned from previous enlargements. The process is built on strict but fair conditionality with progress towards membership dependent on the steps taken by each country to meet the established criteria. A key lesson from the past is the importance of addressing the fundamentals first."

There is little basis for saying somehow Scotland will get a special deal. I am not saying they will take a hard line, they will just insist the rules are followed. Meet the criteria and you are in.

Scotland will do whatever it has to do to re-enter the EU. Anyone who says on here we wont is surely just trolling?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James310

Are you aware of the EU relaxing the rules for anyone else? Montenegro applied for EU membership in 2008 and is still waiting, why are they not being flexible with them?

The EU said in a paper from 2014.

https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-e...er_2013_en.pdf

"The accession process today is more rigorous and comprehensive than in the past. This reflects the evolution of EU policies as well as lessons learned from previous enlargements. The process is built on strict but fair conditionality with progress towards membership dependent on the steps taken by each country to meet the established criteria. A key lesson from the past is the importance of addressing the fundamentals first."

There is little basis for saying somehow Scotland will get a special deal. I am not saying they will take a hard line, they will just insist the rules are followed. Meet the criteria and you are in.

---

To quote you, "are you really comparing Scotland to Montenegro"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

To quote you, "are you really comparing Scotland to Montenegro"?

---

Well it's a far better example than a commune in Italy with a population under 2,000 and the size of an Edinburgh suburb. It's an actual country going through the application process now.

But can you name any examples of where the EU was flexible with entry requirements, there may well be some but I am not aware of any?