Scottish Independence

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

“The Scottish Government actually runs a balanced budget. Any deficit which does exist, is based on our share of money the UK government spends”. Excellent interview with Stewart Hosie on Sky News (scroll back online to about 8.20am). 🎥 https://t.co/EcBfrQHLDE

https://t.co/o3AArp4Kfz

It seems that this isn't quite the whole story. Because Scotland didn't raise the amount it projected it would receive in devolved income raxes in 2017-18 it received an additional increase in block grant from UK government, that didn't make up the entire balance, meaning the 2020-21 budget will have to accommodate £204m of cuts.

I wish this issue could have the politics removed from it. Both sides will find stats that suit their argument, both will undubtedly be right on their own merits and both will fail to reflect the broader context. The broader context being this is a complicated and complex landscape which doesn't benefit from people on social media picking a stat that suits them then going to town with it.

Public debate and understanding is weakened by the rash partisanship that this represents. And like it or lump it, while both sides are guilty, there is one that feels more flagrant than the other.

[weecounty hibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It seems that this isn't quite the whole story. Because Scotland didn't raise the amount it projected it would receive in devolved income raxes in 2017-18 it received an additional increase in block grant from UK government, that didn't make up the entire balance, meaning the 2020-21 budget will have to accommodate £204m of cuts.

I wish this issue could have the politics removed from it. Both sides will find stats that suit their argument, both will undubtedly be right on their own merits and both will fail to reflect the broader context. The broader context being this is a complicated and complex landscape which doesn't benefit from people on social media picking a stat that suits them then going to town with it.

Public debate and understanding is weakened by the rash partisanship that this represents. And like it or lump it, while both sides are guilty, there is one that feels more flagrant than the other.

Which side would you suggest that would be?!?! Rhetorical question obviously😉

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Which side would you suggest that would be?!?! Rhetorical question obviously😉

On this site, yes, definitely a rhetorical question. I don't actually do much social media elsewhere, so couldn't tell you what this debate looks like on Twitter or the like.

Regardless of the proportions, it weakens the whole debate when it resorts to posting stats without context, or misleading stats, or headline claims that don't reflect the complexity of the situation, or Twitter posts represented as fact rather than opinion - and that applies to both sides equally as well.

[StevieC]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Wasn't asking for a guess. Just some hard facts........

You completely missed the point of the post

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You completely missed the point of the post

I doubt it. As i said to another poster, break it down for me about where my tax money goes, but not a 'guess' from a political slant, just something factual. And you will note the point about the shortfall in devolved income tax being off-set by an increase in the block grant and you will note civil service figures about the level of public spend per person being higher in Scotland than it is in England.

It is shameful that this is a political football but it is, and on this thread at least, it is the Nat side who tend to be kicking the ball. And there are plausible suggestions as to why the spend per head in Scotland might be higher than the UK average but is that all being picked up by Scottish taxpayers?

Simple question - show me the money? Show me how I am contributing to Crossrail and to the Queensferry Crossing, but someone in the same job as me in Newcastle, Norwich or Newquay is only contributing to the former?

No guesses, just facts.

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I doubt it. As i said to another poster, break it down for me about where my tax money goes, but not a 'guess' from a political slant, just something factual. And you will note the point about the shortfall in devolved income tax being off-set by an increase in the block grant and you will note civil service figures about the level of public spend per person being higher in Scotland than it is in England.

It is shameful that this is a political football but it is, and on this thread at least, it is the Nat side who tend to be kicking the ball. And there are plausible suggestions as to why the spend per head in Scotland might be higher than the UK average but is that all being picked up by Scottish taxpayers?

Simple question - show me the money? Show me how I am contributing to Crossrail and to the Queensferry Crossing, but someone in the same job as me in Newcastle, Norwich or Newquay is only contributing to the former?

No guesses, just facts.

Your asking for figures that don’t exist because the UK govt would need to collate them and they are unlikely to ever do that because the last thing they want is people looking too much into where their tax money goes (not an independence point).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Your asking for figures that don’t exist because the UK govt would need to collate them and they are unlikely to ever do that because the last thing they want is people looking too much into where their tax money goes (not an independence point).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Okay, I get it. So if you, or anybody else on here posts a complaint about how ‘we’ are paying for HS2 and Crossrail, but the English aren’t paying towards the Queensferry Crossing, then said poster is doing so without a shred of evidence.

Glad we sorted that.

And you wonder why I say that pro-Indy is so focused on trying to create a culture of grievance and resentment?

Where is the positive case? What does it say about the kind of society all the pro-Indy supporters want when the campaign is essentially stoking up the negatives? Who gets blamed when you don’t have the English to blame?

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Okay, I get it. So if you, or anybody else on here posts a complaint about how ‘we’ are paying for HS2 and Crossrail, but the English aren’t paying towards the Queensferry Crossing, then said poster is doing so without a shred of evidence.

Glad we sorted that.

And you wonder why I say that pro-Indy is so focused on trying to create a culture of grievance and resentment?

Where is the positive case? What does it say about the kind of society all the pro-Indy supporters want when the campaign is essentially stoking up the negatives? Who gets blamed when you don’t have the English to blame?

Some might consider not spending £200bn (£20bn our share) on a replacement for trident a positive? I’d say that a desire to bring politics a little bit closer to the people here in Scotland where decisions can be made which are more suited to the people here is a very positive thing.
I’d say it’s a positive to want to see in government a party that reflects how Scotland voted. It has only happened about 13 years out the last 40.
There is no doubt that there has been a divergence in the direction that Scotland appears to want to take and the direction that England wants to take. I don’t see that changing any time soon which is why recent polls are heading toward Yes. I’m not sure which direction you see as being the more positive?
There is no need to blame English people for anything. Our future is in our own hands.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Some might consider not spending £200bn (£20bn our share) on a replacement for trident a positive? I’d say that a desire to bring politics a little bit closer to the people here in Scotland where decisions can be made which are more suited to the people here is a very positive thing.
I’d say it’s a positive to want to see in government a party that reflects how Scotland voted. It has only happened about 13 years out the last 40.
There is no doubt that there has been a divergence in the direction that Scotland appears to want to take and the direction that England wants to take. I don’t see that changing any time soon which is why recent polls are heading toward Yes. I’m not sure which direction you see as being the more positive?
There is no need to blame English people for anything. Our future is in our own hands.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can you really defend that level of generalisation? More than a million Scots voted for Brexit. That included a significant number of SNP voters according to the reputable pollsters. Something like 16 or 17 million English people voted for Remain. I am not seeing a huge amount of divergence other than that which it suits you to try and spin.

And as for decision-making, for a very long time now, hospitals, schools, social care, housing, transport, local government finance, the list could go on and on, have all been devolved to Holyrood.

These are are the things that matter. Getting a GP appointment. Waiting on an out-patient appointment. Classroom numbers at your kids’ school. Whether you can get carers for your grandparents or parents to help them stay healthy and cared for at home. Whether houses are being built in your neighbourhood to get you onto the property ladder. Whether the roads are fit for purpose and you can access buses, trams or trains. Whether your council has enough money to fix potholes, fix streetlights, reinstate regular bin collections and re-open the closed libraries, lunch clubs, day centres.

These are the day-to-day matters that impact on our everyday lives.

You choose to cite Trident. We, as in the U.K., have been committed to an independent nuclear deterrent since the Attlee government. It might not be that independent, but every administration since 1945 has gone with it. Do you think for one second that we are not tied in to contracts with the American businesses that produce every element of what makes a submarine-launched nuclear missile or indeed the submarine that launches it? Do you think for one second that the American government doesn’t want those private sector businesses to flourish, is inextricably linked to those businesses flourishing?

Do you think for one second that any withdrawal of commissioning those weapons wouldn’t result in a massive trade retaliation by the US which would harm us far more than anything we would gain from stopping?

Nuclear weapons repulse me, as they should any sane individual, but we set our course some seventy to eighty years ago and signed up to buying from the Americans and being locked in to that. It stinks in my opinion but it is the reality.

Regardless if you disagree with that, there is no real dividend from not spending on nuclear. We would need to invest some of the saving into conventional forces and it is hard to argue why we wouldn’t use money to cut or remove our deficit or national debt. After all, I keep hearing from pro-Indy folk on here that we could be like Norway or Denmark if only we had the levers.

[Ozyhibby]

I find it strange that you would think we could not be like either of those countries? Why couldn’t we be?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Can you really defend that level of generalisation? More than a million Scots voted for Brexit. That included a significant number of SNP voters according to the reputable pollsters. Something like 16 or 17 million English people voted for Remain. I am not seeing a huge amount of divergence other than that which it suits you to try and spin.

And as for decision-making, for a very long time now, hospitals, schools, social care, housing, transport, local government finance, the list could go on and on, have all been devolved to Holyrood.

These are are the things that matter. Getting a GP appointment. Waiting on an out-patient appointment. Classroom numbers at your kids’ school. Whether you can get carers for your grandparents or parents to help them stay healthy and cared for at home. Whether houses are being built in your neighbourhood to get you onto the property ladder. Whether the roads are fit for purpose and you can access buses, trams or trains. Whether your council has enough money to fix potholes, fix streetlights, reinstate regular bin collections and re-open the closed libraries, lunch clubs, day centres.

These are the day-to-day matters that impact on our everyday lives.

You choose to cite Trident. We, as in the U.K., have been committed to an independent nuclear deterrent since the Attlee government. It might not be that independent, but every administration since 1945 has gone with it. Do you think for one second that we are not tied in to contracts with the American businesses that produce every element of what makes a submarine-launched nuclear missile or indeed the submarine that launches it? Do you think for one second that the American government doesn’t want those private sector businesses to flourish, is inextricably linked to those businesses flourishing?

Do you think for one second that any withdrawal of commissioning those weapons wouldn’t result in a massive trade retaliation by the US which would harm us far more than anything we would gain from stopping?

Nuclear weapons repulse me, as they should any sane individual, but we set our course some seventy to eighty years ago and signed up to buying from the Americans and being locked in to that. It stinks in my opinion but it is the reality.

Regardless if you disagree with that, there is no real dividend from not spending on nuclear. We would need to invest some of the saving into conventional forces and it is hard to argue why we wouldn’t use money to cut or remove our deficit or national debt. After all, I keep hearing from pro-Indy folk on here that we could be like Norway or Denmark if only we had the levers.

I’m not convinced the American would retaliate against the EU on trade because Scotland asked England to take their weapons south?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I find it strange that you would think we could not be like either of those countries? Why couldn’t we be?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Better to explain why would we be? There are some similarities and overlaps but lots of differences equally.

As it stands it reads like a crude tool which says ‘Hey, we are just like Norway or Denmark and they are great and we could be like that if we were an independent nation’.

It might be true but some, maybe even a lot, would want be convinced a bit better.

Show your workings if you want to persuade the people you need to persuade.

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I’m not convinced the American would retaliate against the EU on trade because Scotland asked England to take their weapons south?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

America has already been retaliating on the EU on trade.

The Americans have already started tariffs against the EU. What protection do we have?

England doesn’t have suitable deep water ports for nuclear subs.

Scotland hasn’t become an independent nation yet.

Scotland hasn’t become an independent nation that rejects hosting nuclear subs yet.

Can you pick out five reasons from the five previous sentences that don’t undermine your post?

And maybe offer refutal, if you can, to all the others that you seem to feel it is okay to ignore?

[Curried]

Bit of a trend here:



Cue Boris with a vow to establish a forest of magic money trees in Auchterarder

[StevieC]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I doubt it.
Simple question - show me the money?
No guesses, just facts.

You really did.

The point being made, English taxes stay in England, Scottish taxes also stay in England. Scotland is given a block grant, from which infrastructure projects are funded, but it’s less then the amount taken in Scottish taxes.

As for wanting specific amounts .. does that really make a difference? Would it win you the argument if it was 1p, 10p or a £1??

The point being made is that we are made to contribute towards HS2, but when it comes to Scottish infrastructure we have to make difficult decisions about where cuts have to be made in order to finance them.

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

America has already been retaliating on the EU on trade.

The Americans have already started tariffs against the EU. What protection do we have?

England doesn’t have suitable deep water ports for nuclear subs.

Scotland hasn’t become an independent nation yet.

Scotland hasn’t become an independent nation that rejects hosting nuclear subs yet.

Can you pick out five reasons from the five previous sentences that don’t undermine your post?

And maybe offer refutal, if you can, to all the others that you seem to feel it is okay to ignore?

So because we are not already an independent nation the argument to become an independent nation is undermined?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You really did.

The point being made, English taxes stay in England, Scottish taxes also stay in England. Scotland is given a block grant, from which infrastructure projects are funded, but it’s less then the amount taken in Scottish taxes.

As for wanting specific amounts .. does that really make a difference? Would it win you the argument if it was 1p, 10p or a £1??

The point being made is that we are made to contribute towards HS2, but when it comes to Scottish infrastructure we have to make difficult decisions about where cuts have to be made in order to finance them.

That’s simply not true and a perfect example of what MA was saying.

You have for example completely forgotten about Barnett consequentials.

The block grant is less than Scottish taxes because of devolution.

The difference (and more according to GERS) is made up of a number of factors but not least reserved spending for Scotland in Scotland by the UK government (a simple example being old age pensions).

The infamous Crossrail for example attracted consequentials (confirmed previously by the SG) so increased spending there actually results in an increase in the block grant. So suggesting English taxes only stay in England is quite simply wrong.

No doubt the funding of Scotland’s SG is complex but this type of simplification is simply and wholly incorrect.

Here is a rather dry but informative document that explains further how it works: http://www.spt.co.uk/documents/lates..._agenda14a.pdf

Interestingly that same document suggests that the process of devolving taxes to Scotland has actually resulted in LESS revenue when compared to the situation of the taxes had not been.

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That’s simply not true and a perfect example of what MA was saying.

You have for example completely forgotten about Barnett consequentials.

The block grant is less than Scottish taxes because of devolution.

The difference (and more according to GERS) is made up of a number of factors but not least reserved spending for Scotland in Scotland by the UK government (a simple example being old age pensions).

The infamous Crossrail for example attracted consequentials (confirmed previously by the SG) so increased spending there actually results in an increase in the block grant. So suggesting English taxes only stay in England is quite simply wrong.

No doubt the funding of Scotland’s SG is complex but this type of simplification is simply and wholly incorrect.

Here is a rather dry but informative document that explains further how it works: http://www.spt.co.uk/documents/lates..._agenda14a.pdf

Interestingly that same document suggests that the process of devolving taxes to Scotland has actually resulted in LESS revenue when compared to the situation of the taxes had not been.

So it’s possible that unionist are all correct on this funding issue? I’m certainly no expert on it but what I can say is that they might want to find a more simple funding formula for the different nations of the UK because they are losing on this issue big time and the line that it’s too complicated for ordinary people to understand isn’t really cutting through.
Most taxes are paid by the under 65’s and in Scotland they heavily favour independence (59% in a recent poll) so it’s clear that Scottish taxpayers are not happy with current arrangements.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

America has already been retaliating on the EU on trade.

The Americans have already started tariffs against the EU. What protection do we have?

England doesn’t have suitable deep water ports for nuclear subs.

Scotland hasn’t become an independent nation yet.

Scotland hasn’t become an independent nation that rejects hosting nuclear subs yet.

Can you pick out five reasons from the five previous sentences that don’t undermine your post?

And maybe offer refutal, if you can, to all the others that you seem to feel it is okay to ignore?

I agree with a lot of what you say on here, MA, but this latest trident argument is nonsense (imbecilic even ).

The US has never been a particularly enthusiastic supporter of independent UK nukes. Truman denied the UK access to US research in the 40s. They are happy enough to go along with Trident renewal but in practice it's completely dependent on US cooperation for equipment, maintenance, testing, etc. so they have a de facto sort of control of the situation. I can't find a reference just now but I'm sure I've read that the US military would prefer the UK not to renew trident and instead beef up conventional forces which they believe the rest of NATO neglects.

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You really did.

The point being made, English taxes stay in England, Scottish taxes also stay in England. Scotland is given a block grant, from which infrastructure projects are funded, but it’s less then the amount taken in Scottish taxes.

As for wanting specific amounts .. does that really make a difference? Would it win you the argument if it was 1p, 10p or a £1??

The point being made is that we are made to contribute towards HS2, but when it comes to Scottish infrastructure we have to make difficult decisions about where cuts have to be made in order to finance them.

I think RyeSloan's post maybe makes a more detailed case of why your argument was wrong.

But sticking to mine, I am not fussed for winning. I just don't think you can tell me whether it was 1p, 10p or £1 like you say. Which reduces the credibility of your point massively.

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So it’s possible that unionist are all correct on this funding issue? I’m certainly no expert on it but what I can say is that they might want to find a more simple funding formula for the different nations of the UK because they are losing on this issue big time and the line that it’s too complicated for ordinary people to understand isn’t really cutting through.
Most taxes are paid by the under 65’s and in Scotland they heavily favour independence (59% in a recent poll) so it’s clear that Scottish taxpayers are not happy with current arrangements.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think on this particular topic you have had responses you dont like or can't refute recently from me and RyeSloan. I'm not a unionist and I'm not sure he is either.

Maybe you shouldn't be quick to tag those with opposing views as 'unionists'. I'm not but I don't buy every empty line of nationalist rhetoric either.

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I agree with a lot of what you say on here, MA, but this latest trident argument is nonsense (imbecilic even ).

The US has never been a particularly enthusiastic supporter of independent UK nukes. Truman denied the UK access to US research in the 40s. They are happy enough to go along with Trident renewal but in practice it's completely dependent on US cooperation for equipment, maintenance, testing, etc. so they have a de facto sort of control of the situation. I can't find a reference just now but I'm sure I've read that the US military would prefer the UK not to renew trident and instead beef up conventional forces which they believe the rest of NATO neglects.

I disagree, or perhaps I think we are maybe misreading each other?

UK investment in nuclear weapons has and continues to be worth billions upon billions to American companies. I agree with you that it is not an 'independent' deterrent, in fact that's the whole point. The US, and to go back to Eisenhower's time, the military-industrial complex, makes vast profits from selling us tech and weapons that it retains a great degree of control and profit over.

As for Truman, I think, if true, it reflects Cold War paranoia. Russia was in the early stages of developing nuclear weapons, there were several prominent spy convictions in the US, but more tellingly, they thought the UK was riddled with Soviet spies (which wasn't too far from the truth as it turned out).

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think on this particular topic you have had responses you dont like or can't refute recently from me and RyeSloan. I'm not a unionist and I'm not sure he is either.

Maybe you shouldn't be quick to tag those with opposing views as 'unionists'. I'm not but I don't buy every empty line of nationalist rhetoric either.

It’s not that I don’t like them, it’s that they haven’t proven anything. I can concede you may be right but to answer that it’s too complicated to understand doesn’t help the unionist argument.
Whether either of you guys are or are not doesn’t really matter. When it comes to financial matters the unionist line is that Scotland’s finances are in a terrible state so we can’t go independent. They never say when they are going to make it so that Scotland’s finances are not in a terrible state. Scotland economy is controlled by the UK govt and as they say so themselves it’s failing but they never say how they are going to fix it or even if they have any interest in fixing it.
You can see why this is not a great long term strategy for unionists?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It’s not that I don’t like them, it’s that they haven’t proven anything. I can concede you may be right but to answer that it’s too complicated to understand doesn’t help the unionist argument.
Whether either of you guys are or are not doesn’t really matter. When it comes to financial matters the unionist line is that Scotland’s finances are in a terrible state so we can’t go independent. They never say when they are going to make it so that Scotland’s finances are not in a terrible state. Scotland economy is controlled by the UK govt and as they say so themselves it’s failing but they never say how they are going to fix it or even if they have any interest in fixing it.
You can see why this is not a great long term strategy for unionists?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thar's a balanced responce C, but i fear it just feeds the grievance and resentment angle for the more fervent nationalists.

The majority of times I read about 'Scotland' being put down is by nationalists claiming Scotland is being put down. I don't actually read that much where Scotland is actually, factually and genuinely being put down.

But then, I don't have a vested interest in claiming Scotland is being put down.

[Moulin Yarns]

Stooshie alert; SNP MPs planning to walk through lobbies tonight on NHS Funding Bill, even though it’s been classified as English Votes for English Laws (meaning only MPs representing English seats can vote)

Not sure what the outcome was but some pictures of the commons with England only signs before debate on NHS funding. EVEL was mentioned but as NHS funding has an effect on the Barnett consequencials SNP MPs went through the lobby to register their votes.

Deputy speaker has said that they won't be counted.

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Stooshie alert; SNP MPs planning to walk through lobbies tonight on NHS Funding Bill, even though it’s been classified as English Votes for English Laws (meaning only MPs representing English seats can vote)

Not sure what the outcome was but some pictures of the commons with England only signs before debate on NHS funding. EVEL was mentioned but as NHS funding has an effect on the Barnett consequencials SNP MPs went through the lobby to register their votes.

Deputy speaker has said that they won't be counted.

Is it any wonder that independence is becoming so popular. The current constitutional arrangement is choc full of inconsistencies which people are getting sick off and the SNP are the only party offering a solution. Even if you weren’t that fussed about independence, the current set up where the SNP can blame everything on the Tories in London and the unionist parties blame the SNP in Edinburgh no matter where the actual competencies lie is unsustainable in the long term. People won’t put up with that for long.
If the unionist parties don’t come up with a solution soon then independence is the only option available to people for change. The status quo will not be an option.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mixu62]

No really anything of substance to add just now, but just wondered if any of the folk who voted "undecided" in the poll have now decided. Other (dare I say more accurate!!) polls suggest undecided's are leaning towards Yes, was just curious if that's reflected on .net.

[Onceinawhile]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No really anything of substance to add just now, but just wondered if any of the folk who voted "undecided" in the poll have now decided. Other (dare I say more accurate!!) polls suggest undecided's are leaning towards Yes, was just curious if that's reflected on .net.

It would be good to get a new poll tbh. This one must be quite a few years old. Surely plenty people will have changed mind in that time?

[Hibrandenburg]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It would be good to get a new poll tbh. This one must be quite a few years old. Surely plenty people will have changed mind in that time?

This is today's entry in my German calendar of failures. It translates:

16th February 1707

The Scottish parliament votes for unification with England. Many of the representatives are bankrupt and have been bribed.

They hope that the English will pay their debts for them.

[Moulin Yarns]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This is today's entry in my German calendar of failures. It translates:

16th February 1707

The Scottish parliament votes for unification with England. Many of the representatives are bankrupt and have been bribed.

They hope that the English will pay their debts for them.

Happy anniversary