The end of the union [Archive]

sancho_panza

13-02-2017, 01:46 AM

Brexit, rather than offering a path to a second referendum has simply muddied the waters. It still isn't clear what an independent Scotland's relationship within or with the EU would be. Given that the UK appears to be leaving the single market, that would potentially create significant issues for an independent Scotland within the EU given that England would still be Scotland's biggest trading partner.

At the moment what seems to have happened is Brexit has created a huge amount of uncertainty and some people are reluctant to pile more uncertainty on top of it by backing independence. There's also a potential framing effect. The Leave and Yes campaigns were very different, but they both appealed to a certain type of anti-establishment voter. As Brexit is now at the centre of the political agenda these voters are perhaps less inclined to support independence because the SNP are on the other side of the EU issue.

Personally, while I completely agree that the economic argument for independence is far weaker than it was in 2014, and the polling doesn't seem to be too favourable to Yes at present, I still think Yes would have a good chance of winning a second referendum. The framing effect mentioned above immediately disappears if we're suddenly in another referendum campaign and what Brexit highlighted is that economic arguments can be trumped by making appeals to identity and democracy/sovereignty (the EU referendum strengthens the latter case pretty significantly).

Getintaethem

13-02-2017, 09:08 AM

Sancho - interesting post around framing. In the last referendum, it was a battle framed by the SNP, against rule by Westminster. What the SNP have done since June is go hard on Brexit and frame the battle for remaining in the EU.

I can understand why they have done this. The more powers the SNP Government have the more intense the scrutiny on how well they are performing. Education standards have not improved since they were in office. They have, for the first time, in English, Maths and Science gone below England. England are starting to show improvement against international standards and places like London are outperforming. You can look at the economy and economic development (not just in the NE of Scotland), police, local government funding and business rates, social work and the child snooping charter. There are not a huge number of success stories flying around. The deficit is over 9% - higher than Greece's, the economic basket case of the EU. The only thing stopping Scotland being in a worse position than Greece - what allows us to keep spending etc. is the rest of the UK in effect bailing us out. Comparing Scotland to Westminster, when the SNP have so much more devolved power now and a referendum could be used to actually compare the records of the two would not be good for the SNP. In the paper around the EU produced by the SNP Government they state that they could pay as much as £3bn to stay in the EU. That is one tenth of Scotland annual budget and the writer said in the select committee on Brexit that this was a "price worth paying." All things remaining equal, if we did not cut spending or increase taxes significantly that would mean that our budget deficit would be around 19%. Totally unsustainable. This is before you factor in any part of the UK national debt that would be allocated to Scotland.

Therefore, politically, it made sense to go hard on Brexit. YouGov have done some great analysis of the people who voted in the last Scottish Independence ref, people who voted in Brexit and compared them to the latest independence polls. Although there is not much difference in the headline figures for the actual vote in the Independence vote and the polls now, their research has found that there is a lot of churn between Yes and No voters. The biggest churn is in Yes voters that voted Leave in Brexit and No voters that voted Remain in Brexit. Hardly a surprise given what the SNP have been saying.

Now the route for Sturgeon to win is in getting back the Yes voters that voted Leave and I believe that this is what she is banking on.

However, it does need 2 things to happen. Firstly, Brexit negotiations in the next 18 months need to go badly and secondly there is no more bad news from the EU. I doubt that these negotiations will go badly mainly because there are more pressing concerns for the EU than Brexit over the next 2 years. Now even the bigwigs in the EU are admitting that it could fall apart. What is for sure is that things in the EU are going badly (even outside of Brexit) and in that timeframe at least one country could either have left or be on the verge of leaving the Euro. This would be hugely destabilising on the EU and would probably lead to others leaving. I don't think anyone thinks that Greece will be in the Euro long term but Italy will also need to leave or will become even worse economically than it is now. Then you add other countries into the mix like France, The Netherlands etc. and the likelihood of something catastrophic happening in the EU in 18 months gets more and more likely. This would not have been so disastrous for Sturgeon if she had not fixed her flag on independence on EU membership - on a EU that seems destined for some big issues over the next 2 years.

She has gone down the road of bluff against May and May has called her bluff by saying that the UK will come out of the single market. Sturgeon is therefore in trouble as she has made threats on a referendum in order to get compromise on Brexit that she will have to stake her political career on. I doubt that she will want to do this, however, the pressure on her to call a referendum may be too great politically. The leader of the Yes campaign wrote an article where he analysed referendum campaigns around the world and he stated that the longer a government is in power the less likely they are to win a referendum.

They could win, anything could happen, but it is far harder for the SNP to win this time around.

You have to remember that the SNP have been running a pseudo independence campaign since June almost unopposed and the polling has hardly moved. You have also got to factor into any new independence campaign that it would be hard for No to run as bad a campaign as they did last time. They will get more organised this time around - especially without the Cameron cabal - they are already planning the campaign, something that never happened with Cameron. I can see a significant number of Yes voters staying at home in another independence referendum and this probably will cause them to lose.

The SNP had 2 heavyweights in Salmond and Sturgeon. Both could have their political careers ended by referendum. Who would the SNP go to without either of them leading the party in Scotland in 2021?

Just one man's opinion.

Getintaethem

05-03-2017, 10:24 AM

57vintage

05-03-2017, 11:36 AM

Getintaethem

05-03-2017, 01:29 PM

Post-EU referendum research showed that the 62-38 split was matched almost exactly by both SNP and Labour voters. That would suggest that there is no guarantee that an independence referendum outcome would be any different from Sept 2014's.

To underline that, and possibly confuse it even further, John Curtice has also said that since the EU vote, the numbers who voted for independence from the UK in 2014 who would now vote No in a second referendum, are almost identically balanced by those who voted No in 2014 who would now vote the other way given that we're on a shambling, rusting 3-wheeled train on the way out of the EU.

The SNP have also got to walk a tightrope of keeping onside those "politically engaged for the first time in 2014" by dangling a carrot to them, but taking a massive gamble on calling for (and having their wish fulfilled) a second referendum which they cannot guarantee winning.

Of course, politicians have the luxury of demitting office if their plans go wrong, with generous severance pay and pensions, whilst the proletariat can go **** themselves.

I would be really surprised if a second independence referendum were as close as 10%. The likelihood is that the gap will be more if a referendum were held this side of the next Scottish Parliament election. 2 reasons, dissatisfaction with the SNP Government is going to continue to grow and Yes supporters last time will be more likely to abstain. Secondly the No/Remain voters who are telling pollsters right now that they will vote Yes this time around will have time to reflect on whether Brexit is such a major issue and is more important than not continuing to be in the UK and will also be affected by dissatisfaction with the SNP. This scenario will prove to be a disaster for the SNP.

Last poll showing an almost equal support for Yes and No looks to be an outlier.

I notice that in Ireland even with no major party supporting withdrawal from the EU, there is a lot of support for them to leave the EU at same time as the UK as they see that their economy is far more dependent on the UK than the rest of the EU. Their two main export markets are the UK and USA - will both be outside the EU. They are also really worried that if tariffs were put on their beef industry, which is heavily reliant on UK exports, (Ireland is the only country in the EU adding more farms) would almost certainly transfer over to the UK.

Call me old fashioned but I for one would just like the Government governing for a change. Here is an idea, perhaps sort out the police service after the disastrous single force idea, sort out the Health Service and perhaps make our education better than England's again - oh and sort out the economy and stop the centralisation of services to Edinburgh.

dons8321

05-03-2017, 07:24 PM

Part of Sturgeon's pretext around having a second independence referendum was that Scotland was not being listened to because 62% of Scots voted Remain and their voice should be heard. Another one of the SNP's grievances. She would have you believe that another independence referendum in these circumstances was her moral duty. Well, poll out today says 67% don't want a second Scottish independence referendum. We listened to what she had to say but we don't agree with her by a bigger margin than her much heralded Remain vote. Will Sturgeon listen to the people of Scotland? Will SHE allow our voices to be heard?

But her "poll" is an actual one whilst the other is based on seeking out option (and we know how well polls have done in the recent past). Personally I don't think there should be another ref. at the moment as it wouldn't produce a different result to the last one -I just don't think the 62% who voted to Remain would vote for independence which seems to be basis of her argument.

Getintaethem

05-03-2017, 08:14 PM

But her "poll" is an actual one whilst the other is based on seeking out option (and we know how well polls have done in the recent past). Personally I don't think there should be another ref. at the moment as it wouldn't produce a different result to the last one -I just don't think the 62% who voted to Remain would vote for independence which seems to be basis of her argument.

The polls have been wrong but not out by 67% to 33%. That is a 34% difference and all polls have been within the margin or error to the actual votes (even when they were wrong). It is clear that there is overwhelming support for not having another independence referendum.

She has said in the past, before the Brexit vote, that she was building a case for independence again and that she would not go to a vote until there was consistently over 60% people wanting independence based upon polls. So she has used polls in the past to justify her position.

Mason89

06-03-2017, 05:18 AM

sancho_panza

06-03-2017, 06:27 AM

I notice that in Ireland even with no major party supporting withdrawal from the EU, there is a lot of support for them to leave the EU at same time as the UK as they see that their economy is far more dependent on the UK than the rest of the EU. Their two main export markets are the UK and USA - will both be outside the EU. They are also really worried that if tariffs were put on their beef industry, which is heavily reliant on UK exports, (Ireland is the only country in the EU adding more farms) would almost certainly transfer over to the UK.

The last poll on this showed 70% of Irish voters wanting to stay in the EU so there certainly isn't any sizeable support for them wanting to leave.

Aldo1983

06-03-2017, 06:50 AM

A lot of the criticism of Sturgeon is simply because she's a woman. A lot of it is just pish like 'she should just get on with running the country'. She's the only party leader that even looks semi competent but that doesn't matter when you vote on the grounds that she also looks a bit like Jimmy Krankie.

Extensive and thorough research by St. Andrews university found that those who stated she looked like Jimmy Krankie were in fact rabid Huns with rabid Hun morals, however, in some sad cases, closested rabid Huns.

Getintaethem

06-03-2017, 07:23 AM

The last poll on this showed 70% of Irish voters wanting to stay in the EU so there certainly isn't any sizeable support for them wanting to leave.

So 30% wanting to be independent from the EU is not a sizeable support? (without any major parties in Ireland supporting it, pushing it, discussing it etc.)

30% the historical figure of people in Scotland right up to 2014 that supported independence from the UK. (with one major party in Scotland standing for it, pushing for it and discussing it at every turn.).

Mason89

06-03-2017, 08:02 AM

Extensive and thorough research by St. Andrews university found that those who stated she looked like Jimmy Krankie were in fact rabid Huns with rabid Hun morals, however, in some sad cases, closested rabid Huns.

That would certainly seem to be the case

57vintage

06-03-2017, 10:11 AM

Mason89

06-03-2017, 10:20 AM

looks like Richie Byrne trying to deal with Jimmy Johnstone on a frosty pitch.

:)

InversneckieDob

06-03-2017, 11:28 AM

Well, I don't vote SNP (I remember what they did in 1979) and would never use gender as an excuse to attack anyone.

She may be semi-competent, but on her watch, and the previous non-female FM's, the services for which they have responsibility have diminished in quality and effectiveness.

I do have concerns, however, about the competence of nearly all Scottish ministers, possibly apart from Swinney, who has been handed Education as his brief, since Sturgeon, that tory ****er Russell, Hyslop and Constance have all had a shottie and screwed it up. Alex Neil was Shadow Education Minister when the Labour-Liberal coalition was in power, and he was far more competent than any who have had the portfolio in government. Moving Swinney, a relatively safe pair of hands, has resulted in Derek McKay (not the most stellar of individuals to have that name), being given the Finance brief, where he is clearly out of his depth and looks like Richie Byrne trying to deal with Jimmy Johnstone on a frosty pitch. He was ****ing useless as Transport Minister too. Keith Brown's probably the only other one in whose ability I'd have any confidence.

That's a big part of the Nat's problems, they have a load of really rubbish MPs (and MSPs).

I think Sturgeon is an able politician, which could be viewed as both compliment and insult simultaneously.
The NATs are a largely ideologically fluid, single issue crew.
Now, that's fine as far as it goes, but it means that, in Government, there's a helluva lot of plate spinning and tap dancing.

They can't be seen to be raising taxation, be that at a local or national level, as, due to electoral myopia, this would hurt their case for independence.

But the more I see of the vileness of Westminster, the more I crave an independent Scotland.
I'll never vote for the NATs though.

Mason89

06-03-2017, 11:42 AM

I'll never vote for the NATs though.

I can understand people still holding a grudge to the SNP for 1979. What I canny understand is why I get pulled up for hating McInnes for the 1990s

Double standards :)

Donanddusted

06-03-2017, 06:20 PM

But the more I see of the vileness of Westminster, the more I crave an independent Scotland.
I'll never vote for the NATs though.

That was the trouble for some at the last independence vote.
They couldn't see it as a gateway to then be able to vote for whichever party best held their views in an independent Scotland.

sancho_panza

07-03-2017, 12:15 AM

So 30% wanting to be independent from the EU is not a sizeable support? (without any major parties in Ireland supporting it, pushing it, discussing it etc.)

30% the historical figure of people in Scotland right up to 2014 that supported independence from the UK. (with one major party in Scotland standing for it, pushing for it and discussing it at every turn.).

That poll showed 28% wanting to leave if there's a hard Brexit that affects Ireland's access to the UK market (if there isn't a hard Brexit then it would be less than 28%). That's extremely low support for leaving the EU by European standards - basically widespread consensus that staying in the EU is a good thing even in hypothetical scenarios where it results in Ireland losing access to its most important market.

And that was just one poll, if you go back through the Eurobarometer data on this the Irish have consistently shown extremely strong support for the EU. The 2016 Eurobarometer, for instance, only had 14% viewing the EU negatively. If you want to push the anti-EU angle (fairly obvious from the language you're using here) then Ireland is one of the worst countries you could have picked for that purpose. There's far more chance of us leaving the UK and joining Ireland in the EU than there is of the Irish leaving the EU and joining us in whatever 1950s fantasy the likes of David Davis and Liam Fox have in mind for us.

57vintage

07-03-2017, 11:57 AM

That was the trouble for some at the last independence vote.
They couldn't see it as a gateway to then be able to vote for whichever party best held their views in an independent Scotland.

It's a valid viewpoint. Anyone who thinks that a now-established establishment party like the SNP will fragment according to the current left-right political spectrum must have their head zipped up the back. In the event of Scotland becoming independent, they would lose a few hundred members, but hardly any MPs, MSPs, or wannabes.

Like other establishment parties, the individual rewards of political patronage and outright power would see the SNP continue pretty much as it is, a party on a permanent election footing, talking the talk of the 'centre-left', whilst being no more radical than New Labour (whose manifesto they replicated in 2007) or the Lib-Dems.

There is a substantial queue at the ticket office to ride aboard the biscuit-wheeled gravy train, and I have been party to candidates being selected on the basis of 'it's his/her turn' rather than the best, most experienced candidate for the role.

Then you have the legal establishment, the educational establishment, the religious establishment, the Scottish CBI etc etc who will ensure that constitutional change will mean no change.

The market will prevail, as will the SNP and its propping-up of it.

Mason89

07-03-2017, 12:35 PM

It's a valid viewpoint. Anyone who thinks that a now-established establishment party like the SNP will fragment according to the current left-right political spectrum must have their head zipped up the back. In the event of Scotland becoming independent, they would lose a few hundred members, but hardly any MPs, MSPs, or wannabes.

Like other establishment parties, the individual rewards of political patronage and outright power would see the SNP continue pretty much as it is, a party on a permanent election footing, talking the talk of the 'centre-left', whilst being no more radical than New Labour (whose manifesto they replicated in 2007) or the Lib-Dems.

There is a substantial queue at the ticket office to ride aboard the biscuit-wheeled gravy train, and I have been party to candidates being selected on the basis of 'it's his/her turn' rather than the best, most experienced candidate for the role.

Then you have the legal establishment, the educational establishment, the religious establishment, the Scottish CBI etc etc who will ensure that constitutional change will mean no change.

The market will prevail, as will the SNP and its propping-up of it.

Still better than what's on offer just now imo.

Getintaethem

07-03-2017, 02:10 PM

Still better than what's on offer just now imo.

This is an interesting point. If we became independent then as a country we would need to face up to the responsibility of governing as a nation. Most countries around the world (democratic countries) have a right wing party and a left wing party. People said that in Scotland no one would vote Tory, but in the past few years their support has gone from mid-****s or below to now over 25%. At the last Scottish elections they stood at around 20% (before the last election no one believed they would become the second largest party in Holyrood). The more there is talk of independence, the more their support goes up. If we were independent and the Tories were not perceived as an English party but a truly "independent" Scottish party then I cannot see how this level of support would not go up even further. The polls on people's views on most subjects show that the Scottish and English people's views are pretty similar. So here is the crazy thought for today. With independence, I believe we would end up with a Tory Government in Scotland.

Why would we get a Tory Government in Scotland?

Putting aside the politics for a minute. We are currently running a deficit of over $14bn or 9% of GDP. If we were independent then we would need to borrow a lot of cash per year (something we cannot do if we want to join the EU as the rules require much lower deficits than that), increase taxes substantially (sturgeon already said that if she did that then business would move to England - in fact post independence sturgeon was going to reduce corporation taxes) or reduce public services dramatically. So in an independent Scotland if we take Sturgeon at her word and abide by EU regulations we would need to cut public spending. To put this another way, in order to balance the books (everything remaining as it is today) we would need to cut a fifth off of all public sector spending - that is without any businesses moving out of Scotland due to independence and Scotland being able to keep the pound etc. You could say that we would attract a lot more companies to Scotland post independence but the reality is that this takes years or decades to achieve, businesses would need to see stable government and public finances. The reality is we have not been very successful at attracting new well paid jobs to Scotland over the past couple decades.

The reality is that the SNP Government would probably borrow more than is allowed to under the EU rules, raise taxes and reduce spending in some sort of fudge. However, this would still cause support for the SNP to fall and the Tories would ultimately see the benefit and be able to govern in some sort of coalition with Labour and/or the Lib Dems (or run a minority Government) in the next 2 to 3 election cycles. So get independence to stop the tories ruling over us from Westminster only to get the tories ruling over us from Holyrood.

You could say this is fantasy stuff, but it really does not take a genius to realise that the SNP will not hold power forever post independence. Now, what would be the first thing a Tory government do in Scotland post election?

Donanddusted

07-03-2017, 05:26 PM

Now, what would be the first thing a Tory government do in Scotland post election?

I agree entirely that support for other parties would definitely rise but if you mean Tory government would look to rejoin the UK, well, they'd need another referendum for starters and who is to say the rest of the UK would want us back?

Getintaethem

07-03-2017, 06:46 PM

I agree entirely that support for other parties would definitely rise but if you mean Tory government would look to rejoin the UK, well, they'd need another referendum for starters and who is to say the rest of the UK would want us back?

I think that is a strong possibility if Scotland became independent now. As Sillars says, this is the worst possible time to hold a referendum. Not just because it is hard to win it, but if we did become independent our finances are in such a truly shocking state that it would be almost impossible to make a success of the economy, hold up public spending and not have to tax everyone a lot more. This is as things stand now without any other shocks such as any financial institutions moving out to close by cities such as Newcastle.

A bad economy makes it more likely to get a conservative led government in an independent Scotland and more likely that there would be support to go back into the Union. It would not take a big swing to win that referendum - so why wouldn't the tories back up by Labour and Lib Dems go for it?

Would the rest of the UK agree to this? Who knows, but my gut feeling is that if Ireland ever did have a referendum to rejoin the UK (unlikely that that is), would the UK not take them back? I believe they would. The terms of re-entry back into the UK would depend on how bad the economy was in Scotland at the time but it was unlikely we would get such good terms e.g. Barnett formula etc.

fatshaft

08-03-2017, 08:34 AM

fatshaft

08-03-2017, 08:36 AM

I think that is a strong possibility if Scotland became independent now. As Sillars says, this is the worst possible time to hold a referendum. Not just because it is hard to win it, but if we did become independent our finances are in such a truly shocking state that it would be almost impossible to make a success of the economy, hold up public spending and not have to tax everyone a lot more. This is as things stand now without any other shocks such as any financial institutions moving out to close by cities such as Newcastle.

A bad economy makes it more likely to get a conservative led government in an independent Scotland and more likely that there would be support to go back into the Union. It would not take a big swing to win that referendum - so why wouldn't the tories back up by Labour and Lib Dems go for it?

Would the rest of the UK agree to this? Who knows, but my gut feeling is that if Ireland ever did have a referendum to rejoin the UK (unlikely that that is), would the UK not take them back? I believe they would. The terms of re-entry back into the UK would depend on how bad the economy was in Scotland at the time but it was unlikely we would get such good terms e.g. Barnett formula etc.

Go and lie down.

There's never been a country ever that wanted un-independence. If by some astonishing fluke The Mooth did get her party to be the largest (let's be honest, they'd never have a majority), she'd not cede power to another country, she's power/fame mental, hence her frequent forays to preach in England and get her face on panel shows.

Getintaethem

08-03-2017, 12:04 PM

Go and lie down.

There's never been a country ever that wanted un-independence. If by some astonishing fluke The Mooth did get her party to be the largest (let's be honest, they'd never have a majority), she'd not cede power to another country, she's power/fame mental, hence her frequent forays to preach in England and get her face on panel shows.

There are a huge number of countries that have changed status and joined other countries. In fact, Scotland itself is an example of a country that wanted un-independence when it ceded sovereignty to the union.

It is funny how things change in unexpected ways. A few short years ago if someone had said the Tories could become the largest party in Scotland, in the foreseeable future, they would have been hounded out of here. Now, there is an admission that they could become the governing party in Scotland (albeit without a majority).

The purpose of the SNP is independence. The purpose of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party is quite clearly "union".

The Scottish election system is bias against any single party winning a majority. It has only happened once. If the tories got into power all they would need is a majority of unionist parties in favour of a referendum. Just like the SNP right now need the Greens to vote for their referendum. And they would not need to go to the UK for permission. As all other parties in Scotland are in favour of the Union then it is conceivable that they would (under the right conditions) call for a referendum. That would most likely come right after winning control of the Scottish Parliament as support for the SNP will be at a low and as the finances are likely to be in a "bit of a state" probably support for independence will also be waining. If they won that, then they would have a clear mandate to start negotiations to reenter the UK. Would the UK say no - they could but I doubt it.

The majority in the country clearly do not want another independence referendum, however, if you are someone that wants the union to survive this is probably the best time for the SNP to call one. This is even admitted by grandees in the SNP. The likelihood of success is low but even if it did succeed, the finances are in such a terrible state the likelihood of reunification in a few short years is high.

On the other hand, Scotland may get independence and become a land of milk and honey. Now, I do need to lie down.

Mason89

08-03-2017, 12:21 PM

I don't think anyone should be voting in the referendum based on what the economy might be. I accept I might be in the minority there as well.

57vintage

08-03-2017, 03:47 PM

i'm pretty sure they'd lose 56 MPs?

That's a fair shout, to be fair. :D

kigoretrout

08-03-2017, 06:41 PM

Getintaethem

08-03-2017, 08:52 PM

I'm afraid that's just blethers. Ireland wanting to rejoin the Uk ? Wtf ! As far as Scotland is concerned, The tory party has been making inroads into Scottish votes once more because of the utter ineptitude of the Labour Party in Westminster. The SNP has taken the central/left ground in Scotland from Scottish Labour and the tory party has helped itself to some of the New Labour vote who actually voted Tory before Blair came along.

If Scotland becomes independent there will either be a complete redrawing of the political spectrum or more likely the SNP , a Scottish Labour Party and some form of central to right party who may call themselves conservatives who knows with the Lib/dem on the periphery.

A Scottish labour party divorced from the toxic legacy of Blair and the scepticism a lot of people hold re Corbyn will gain ground, particularly if the growing view prevails that the SNP aren't doing that great a job with the Economy , Health service , schools etc. It will no longer be a unionist UK party, it will be a Scottish party by definition. I can't envisage a scenario where they throw their hats in with the "conservatives" to try and rejoin the UK

You completely missed the point about Ireland. It was in response to whether the UK would accept Scotland back. It is not about Ireland wanting to rejoin the UK (as I said, this is unlikely) but if did would the UK accept them. The answer is probably yes. Same goes with Scotland.

As for the rest of the post, you say there will be a complete redrawing of the political spectrum but then go on to describe what we have just now!

If you believe that the Labour party, their members and voters will just see the light and become born again nationalists then good luck with that. It is as likely as you becoming a supporter of the union.

sancho_panza

09-03-2017, 04:13 AM

I don't think anyone should be voting in the referendum based on what the economy might be. I accept I might be in the minority there as well.

There are two ways to look at it for me. On the one hand you could argue that something like independence is much bigger than how it affects your wallet. It's about identity, your country, the principle of self-rule and so on. That all sounds noble and principled, but the other side to that argument is that abstract debates about how a country should be governed are less important than what it actually means for people's lives: can you earn a living, do your kids get a decent education, do hospitals provide proper care, and so on. I was firmly in the latter camp in the last referendum and voted No. People's lives matter more than abstract political debates about sovereignty.

This time round though I would probably lean towards Yes as I'm completely alienated by Brexit (or more specifically the way May is using Brexit to try and redraw the way the country works). The points Getintaethem raises about the economy are more or less true. Our public finances are a mess at the moment and we'd have to slash spending across the board or raise taxes just to stay where we are at present if we were independent. But British politics is now fundamentally broken in a way that wasn't the case in 2014 and I'd be inclined to jump ship while we can.

Getintaethem

09-03-2017, 08:45 AM

I was firmly in the latter camp in the last referendum and voted No.

Out of interest, why do you use the name, Sancho Panza? I presumed it was because you lived in Spain.

kigoretrout

09-03-2017, 02:55 PM

You completely missed the point about Ireland. It was in response to whether the UK would accept Scotland back. It is not about Ireland wanting to rejoin the UK (as I said, this is unlikely) but if did would the UK accept them. The answer is probably yes. Same goes with Scotland.

As for the rest of the post, you say there will be a complete redrawing of the political spectrum but then go on to describe what we have just now!

If you believe that the Labour party, their members and voters will just see the light and become born again nationalists then good luck with that. It is as likely as you becoming a supporter of the union.

No I think it is you who have missed my point. Ireland would need to ask to rejoin and my point was that even as a hypothetical scenario given the background behind them leaving it was not worthy of consideration.

Clearly I have not said there would be a redrawing of the political spectrum I said "either or.. ". Personally, I think with the exception of the Conservative and Unionist party the other main parties would retain the same name with Labour and the Lib/dems prefixing their party name with Scottish although I could see some merger of lib/dems and Scottish labour possibly being on the cards. I honestly believe a lot of traditionally Labour voters have already become Nationalists which is reflected in the last referendum result. Its just basic arithmetic. I class myself among the reluctant Nationalist camp.

If and its a big if Scotland becomes Independent then in my opinion it will require as a catalyst Westminster dragging us to hell in a hand cart in pursuit of their hard brexit or no deal at all agenda for this to happen. If Scotland becomes Independent then yes I can see no reason for a Scottish Labour party to pursue any form of return to the Union agenda. In Scotland they would have a realistic hope of forming a Government. By that time we will be lucky if a Labour Party in Westminster exists and certainly not one with any prospect of forming a government

Getintaethem

09-03-2017, 04:42 PM

No I think it is you who have missed my point. Ireland would need to ask to rejoin and my point was that even as a hypothetical scenario given the background behind them leaving it was not worthy of consideration.

It is worthy because the rest of the UK would most likely take Ireland back into the Union. It illustrates that the rest of the UK would also take back Scotland. It is not so hard to understand.

Clearly I have not said there would be a redrawing of the political spectrum I said "either or.. ". Personally, I think with the exception of the Conservative and Unionist party the other main parties would retain the same name with Labour and the Lib/dems prefixing their party name with Scottish although I could see some merger of lib/dems and Scottish labour possibly being on the cards. I honestly believe a lot of traditionally Labour voters have already become Nationalists which is reflected in the last referendum result. Its just basic arithmetic. I class myself among the reluctant Nationalist camp.

So basically exactly the same as we have now except that the lib dems and labour could merge. I do not understand why independence would make the lib dems and labour merge any more than out with independence. Incidentally, they call themselves Scottish Labour, Scottish Lib Dems and Scottish Conservatives now.

If and its a big if Scotland becomes Independent then in my opinion it will require as a catalyst Westminster dragging us to hell in a hand cart in pursuit of their hard brexit or no deal at all agenda for this to happen. If Scotland becomes Independent then yes I can see no reason for a Scottish Labour party to pursue any form of return to the Union agenda. In Scotland they would have a realistic hope of forming a Government. By that time we will be lucky if a Labour Party in Westminster exists and certainly not one with any prospect of forming a government

One reason is because they believe that Scotland is stronger as part of the United Kingdom. i.e. perhaps they have principles that they will stick with. Running a deficit of £14bn per year would be suicide for an independent Scotland. We would need to put up taxes, reduce services and/or borrow more. £14bn is so far outside anything that the EU would allow from a borrowing perspective, therefore we would need to put up taxes and reduce services - unless there is some magic wand. £14bn represents over £5K for every worker in Scotland. It does not take a genius to work out that this would be a disaster for any SNP Government and popularity for independence will fall dramatically post independence. The price of oil is unlikely to recover for several years. If oil prices rise, it gives a green light to the US shale production and oil prices will fall again.

There are a lot of political soundbites but no real details around why a hard Brexit will be such a disaster economically.
I do not understand economically what the issue is post hard Brexit (there may be political/social reasons for not wanting to leave). Even with using WTO trade rules (rules set up to promote trade) tariffs would be set at around 3%. Normal exchange rate fluctuations are far more than 3% per year and we do not notice any major disruptions in trade and WTO rules are used by China and the US to export into the EU. In fact, our trade outside the EU using WTO rules has been going up - not down.

To put this into perspective, the UK exports around £225bn into the EU. 3% of that is around £7bn. Therefore, the UK Government could just recompense every company that exports to the EU the 3% tariff, if it so wished, from the amount the UK now pays into the EU as our membership fee - or as the UK could also set tariffs on imports - from this money. However, what is far more likely, if it came down to it, is the UK would just say that they will use WTO rules for trade with EU countries and set tariffs to zero and will only add tariffs if the EU adds tariffs on our goods and services.

sancho_panza

10-03-2017, 01:53 AM

There are a lot of political soundbites but no real details around why a hard Brexit will be such a disaster economically.
I do not understand economically what the issue is post hard Brexit (there may be political/social reasons for not wanting to leave). Even with using WTO trade rules (rules set up to promote trade) tariffs would be set at around 3%. Normal exchange rate fluctuations are far more than 3% per year and we do not notice any major disruptions in trade and WTO rules are used by China and the US to export into the EU. In fact, our trade outside the EU using WTO rules has been going up - not down.

To put this into perspective, the UK exports around £225bn into the EU. 3% of that is around £7bn. Therefore, the UK Government could just recompense every company that exports to the EU the 3% tariff, if it so wished, from the amount the UK now pays into the EU as our membership fee - or as the UK could also set tariffs on imports - from this money. However, what is far more likely, if it came down to it, is the UK would just say that they will use WTO rules for trade with EU countries and set tariffs to zero and will only add tariffs if the EU adds tariffs on our goods and services.

There are countless issues with it. Businesses have no obligation to stay in the UK. We're effectively making the conditions for business in the UK worse than they are in every other state in our immediate neighbourhood (including Norway, Switzerland and Iceland). In essence those businesses wishing to export from the UK will be obliged to pay a fee for the privilege of basing their operations here. That will encourage those businesses already here to leave, will discourage new businesses from basing their operations here, and will undermine FDI. If we add on top of that the kind of restrictive immigration rules currently being discussed, which will add a new layer of costly bureaucracy for businesses wanting to hire the staff they need, it just amplifies the effect even further.

Then there's the effect of non-tariff barriers. The point in the single market is that countries agree to shared rules so that when a company chooses to export it doesn't have to spend huge amounts of resources and time in trying to make its product comply with the rules of every individual market. The rules applied in their home market are essentially the same as in every other country in the single market. So either we decide to simply translate all EU regulations into our own rules in the UK (making Brexit completely pointless) or non-tariff barriers will add further costs for businesses based in the UK. Those costs are likely to be far higher than those from explicit tariffs. For instance, one study on this (Ottaviano, 2014) calculated that tariffs would only account for around 4.5% of the trade-related costs associated with a WTO rules Brexit, the other 95.5% of the cost comes from an increase in non-tariff barriers.

The solution you've proposed here is essentially to compensate for damaging conditions for business by paying subsidies to keep companies here. That's probably exactly what the government will do, as well as slashing corporation tax. In essence the cost of a hard Brexit is we have to permanently pay businesses fees or give them large tax breaks to make up for the damage done to business conditions - and that bill is going to run far higher than the £7 billion a year you've mentioned when you factor in all of the other costs above. This strategy also gives carte blanche to businesses to lobby for better treatment and puts the government in an even weaker position than it already is.

Furthermore, we're neglecting that every other country we're competing with has the capacity to provide these kind of incentives as well, yet they have none of the negative baggage we'll have if we decide to expose our businesses to new tariffs, increase non-tariff barriers to trade, and create all manner of costly new restrictions on workers from the EU (who businesses need and who we know are a net benefit to the economy). And all of these immediate costs have a long-tail effect as well (e.g. losing FDI or skilled workers today undermines future growth, not to mention we're now opting out of the current EU proposals to reduce non-tariff barriers to trade in services where we would have stood to gain a great deal in the coming years).

I find it difficult to believe that any fair-minded person would compare these two situations (the status quo and life under a hard Brexit) and conclude the latter is actually better for the economy just because we no longer have to pay a relatively small fee into the EU budget every year - incidentally, that wasn't simply lost money (as subsidies to businesses are) as it gave us a very large say over how the money was spent, what the rules of the single market are, the future direction of the EU, the trade agenda at the WTO (where we're now bit part players sitting on the sidelines while larger actors like the US and the EU make all of the decisions) and so on.

PS - I would much rather live in Spain, but it's just a Don Quixote reference.

Getintaethem

10-03-2017, 07:17 AM

Firstly - great post.

Secondly, I wont post all your reply here as I fear the length will break the site ;)

There are different agreements that could be reached. It is clear the UK want to have a free trade agreement with the EU as they believe that economically it makes sense for the UK and more importantly the EU (who export more to the UK that we export to the EU). As we already have all the EU regulations embedded within our laws, this should be simple to achieve (if there is political will to do so in the EU). If this happened then the negatives around trade you mention would not be an issue.

With regards to immigration, it is agreed by everyone that immigration will continue. However, everyone would agree that the ability for a country to take in immigrants is inelastic (both politically but more importantly from a resources perspective - schools, housing and other resources as it takes time to put these in place). At the moment, we do not get to control the type of immigrants coming to the country from the EU. In the future, we will be in a position to allow immigration that better represents the skills the country actually requires - including Scotland. For example, we allow people from, for example, India to study engineering in the UK. At the moment, when these engineers graduate there is huge restrictions on who is allowed to stay in this country. Employers like Dyson are crying out for these skilled workers but are unable to hire them.

As the countries ability to take immigrants is inelastic, being able to better plan the sort of skills that are required in the country vs the current situation is far better from an economic perspective (politics aside).

If, however, we had to trade with the EU under WTO rules, the EU would not be allowed to "punish" the UK for leaving the EU. Also under WTO rules, there is both a commitment and responsibility on the EU (and all other members of the WTO) to reduce non-tariff barriers between the EU and other countries. This is a major point because as we are already members of the EU we do not have these non-tariff barriers (as a point of fact, there are non-tariff barriers to trade within the EU right now that affect the UK - such as the rules around calling sparkling wine Champagne only if it comes from a specific region in France or that cornish pasties can only be made in cornwall). The point is that the EU (and member countries) would not be allowed under WTO rules to put in place new non-tariff barriers.

Using WTO rules for trade has not stopped us doing more trade outside the EU than with the EU.

The London School of Economics study you mention was published when project fear was hitting its stride. As part of the article it states the reductions in GDP that were often stated before Brexit which have largely been discredited by events. It also completely fails to recognise that under WTO rules the EU (and its member states) would not be allowed to impose non-tariff barriers on the UK.

Personally, even though I propose it, I doubt that the Government will compensate for higher tariffs. I just used it as an example. Higher tariffs, running at a few percentage points, is completely wiped out by normal currency exchange rates going up and down. You are right, non-tariff barriers are far more important now. However, as I already state, it is not possible for the EU to impose new non-tariff barriers to trade against the UK under WTO rules. Their are far bigger problems with this outside of the EU in countries where we want free trade agreements such as in India and Africa, however, these problems exist whether we are in our out of the EU.

You also need to factor in the reduction in costs to businesses that do not trade with the EU. In the single market, all businesses need to meet all the EU regulations whether they trade with the EU or not. Moving forward, they will only need to do that if they trade with the EU, cutting their costs. Furthermore, businesses that trade out with the EU need to meet all the regulations of the countries they trade with anyway. We do more trade with non-EU countries than with EU countries - this expense does not stop trade from happening.

, not to mention we're now opting out of the current EU proposals to reduce non-tariff barriers to trade in services where we would have stood to gain a great deal in the coming years).

This is an important point. It is not widely recognised that we do not have a single market in the EU around services. This is because it is far, far more difficult to draw up trade agreements with respect to services. So hard, in fact, that the EU has failed to do so since its inception. It is much talked about, but in reality nothing has happened to create this "single market" around services. I do not therefore believe that in the short term this will impact on this specific discussion, however, it will also depend on the type of agreement we strike with the EU.

I find it difficult to believe that any fair-minded person would compare these two situations (the status quo and life under a hard Brexit) and conclude the latter is actually better for the economy just because we no longer have to pay a relatively small fee into the EU budget every year - incidentally, that wasn't simply lost money (as subsidies to businesses are) as it gave us a very large say over how the money was spent, what the rules of the single market are, the future direction of the EU, the trade agenda at the WTO (where we're now bit part players sitting on the sidelines while larger actors like the US and the EU make all of the decisions) and so on.

What I am comparing is whether trade with the EU will be affected so much for Scotland that it becomes a matter of leaving the UK. The total exports from Scotland to the EU is £12bn per year. This is the total figure - this is not the profit and this is not the tax that Scotland would earn from these exports. Even if we reduce trade with the EU by 20% as part of Brexit (something that I do not believe would happen) we would need to look at the impacts on the entire economy and tax income as a result (assuming that we do not make up this short fall in trade with the rest of the World from new free trade agreements) and compare this to what our deficit would be as an independent country. Even now, our current deficit as a country is nearly £15bn. The current deficit is a far greater issue for the economy post independence than any potential impacts of trade with the EU post Brexit. As an independent country we would need to substantially increase taxes and/or reduce services. There are also the added costs of separation to factor in and risks to the economy of the potential of losing companies such as financial services to other hubs.

There are risks with leaving the EU. All the guesstimates around the immediate impacts of leaving the EU have been wrong. There are also risks with leaving the UK - which is a far bigger market for Scotland's products than the EU. I concede that these risks are are up for debate because we have not left either the EU or the UK. However, what is not up for debate is the £15bn deficit that we currently have and would need to deal with post independence.

PS - I would much rather live in Spain, but it's just a Don Quixote reference.

cool username for a football forum!

kigoretrout

10-03-2017, 01:35 PM

It is worthy because the rest of the UK would most likely take Ireland back into the Union. It illustrates that the rest of the UK would also take back Scotland. It is not so hard to understand.

So basically exactly the same as we have now except that the lib dems and labour could merge. I do not understand why independence would make the lib dems and labour merge any more than out with independence. Incidentally, they call themselves Scottish Labour, Scottish Lib Dems and Scottish Conservatives now.

One reason is because they believe that Scotland is stronger as part of the United Kingdom. i.e. perhaps they have principles that they will stick with. Running a deficit of £14bn per year would be suicide for an independent Scotland. We would need to put up taxes, reduce services and/or borrow more. £14bn is so far outside anything that the EU would allow from a borrowing perspective, therefore we would need to put up taxes and reduce services - unless there is some magic wand. £14bn represents over £5K for every worker in Scotland. It does not take a genius to work out that this would be a disaster for any SNP Government and popularity for independence will fall dramatically post independence. The price of oil is unlikely to recover for several years. If oil prices rise, it gives a green light to the US shale production and oil prices will fall again.

There are a lot of political soundbites but no real details around why a hard Brexit will be such a disaster economically.
I do not understand economically what the issue is post hard Brexit (there may be political/social reasons for not wanting to leave). Even with using WTO trade rules (rules set up to promote trade) tariffs would be set at around 3%. Normal exchange rate fluctuations are far more than 3% per year and we do not notice any major disruptions in trade and WTO rules are used by China and the US to export into the EU. In fact, our trade outside the EU using WTO rules has been going up - not down.

To put this into perspective, the UK exports around £225bn into the EU. 3% of that is around £7bn. Therefore, the UK Government could just recompense every company that exports to the EU the 3% tariff, if it so wished, from the amount the UK now pays into the EU as our membership fee - or as the UK could also set tariffs on imports - from this money. However, what is far more likely, if it came down to it, is the UK would just say that they will use WTO rules for trade with EU countries and set tariffs to zero and will only add tariffs if the EU adds tariffs on our goods and services.

Top marks for pedancy! I simply don't have the time to take on a keyboard warrior. However, I would have thought you would have gauged from my posts I am no supporter of the SNP.

I appreciate the economic argument for Independence has weaknesses and is being weakened even more. However, like some other posters have alluded to my decision was also based on becoming more and more disillusioned with the politics of the right taking over mainly in England and deciding like a lot of others that this is not how I wish my own country to be governed. And before you come back with polls have shown that Scotland is no further left wing than England. I am aware of that data. We have however elected a Scottish government who in the main are attempting to pursue a centre left policy and have a fairer view on society which I feel more accurately represents the Scottish psyche, indeed soul. I personally am prepared to become a bit poorer if that means a fairer redistribution of wealth and money spent where it is required.

Getintaethem

10-03-2017, 02:44 PM

I personally am prepared to become a bit poorer if that means a fairer redistribution of wealth and money spent where it is required.

Good for you. The SNP have not raised taxation though. Why, cos they know that it would be political suicide if they raised taxation for the majority in Scotland.

The debt of £15bn per year represents £5,600 per year for every worker. Not many people could afford to take that sort of a hit or even half of that sort of hit in their pay packets. That is us standing still... before your "bit poorer" redistribution of wealth.

Stupie82

13-03-2017, 12:08 PM

Nic will officially seek approval for a second referendum next week, with vote being held sometime between Autumn 2018 and Spring 2019...oh the joys of more tension and arguing to come !!

Mason89

13-03-2017, 12:54 PM

Nic will officially seek approval for a second referendum next week, with vote being held sometime between Autumn 2018 and Spring 2019...oh the joys of more tension and arguing to come !!

Can I start the ball rolling?

Voting 'No' means you side with Huns. You have the same hopes, dreams and aspirations as Huns & would be as well just supporting the dead club like you support a dead Union.

Discuss :)

Aldo1983

13-03-2017, 01:38 PM

If we had been independent at the time then Rangers wouldn't have been allowed back into the league. The British establishment only likes one club.

Jupiter

13-03-2017, 05:09 PM

Mrs Krankie is going to lose again. Then we will never have to see her ugly mug on TV again and she can go away and finally finish her *** change.

Mason89

13-03-2017, 05:25 PM

Mrs Krankie is going to lose again. Then we will never have to see her ugly mug on TV again and she can go away and finally finish her *** change.

Fiver says she's still in the job when the queen croaks it

Jupiter

13-03-2017, 05:27 PM

Fiver says she's still in the job when the queen croaks it

What's that got to do with the referendum? The queen could snuff it tomorrow or live another 10 years.

Mason89

13-03-2017, 05:31 PM

What's that got to do with the referendum? The queen could snuff it tomorrow or live another 10 years.

It just seemed to be a suitable measure of time, when gambling with someone siding with Huns

Aldo1983

13-03-2017, 05:53 PM

Yassss the Krankie chat. Hun patter.

fatshaft

13-03-2017, 08:19 PM

Yassss the Krankie chat. Hun patter.

Without a doubt it's their thing. ****ing horrible ****s

Stupie82

13-03-2017, 08:36 PM

Getintaethem

13-03-2017, 08:48 PM

Project fear MKII courtesy of SKY, already in full swing. So, so far today we wont be able to join the EU as Spain will veto us and we will be kicked out of NATO. Just the usual same shyte as last time. My prediction, Theresa May being the typical Tory that she is and in Maggie Thatcheresque fashion will reject a 2nd independence referendum and it all goes into utter meltdown from there on after.

"usual same shyte as last time" - you mean the truth. How dare SKY report on what the EU Commission chief spokesman Margaritis Schinas said. They should just report what the fantasist SNP leader says.

My prediction, Theresa May being the typical Tory that she is and in Maggie Thatcheresque fashion will approve the SNP's 2nd independence referendum and the SNP goes into utter meltdown from there on after. And it will be a joy to watch.

I wonder what odds there is for an even bigger winning margin than last time. Later losers... you do it so well.

RealPompeyDon

13-03-2017, 08:53 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/13/new-royal-yacht-britannia-would-attract-overwhelming-support/

If ever a reason was needed for getting out.

Getintaethem

13-03-2017, 08:59 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/13/new-royal-yacht-britannia-would-attract-overwhelming-support/

If ever a reason was needed for getting out.

Oh no, not a boat. I can see this swinging the lunatic vote behind independence... oh but wait, that was already signed up. Damn.

Mason89

13-03-2017, 09:28 PM

"usual same shyte as last time" - you mean the truth. How dare SKY report on what the EU Commission chief spokesman Margaritis Schinas said. They should just report what the fantasist SNP leader says.

My prediction, Theresa May being the typical Tory that she is and in Maggie Thatcheresque fashion will approve the SNP's 2nd independence referendum and the SNP goes into utter meltdown from there on after. And it will be a joy to watch.

I wonder what odds there is for an even bigger winning margin than last time. Later losers... you do it so well.

Theresa Mays a bit like that woman in Airplane! with folk queuing up to slap her about. She'll not see this process out.

Getintaethem

13-03-2017, 09:35 PM

Theresa Mays a bit like that woman in Airplane! with folk queuing up to slap her about. She'll not see this process out.

Sturgeon is like one of those soldiers, standing at the front of the boat, on the Normandy landings in Saving Private Ryan.

Mason89

13-03-2017, 09:40 PM

Sturgeon is like one of those soldiers, standing at the front of the boat, on the Normandy landings in Saving Private Ryan.

You brits are obsessed with the war. Everybody else has moved on

Stupie82

13-03-2017, 09:53 PM

A 2nd referendum was inevitable. May is to blame by going for a hard Brexit and not giving an inch to the devolved governments. The end of the union will come down to the incompetence of Tory governments, past and present who were never voted into government by the people of Scotland, and they hate us because of it.

May demands respect for British sovereignty in regards to Brexit, yet cant understand why Scotland wants to do the same. She looked completely lost for words today when learning about the SNP's plans, yet it wasnt surprising to anyone else. She is either utterly naive or bloody stupid if she thought she could push through Brexit without even considering the repercussions for the union.

Aldo1983

13-03-2017, 09:58 PM

Yes campaign can win it this time by writing some made up pish on a bus. It's worked before.

Getintaethem

13-03-2017, 10:02 PM

You brits are obsessed with the war. Everybody else has moved on

We brits. Or did you win the last referendum campaign?

Getintaethem

13-03-2017, 10:03 PM

Mason89

13-03-2017, 10:14 PM

We brits. Or did you win the last referendum campaign?

We won in Dumbarton :)

Over all, it felt a bit like walking away from Ibrox after a defeat. Might've lost but you wouldn't swap it for watching a victory from the home end for anything.

Getintaethem

13-03-2017, 10:20 PM

We won in Dumbarton :)

tells you all you need to know.

Mason89

13-03-2017, 10:35 PM

tells you all you need to know.

Yep. Sons & daughters of the Rock arent complete Hun shyte bags

Getintaethem

13-03-2017, 11:02 PM

Yep. Sons & daughters of the Rock arent complete Hun shyte bags

but the rest of Scotland, that voted to stay, including Aberdeen presumably are? Don't you realise that this is not going to convert many people to your view?

never mind it will be a resounding victory... for the UK, Sturgeon to resign and the end of your nationalist dream to boot. win win win. Sturgeon playing politics... she will lose "bigly". She has had 9 months to make her case almost unopposed, did not come close to converting the people she needed to convert. She should be at 55% to 60% support - as she herself said she needed.

Oh and please make to so Salmond comes back... please.

Jormungand

13-03-2017, 11:19 PM

Yes will win this time. All the other-EU nationals will switch their vote; all the 16-18 year olds are in; enough fowk who actually remember the empire and never forgave the germans have died. Just need to get a bunch o' Europhile english bussed up to close the deal!

Getintaethem

13-03-2017, 11:36 PM

Salmond predicts YES will win indyref2... I am worried as he also made this spookily accurate prediction before indyref1... how does he do it?

"The Scottish government said its analysis of short-term forecasts of North Sea oil revenue showed that Scotland's potential tax take from oil and gas would equal between £41bn and £57bn by 2017-18, averaging out at £48bn over six years.

Salmond said this would significantly underwrite Scotland's economy, proving that North Sea oil was going from "strength to strength".

"It demonstrates that, when the expected increase in production to two million barrels a day is taken into account, there can be little doubt that Scotland is moving into a second oil boom," he said in Aberdeen."

claw84

14-03-2017, 04:31 PM

It's all over, Madrid have just said they will veto Scotland joining the EU if it became independant, so Sturgeon will have to put her President's hat away back in the closet.

Mason89

14-03-2017, 04:34 PM

It's all over for Britain. The English are going to electrify Hadrian's Wall. SF have also told May to stick her border where the sun doesn't shine. 3756

Jupiter

14-03-2017, 05:20 PM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CRJXT56XAAAqwA5.png:large

Aldo1983

14-03-2017, 05:58 PM

I'd rather be ruled by Embra types and Brussels than Londoner types that don't like foreigners.

Skacel

14-03-2017, 06:36 PM

I voted indie and brexit. Really can't be arsed with indie ref 2 tbh.

Getintaethem

14-03-2017, 06:58 PM

I voted indie and brexit. Really can't be arsed with indie ref 2 tbh.

There is little appetite for it out with the village idiots.

Edit: Petition to have a debate on the subject... https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/180642

Mason89

14-03-2017, 07:01 PM

There is little appetite for it out with the village idiots.

I remember a story about a squad of Huns who went to the Eng vs Sco game at Wembley '96 to cheer on England from the home end. This heartwarming tale ended with them getting their c*nts knocked in from the England support.

No voters remind me a little of them. Huns fawning over English folk who can't stand them either

Getintaethem

14-03-2017, 07:08 PM

I remember a story about a squad of Huns who went to the Eng vs Sco game at Wembley '96 to cheer on England from the home end. This heartwarming tale ended with them getting their c*nts knocked in from the England support.

No voters remind me a little of them. Huns fawning over English folk who can't stand them either

proving my point there Mason. :)

Mason89

14-03-2017, 07:10 PM

I think we established today that I'm never wrong on this board :)

Getintaethem

14-03-2017, 07:13 PM

I think we established today that I'm never wrong on this board :)

That's called taking credit for someone else's work :P

Jormungand

14-03-2017, 09:10 PM

It's all over, Madrid have just said they will veto Scotland joining the EU if it became independant, so Sturgeon will have to put her President's hat away back in the closet.

Source on this? Just last week Reporting Scotland had an MEP from the Spanish government's party saying that they have no problem with iScotland in EU.

Getintaethem

14-03-2017, 10:06 PM

Source on this? Just last week Reporting Scotland had an MEP from the Spanish government's party saying that they have no problem with iScotland in EU.

Does not matter what some nomark Spanish MEP says, it is not down to him. It is down to the Spanish Prime Minister and as in 2014 he is keeping his cards close to his chest until he has to make a decision. Scotland will leave the EU with the UK though.

Jormungand

14-03-2017, 10:23 PM

So has any member of the Spanish government stated opposition to Scotland in EU? Just asking where previous poster gets his spanish veto claim from.

Getintaethem

14-03-2017, 10:28 PM

From the man who is in charge with the economic case, an admission that he could see a recovery of the position it now finds itself in now over a five to 10-year period post independence. (big emphasis on "could"). He also says they should run a steady as it goes economic policy with no tax rises. This would mean cutting services dramatically and hurting the poorest in Scotland as we cannot continue to run a $15bn deficit or borrow and still be within the rules for joining the EU.

So get independence and make the poorer suffer is the opinion of the SNP's economic guru. With friends like this... who needs enemies...

A big thank you goes out to the SNP for making the case for a no vote themselves.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/snp/news/84244/independence-could-set-scotlands-economy-back-10-years

Mason89

14-03-2017, 10:35 PM

Scotlands poorest are better off in a Union with a Conservative government? Good luck with that argument

claw84

14-03-2017, 10:45 PM

So has any member of the Spanish government stated opposition to Scotland in EU? Just asking where previous poster gets his spanish veto claim from. Daily Mail from Spanish foriegn minister Alphonso dastis.

Getintaethem

14-03-2017, 10:46 PM

Scotlands poorest are better off in a Union with a Conservative government? Good luck with that argument

not me saying it... its the top SNP economic advisor! He is saying Scotland economy could recover in 5 to 10 years. He also says no more taxation. Therefore with a £15bn deficit (the highest of any western economy) we would need to cut services. We could not just borrow and stay in the rules of EU membership. Therefore services will need to be cut. Cutting services hits the poorest hardest.

It's just simple logic.

The 5 to 10 years recovery would be presumably would be by both cutting services and increasing business in Scotland. i.e. highly optimistic. Good luck convincing people that a recovery on this basis in 5 to 10 years is ever going to happen.

Getintaethem

14-03-2017, 10:57 PM

Daily Mail from Spanish foriegn minister Alphonso dastis.

He did not say that though did he? I think he said that Scotland will be out of the EU and would need to reapply. He did not explicitly state that they would veto?

The veto is a mute point because it will be years before any other country joins the EU anyway, lots can and will change with the EU in this time and there are several countries in front of Scotland to join the EU anyway.

So Sturgeon has called the referendum to leave the UK on the basis that she wants to remain in the EU, which we would not be able to join for years after independence anyway (if at all) but in the meantime their own top economic advisor says that there would be a penalty economically that would take years to recover from and as a result of leaving we would need to cut services dramatically.

Jormungand

14-03-2017, 10:59 PM

Daily Mail from Spanish foriegn minister Alphonso dastis.

Thanks. I checked the Independent's story on this, but all they have is him saying that Scotland would have to join like any other new country - it doesn't mention anything about a veto, or Spain refusing or being hostile to Scotland, though.

sancho_panza

15-03-2017, 12:10 AM

He did not say that though did he? I think he said that Scotland will be out of the EU and would need to reapply. He did not explicitly state that they would veto?

The veto is a mute point because it will be years before any other country joins the EU anyway, lots can and will change with the EU in this time and there are several countries in front of Scotland to join the EU anyway.

So Sturgeon has called the referendum to leave the UK on the basis that she wants to remain in the EU, which we would not be able to join for years after independence anyway (if at all) but in the meantime their own top economic advisor says that there would be a penalty economically that would take years to recover from and as a result of leaving we would need to cut services dramatically.

I think you're more or less correct about the economy. If we flicked a switch and became independent tomorrow we'd have some pretty serious problems financially and would have to either cut spending drastically, borrow, or raise taxes. I'm under no illusion about that. I spent most of the last referendum making that point on here and it was one of the main reasons I voted No. The situation is now much worse than it was then. There are some long-term arguments that could be made (e.g. that the fiscal picture can change quite rapidly - five years ago in 2011/12 it was much more positive so in five years it's possible it changes again) but I don't see much point in denying the fact that there's a pretty weak short-term economic case for independence.

On the EU, though, I think the situation is more positive. The EU is ultimately just a vehicle for the views of its member states. If they wanted to make an exception for Scotland then they could. It's happened before - e.g. Greece was fast tracked into the EU without much thought about the criteria for joining because at the time there was general anxiety about the country falling to communism/Russian influence. When there's some political imperative, the EU has a track record of ignoring its own rules and Scotland might fall into that scenario given the ill-feeling that exists in the rest of the EU over Brexit.

Spain would be caught between a rock and a hard place so all bets are off on that - on the one hand they could veto Scottish membership to send a message to Catalonia, on the other hand Rajoy has gone to great lengths to argue that Scotland is completely different from Catalonia so vetoing our membership on that basis might send the wrong message entirely. Then there's the realpolitik argument that it makes sense for Rajoy to oppose Scottish membership now, but a few years down the line with the heat taken out of the issue and Scotland simply being an independent state like any other, the situation changes. Genuinely, I don't think there's any real possibility we'd be denied EU membership in the long-term, it's a matter of the process and how long it would take to join.

Getintaethem

15-03-2017, 07:17 AM

Another great post Sancho which I pretty much agree with. Given the size of our posts, I think we are probably just talking to one another - but that is OK.

Most people make most decisions on balance. On the economy, Scotland is so reliant on oil from a tax revenue basis and considering how much we spend through the public sector, that this revenue cannot be made up realistically in 5 to 10 years without a significant increase in the price of oil. Even if it did pick up, being so reliant on oil means that our economy is hugely imbalanced. No political party has addressed this imbalance - including the SNP.

I am no oil expert but it does seem to me that shale (US Shale and deposits world-wide) has fundamentally changed the dynamics of oil pricing on the world market with OPEC no longer in full control. Yes, shale is more expensive than OPEC oil to produce but when price rises from $50 it makes it more economical to invest and price will level out. I think this is a major reason why predictions around the price of oil in the next 15 years do not go above $80 or so per barrel.

It could be driven up by either a huge pick up in world-wide economic activity or a major conflict but given the new supply dynamics these are likely to be short term boasts.

All politicians from all parties should have been looking to rebalance the economy for the past generation - they have just not done this. We are in the position where independence makes no sense economically because of their failures. A bad economy hits the poorest in society because spending goes down. This is not progressive - it is regressive.

Instead of reducing spending, you make the point that Scotland could raise taxes or increase borrowing. That is right, however, the SNP's own top economic advisor has seemed to have ruled out raising taxes. Hitting the rich in Scotland will not come close to providing the amount of revenue required and they could easily relocate somewhere in the rest of the UK. That would mean taxing the majority a lot more - which would be political suicide. So, they could just borrow more. Even taking the fact that the cost of borrowing in a new country will be a lot higher given the financial situation and there being no history or repayments etc. the fact is that the EU has rules about joining of running a 3% deficit or less. This means we cannot borrow more.

Therefore, we are stuck with cutting spending. These figures could be wrong but the principles hold. Say we currently have a £15bn deficit. To reach 3% we would need to cut spending by £11.5bn per year. We spend £50bn on the public sector. Therefore, in order to reach the EU rules we would need to cut spending by £1 in every £5. That is 20 times more severe than the UK Government's austerity program.

That just wont happen - no political party would allow that to happen. We would realistically borrow more, reduce spending and raise taxes. However, Scotland would have no realistic way of meeting entry requirements into the EU for years to come (I would argue decades). That is the reality but this is meant to be the whole basis of the second referendum. But the EU could wave these rules? Unlikely in my opinion, but who from the EU if going to say that during indyref2? Given what has happened to Greece through waving rules around Euro entry who would even make the case that waving these rules would be a good thing - the rules are there for a reason.

So the choice is to remain in the UK or go independent and have a far weaker economy and reduced public spending with the promise that we may join the EU at some point in several years time if every member of the EU agrees. Hardly the most convincing argument. The SNP could say that we will go for a Norwegian type deal with the EU, but if the UK Government get's a free trade agreement with the EU as part of Brexit then why go through this pain of this huge reduction in public spending in order to get a Norwegian deal which is essentially a free trade deal?

This is why Jim Sillars is absolutely right. He is no fool. This is the worst possible time to call indyref2. The last time Salmond was at least justified in saying that the the better together campaign were scaremongering. I thought he was wrong and I think economically a number of the things they said have proven to be right. This time, however, the figures are there for everyone to see and no bluff and bluster can hide it.

Getintaethem

15-03-2017, 08:35 AM

petition reached 100K signatures in less than a day...

will be debated in parliament most likely.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/180642

you can see that the majority signed from Scotland and where they signed on this link.

http://petitionmap.unboxedconsulting.com/?petition=180642

fatshaft

15-03-2017, 09:02 AM

Getintaethem

15-03-2017, 09:37 AM

Come on min, you know that deficit isn't real right?

If you have not already done so I would suggest reading The Price of Scotland about the Darien Scheme and the affects debt and the resulting unstable currency in Scotland and how this in so small way created the union in the first place.

fatshaft

15-03-2017, 10:15 AM

If you have not already done so I would suggest reading The Price of Scotland about the Darien Scheme and the affects debt and the resulting unstable currency in Scotland and how this in so small way created the union in the first place.

erm yes, we all know about the 1% selling out the 99%.

However we're talking about WM allocating administrative spending and percentages of capital projects like HS2 tat have no bearing on Scotland, and would disappear with independence. Or Trident. Or a huge armed forces we wouldnt have. Or, well it goes on.

Getintaethem

15-03-2017, 10:23 AM

erm yes, we all know about the 1% selling out the 99%.

that is nothing to do with that scheme. jeez. should not have suggested you actually reading anything that has not been sanctioned by heir Sturgeon.

However we're talking about WM allocating administrative spending and percentages of capital projects like HS2 tat have no bearing on Scotland, and would disappear with independence. Or Trident. Or a huge armed forces we wouldnt have. Or, well it goes on.

Nope, wrong again. If you take the costs of all these things you get a maximum of a couple billion pounds. Not a dent in the massive deficit black hole. You should stop taking the looney tunes political scraps the SNP gives you (or any other party) and do your own research.

Mason89

15-03-2017, 10:32 AM

I'm not a Hun

That's the research I've done

Jormungand

15-03-2017, 10:54 AM

There are sevco fans who support indy, funnily enough. Seen a bunch on twitter.

Mason89

15-03-2017, 11:24 AM

There are sevco fans who support indy, funnily enough. Seen a bunch on twitter.

Not a popular view on here but there is a difference between a few folk that are unfortunate enough to follow sevco and proper Huns. I'm quite comfortable tarring them all with the same brush however :)

Huns are what you find in George Square the day the result came in. Where getintaethem will be

Getintaethem

15-03-2017, 11:44 AM

Not a popular view on here but there is a difference between a few folk that are unfortunate enough to follow sevco and proper Huns. I'm quite comfortable tarring them all with the same brush however :)

Huns are what you find in George Square the day the result came in. Where getintaethem will be

I have quite happily debated on here with people who have shown an ability to debate. Sancho Panza has posted pretty interesting points, as an example, and we have debated in a grown up tolerant manner.

Showing bigotry with intolerance towards people who do not share your belief is typical Hun behaviour. Your intolerance is closer to the behaviour of a Hun - the very thing you say you despise.

Mason89

15-03-2017, 11:51 AM

Getintaethem

15-03-2017, 12:42 PM

Sorry, I wasn't looking for a debate. Nothing will change your mind. You can attempt to excuse your position any way you like but the fact remains is that you want the same as these people. Huns

https://youtu.be/bdvXA1J8Egc

Holding up a tiny sub section of people that voted in the Yes/No referendum in Glasgow (where the majority actually voted Yes) and trying to convince people they are representative of the millions that voted No throughout Scotland is so obviously wrong it is laughable. Not even the majority of died in the wool Yes supporters would believe this is representative.

kigoretrout

15-03-2017, 04:32 PM

I have quite happily debated on here with people who have shown an ability to debate. Sancho Panza has posted pretty interesting points, as an example, and we have debated in a grown up tolerant manner.

Showing bigotry with intolerance towards people who do not share your belief is typical Hun behaviour. Your intolerance is closer to the behaviour of a Hun - the very thing you say you despise.

Yes not really a debate with Mr Panza really. You would both firmly appear to be in the No camp. More of a "love in " on your part with a few differences over the economy and continuing Eu membership. And you are not that feckin smart its "moot " point not mute ffs

Getintaethem

15-03-2017, 04:56 PM

Yes not really a debate with Mr Panza really. You would both firmly appear to be in the No camp. More of a "love in " on your part with a few differences over the economy and continuing Eu membership. And you are not that feckin smart its "moot " point not mute ffs

I see the Nats are reverting to type and are starting the name calling and swearing again. They wonder why people get turned off by them and don't vote for independence.

I made a typo... shoot me. I will make sure I read though all posts from now on as the Nat "English" police are out in force.

Sancho is pretty level headed as far as I can see. He is also a supporter of independence now. Just the sort of people the Nats should be going after and trying to convince with reasoned arguments - not the usual diatribe.

kigoretrout

15-03-2017, 05:04 PM

Jupiter

15-03-2017, 05:29 PM

Mason, knuckle dragging IRA supporting Celtic fans are in favour of independence. How do you like being on the same side as them?

Getintaethem

15-03-2017, 05:33 PM

I would re-read your posts min. You are very thin skinned and if anyone has the temerity of criticising you there is a stock response that they are being abusive. Maybe if you weren't so condescending and dismissive in your responses then you wouldn't provoke some of the comments you get on here. Ps google narcissistic personality disorder. Only joking min please don't take offence.

And if we want to be entirely accurate and pedantic. I know pot calling kettle black and all that it wasn't a typo it was confusing one word with another. Mute was spelt perfectly well as I remember

I do not set out to be condescending nor dismissive but if that is how your read my posts then I will take your views onboard for the future. Also, if I explicitly wanted to be condescending and dismissive I could have, for example, given that you called me out of my typo, fixed all your English grammatical errors in your previous post.

In my opinion, criticising what people believe is fair game. I would also say it would be best to do that with a counter argument. Criticising people for their beliefs is, however, not fair game. When someone calls all people Huns that voted No - this is offensive and I make no apology for calling him out on it. Those posts should be deleted.

If we want to be entirely accurate and pedantic, a typo, is in fact a shortened version of the phrase typographical error. It explicitly excludes spelling mistakes.

kigoretrout

15-03-2017, 05:57 PM

I agree with that and it is certainly not a view any reasonable person would share. He was I would suggest on the wind up, as was I to a lesser extent. We are, however, dealing with a topic which provokes strong opinions and will regrettably in my opinion only get more toxic as the months progress.

Mason89

15-03-2017, 06:26 PM

Mason, knuckle dragging IRA supporting Celtic fans are in favour of independence. How do you like being on the same side as them?

Don't think so. They're paranoid about being left in a small country ran by Huns. A yes vote is really the only option open to anyone calling themselves an Aberdeen fan :)

Donanddusted

15-03-2017, 06:40 PM

Don't think so. They're paranoid about being left in a small country ran by Huns. A yes vote is really the only option open to anyone calling themselves an Aberdeen fan :)

They can say what they like about you, Mason (and they usually do!) but you're a breath of fresh air on the board. Dodgy name though...
Illegitimi non carborundum (Wait till the grammar specialists see this)

Disco Buc

16-03-2017, 05:15 AM

They can say what they like about you, Mason (and they usually do!) but you're a breath of fresh air on the board. Dodgy name though...
Illegitimi non carborundum (Wait till the grammar specialists see this)

Yup Mason is indeed one of the best posters on here.

fatshaft

16-03-2017, 08:09 AM

Mason, knuckle dragging IRA supporting Celtic fans are in favour of independence. How do you like being on the same side as them?jupiter knuckle dragging UDA, Orange Order supporting Huns are in favour of the union. How do you like being on the same side as them?

Stupie82

16-03-2017, 12:50 PM

Theresa May has said No to a new referendum :O

Mason89

16-03-2017, 03:02 PM

Theresa May has said No to a new referendum :O

That's a bold move, I can't really understand the logic behind it. Surely if you're a Tory/Hun, you'd want this? Unless they're worried about losing

fatshaft

16-03-2017, 03:46 PM

Theresa May has said No to a new referendum :O

Except, she hasn't been asked.

Needs to go to Holyrood, Sturgeon will ask for Section 30 order, it'll be approved, and passed to WM.

May once again showing what a ****wit she is.

Getintaethem

16-03-2017, 04:00 PM

Nats meltdown in 3, 2, 1...

Aldo1983

16-03-2017, 04:53 PM

Ach what else is she to do? She's currently trying to get a deal out of Europe which she and the majority of her party didn't want either. She did also say "we fought wars together" so that's made me feel better either way.

Jormungand

16-03-2017, 04:59 PM

She hasn't said no; she's just avoided the question. Scrambling for time, hoping she can get a way oot o' this mess.

kigoretrout

16-03-2017, 05:18 PM

Personally I still cling onto the hope there will not be a Brexit. There are, although at this stage in the minority, political commentators who have suggested that in all likelihood this will drag on for years and in the likely event of us not getting any sort of reasonable deal and the drastic effect the uncertainty will have on the Economy,that when faced with no deal or a terrible deal and a ****e economy to boot that public opinion could change dramatically. If we don't exit the EU then this would withdraw the mandate that the SNP are claiming they have at this stage for a second referendum.

Donanddusted

16-03-2017, 06:22 PM

Disco Buc

16-03-2017, 06:25 PM

That's a bold move, I can't really understand the logic behind it. Surely if you're a Tory/Hun, you'd want this? Unless they're worried about losing

That's the problem we aren't sitting on 27% this time.

Getintaethem

16-03-2017, 06:52 PM

That's the problem we aren't sitting on 27% this time.

Scotland will be out of the EU before any vote. Stay in the UK Union or leave and try to enter the EU several years to come. The whole basis of the new referendum is based upon grievance, a grievance that the vast majority really do not care enough about to make a difference. So Sturgeon will try another grievance play around not getting a vote before Brexit. Again, not enough people give a damn. People are getting sick and tired of grievance, grievance, grievance. so :zzz:

Shame her inde play only lasted for a couple days... never mind. Takes focus away for a period of time on how badly the SNP is governing but that wont last for long. The longer the SNP stay in power the lower their support will go and the lower the number of people who will vote for independence.

Lose now or lose later... personally, makes no difference to me.

Mason89

16-03-2017, 07:07 PM

Scotland will be out of the EU before any vote. Stay in the UK Union or leave and try to enter the EU several years to come. The whole basis of the new referendum is based upon grievance, a grievance that the vast majority really do not care enough about to make a difference. So Sturgeon will try another grievance play around not getting a vote before Brexit. Again, not enough people give a damn. People are getting sick and tired of grievance, grievance, grievance. so :zzz:

Shame her inde play only lasted for a couple days... never mind. Takes focus away for a period of time on how badly the SNP is governing but that wont last for long. The longer the SNP stay in power the lower their support will go and the lower the number of people who will vote for independence.

Lose now or lose later... personally, makes no difference to me.

You sound exactly like my dad. He was a Hun.

Getintaethem

16-03-2017, 07:46 PM

You sound exactly like my dad. He was a Hun.

I feel sorry for him.

Mason89

16-03-2017, 07:48 PM

I feel sorry for him.

Me too

Getintaethem

16-03-2017, 07:53 PM

Me too

Yep, you must be such a disappointment.

Mason89

16-03-2017, 08:00 PM

Yep, you must be such a disappointment.

He's a Hun, I'm an Aberdeen fan. Did you have any help working that out? :)

Getintaethem

16-03-2017, 08:03 PM

He's a Hun, I'm an Aberdeen fan. Did you have any help working that out? :)

I was thinking more about his wit, personality and intelligence having missed a generation. :P

claw84

17-03-2017, 11:16 AM

It makes perfect sense to have indyref2 after the Brexit deal is done then all Scots can see what is on the table, try and join the EU or stay with the UK.
At present Brexit is looking good, unemployment down each month,Reed agency saying they have 250,000 job vacancies Toyota putting another quarter billion into its Derby plant and so on.
Sturgeon says she speaks for all of Scotland, not according to Scottish fishermen, they can't wait to get out of the EU and I cant blame them. A couple of years back I was in west Wales in Milford Haven and a Spanish Trawler was unloading its catch caught in British waters, what a phucking joke.

Mason89

17-03-2017, 11:24 AM

Cool story

mondo_notion

17-03-2017, 06:51 PM

57vintage

17-03-2017, 07:22 PM

They may also have voted to lose tariff-free access to some of their major markets.

They've traditionally been Tories anyway, so strategic long-term planning and sustainability are not in their make up. They'll scrape the seabed barren again to make a quick buck and then whine about the lack of fash, demanding governmental subsidies to protect their unique way of life. Huns with nets.

mondo_notion

17-03-2017, 07:30 PM

huns with nets.

XD

awafaehame

19-03-2017, 11:01 AM

Except, she hasn't been asked.

Needs to go to Holyrood, Sturgeon will ask for Section 30 order, it'll be approved, and passed to WM.

Does Wullie get the final say on this???????

Getintaethem

19-03-2017, 10:45 PM

"The phrase was not once in a lifetime, it was the opportunity of a lifetime. I said it on the Andrew Marr show, it’s just one of these collective myths that evolve." Alex Salmond, 19 March 2017 - Radio 5 Live’s Pienaar’s Politics

"In my view, this is a once in a generation, perhaps once in a lifetime opportunity." Alex Salmond, 14 September 2014, -Andrew Marr show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYncou2KyLk

In the official referendum document, "It is the view of the Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a generation opportunity."

stewarty27

19-03-2017, 11:25 PM

Well, I don't vote SNP (I remember what they did in 1979)

Oh deary me. Did vintage 39 tell you this whilst you were sitting on his knee ? Labour were totally instrumental in their own demise. They definitely would have lost the election even had they gone to full term. Even Callaghan concedes that in his memoirs. Callaghan himself had accepted the game was up and resigned himself to an early election, even if he had won the vote of no confidence. But hey down let the fact get in the way of a bitter Labour Man eh Vintage !! Bam.

fatshaft

20-03-2017, 09:35 AM

In the official referendum document, "It is the view of the Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a generation opportunity."

Not, you note, *event*. The Difference should be obvious. Lose it and everyone thought that would be it, and then 9am next day Cameron brings out EVEL, and all bets are off.

Pacman1903

20-03-2017, 09:46 AM

9am next day Cameron brings out EVEL, and all bets are off.

http://i67.tinypic.com/10mlilu.jpg

Getintaethem

20-03-2017, 09:55 AM

Not, you note, *event*. The Difference should be obvious. Lose it and everyone thought that would be it, and then 9am next day Cameron brings out EVEL, and all bets are off.

look at his full video of his interview, he clearly agrees with it. Sturgeon clearly says it several times. he now turns around and says he didn't say it. that this was all made up in some sort of conspiracy.

is there nothing this lot will say that you wont buy?

everyone in Scotland knows that they said several times. the SNP thought it would benefit their chances if they made out that this was people's one chance at independence. people are not stupid.

nothing to do with EVEL. Even if it was, they did not say it is a once in a generation thing (unless of EVEL or a list of 101 other SNP grievances that they always have).

Getintaethem

20-03-2017, 09:57 AM

http://i67.tinypic.com/10mlilu.jpg

Even EK could not jump the huge hole the SNP have dug ;D

Disco Buc

20-03-2017, 10:00 AM

Even EK could not jump the huge hole the SNP have dug ;D

We are in a huge hole already caused by Westminster.

Getintaethem

20-03-2017, 10:04 AM

We are in a huge hole already caused by Westminster.

and... "It's never your fault."

stewarty27

20-03-2017, 11:53 AM

Mason, knuckle dragging IRA supporting Celtic fans are in favour of independence. How do you like being on the same side as them?

Oh Jezzo !! pathetic post.

Mason89

20-03-2017, 12:02 PM

and... "It's never your fault."

Who would you blame?

stewarty27

20-03-2017, 01:07 PM

We are in a huge hole already caused by Westminster.

Scotland has limited powers and almost no actual fiscal powers. On the other hand Westminster has ultimate fiscal responsibility and all the important lever of power. so after careful consideration I agree with the poster Buc... Westminster has ultimately caused the fiscal problems Scotland is now facing.

Getintaethem

20-03-2017, 01:46 PM

Who would you blame?

Blame for what exactly? There are so many areas I could pick but lets take Scotland's poor record on Education? Once our crown jewel, respected the world over and the area that Sturgeon boasted, judge me by my results.

Scotland's schools have fallen to their worst position in the international league tables (below England for the first time in Maths, English and Science) or that in Scotland's own report, reading, writing and numeracy skills has fallen (not risen) and have become even worse in disadvantaged areas or that fewer than 1 in 10 people from disadvantaged areas in Scotland go onto study at University (worse than England, Wales or Northern Ireland)? There are many reasons for this poor performance but the fundamental point is failed SNP policies are driving standards down.

So more funding going into Scotland than the rest of the UK but worse results than the rest of the UK. On a devolved matter and on the SNP's watch.

All together now, "It's never our fault, it's never our fault, blame it on Westminster, it's never our fault."

Getintaethem

20-03-2017, 02:13 PM

Scotland has limited powers and almost no actual fiscal powers. On the other hand Westminster has ultimate fiscal responsibility and all the important lever of power. so after careful consideration I agree with the poster Buc... Westminster has ultimately caused the fiscal problems Scotland is now facing.

Scotland is running the worst economic deficit in the western world at around 10% - far larger than the rest of the UK and even larger than Greece's.

Scotland has a hugely imbalanced economy reliant on oil. We are also growing three times slower than the rest of the UK but even with Scotland's slow economy the UK is still the fastest growing economy in the G7... faster than the USA, faster than Germany's.

Economic development is a devolved matter! The SNP could have been putting some of their extra funding they receive in comparison to the rest of the UK taking steps to rebalance the economy so that if the price of oil reduced we could have reduced this impact with other economic activity. No, instead of doing this, Salmond was boasting in 2014 that we did not need oil as it was the icing on the cake - wrong and that anyway in 2017 we would be having a mini oil boom - wrong.

At the moment, this deficit is taken care of by the rest of the UK. At Independence, this becomes our issue. This means that Scotland will need to increase taxes (£15bn is equivalent to £5,600 per year for everyone employed today in Scotland) and/or reduce spending. We would also not get the UK's low borrowing rate so we would need to spend even more money servicing the debt (money we would otherwise be able to spend on public services).

Mason89

20-03-2017, 02:33 PM

Stupie82

20-03-2017, 03:22 PM

Scottish independence & the SNP are not the same thing, although its not surprising you're confusing the two. I blame the skoolz.

^^This

It needs to be drilled into peoples head that a vote for independence isn't a vote for the SNP. I have expressed my own feelings on the SNP and Sturgeon over the last few months, having quit my membership, and yet when I tell people I support independence, I get questions like "I thought you weren't a member of the SNP anymore". Its true, I'm not, I'm a member of the Scottish Greens, but I will always continue to support independence. Why do the two have to go hand in hand and why cant people accept that they don't?

I personally cant stand Sturgeon, I have never ever taken to her and is the main reason why I quit my membership. I don't even particularly like her approach to indeyref2, but to meet my own agenda's I will back her on it because I want Scotland to be independent. If independence ever happened, then I would fully expect a general election to decide who runs the country and I would imagine support for the SNP would subside.

Getintaethem

20-03-2017, 03:41 PM

The SNPs record should be held to account. I don't think anybody would say it shouldn't. How would you think the SNPs poor record on education compares with renewing trident, noncing, tax payer funded hotel w@nks, the DWP suiciding off disabled claimants, arming folk taking pot shots at civilians in Yemen & Huns in general?

Obviously you're passionate about Scottish education but I can't help but feel you're using that as an excuse. Scottish independence & the SNP are not the same thing, although its not surprising you're confusing the two. I blame the skoolz.

renewing trident - My own personal opinion is that I would personally rather there were no nuclear missiles but unilaterally declaring that we wont have them is not the way to reduce them. If the US did the same, Russia would hold the balance of power and would have no issue dominating even more countries. We would have a less safe world especially with the likes of North Korea and Iran either having or actively trying to build them. It is my own personal opinion. Economically, wrt Scotland it is peanuts.

noncing - I do not understand this in this context.

tay payer funded hotel w@nks - I do not understand this

the DWP suiciding off disabled claimants - all welfare powers are being transferred to Scotland so you do not need to worry about it. If the SNP Government had not decided to delay their adoption by three years then the SNP could have stopped DWP suiciding off disabled claimants in Scotland.

Yemen - this is a hugely complex area in its own right. However, Scotland cannot blame our problems in this country on Westminsters actions with respect to Yemen.

Huns in general - ?

I am not confusing the SNP and Scottish Independence. We were talking about blaming our problems on Westminster. Blaming Westminster is a SNP mantra which we hear every time they are in a spot of bother or want to stoke grievance.

edit: stoke not stock... i am dyslexic

Getintaethem

20-03-2017, 03:44 PM

It needs to be drilled into peoples head that a vote for independence isn't a vote for the SNP.

No one on here is saying it is. If you look at the thread on the previous page you will see that it started around blaming Westminster for Scotland's problems - and not explicitly about independence.

Donanddusted

20-03-2017, 06:00 PM

and... "It's never your fault."

As against, "It's always theirs"...

Donanddusted

20-03-2017, 06:03 PM

^^This

It needs to be drilled into peoples head that a vote for independence isn't a vote for the SNP. I have expressed my own feelings on the SNP and Sturgeon over the last few months, having quit my membership, and yet when I tell people I support independence, I get questions like "I thought you weren't a member of the SNP anymore". Its true, I'm not, I'm a member of the Scottish Greens, but I will always continue to support independence. Why do the two have to go hand in hand and why cant people accept that they don't?

I personally cant stand Sturgeon, I have never ever taken to her and is the main reason why I quit my membership. I don't even particularly like her approach to indeyref2, but to meet my own agenda's I will back her on it because I want Scotland to be independent. If independence ever happened, then I would fully expect a general election to decide who runs the country and I would imagine support for the SNP would subside.

This with bells on.

Getintaethem

20-03-2017, 11:57 PM

SKY News poll of 2,000 people after Sturgeon's announcement:

Nicola Sturgeon: good 42%, bad 54% -12
Ruth Davidson: good 53%, bad 36% +17
Kezia Dugdale: good 36%, bad 50% -14
Theresa May: good 48%, bad 47% +1
Jeremy Corbyn: good 16%, bad 77% -61

How bad a job is Sturgeon doing in Scotland that she is making the Tories hit positive ratings? Even Theresa May is more popular in Scotland than Sturgeon. Where did it all go wrong?

Mason89

21-03-2017, 12:04 AM

'Even Theresa May is more popular in Scotland than Sturgeon'

You're funny.

SKY news conduct poll & discover Sturgeon isn't popular. Fascinating.

Disco Buc

21-03-2017, 06:16 AM

'Even Theresa May is more popular in Scotland than Sturgeon'

You're funny.

SKY news conduct poll & discover Sturgeon isn't popular. Fascinating.

Yup.
Politician of the year is Queen Nicola.

Getintaethem

21-03-2017, 06:58 AM

Yup.
Politician of the year is Ruth Davidson.

FIFY

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37797019

fatshaft

21-03-2017, 08:36 AM

SKY News poll of 2,000 people after Sturgeon's announcement:

Most of whom live in England and get force fed #snpbad and "anti-english" for their breakfast

Getintaethem

21-03-2017, 08:41 AM

Most of whom live in England and get force fed #snpbad and "anti-english" for their breakfast

Except that it is a Scottish poll. :O

Mason89

21-03-2017, 09:20 AM

Where abouts, Larkhall?

Disco Buc

21-03-2017, 09:33 AM

FIFY

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37797019

YES i knew that was just giving out false info like the MSM..:D

Getintaethem

21-03-2017, 09:50 AM

Where abouts, Larkhall?

I am not sure whether you are taking the piss or you really believe that this poll is bias.

So, just for clarification, Sky use external polling companies that are signed up members of the British Polling Council. Their polls and their methods are scrutinised by that body. The head of that body is Professor Curtice from Strathclyde Uni (the guy who appears on the BBC all the time). One interesting aspect of this poll is that it was with 2,000 people. Normally to be statistically relevant you need at least 1,000 people. The more people in a poll the more accurate the poll as the margin of error is reduced.

This poll also confirms other polls in the last 6 months showing Davidson more popular than Sturgeon.

However, if you were just taking the piss... Good een!

laBirra

21-03-2017, 10:01 AM

fatshaft

21-03-2017, 10:23 AM

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/england-s-idea-of-unionism-is-not-shared-in-the-rest-of-uk-1.3017660#.WNDBUzUU194.twitter

Getintaethem

21-03-2017, 10:33 AM

Wonder if it was the same reputable member of the British Polling Council that the Independent used for this one?

The poll that ComRes did was a poll around the UK attitudes to Scottish Inde vote before Brexit. As in all political polls, the figures behind the poll are released either to the publisher or to the public. They did this poll for the Independent and they would have seen the percentages for Scotland.

The Independent chose to publish a headline using only the Scottish figures. There were only a hundred people or so from Scotland in the poll and therefore this makes the conclusions totally bogus because the error of margin would be huge. The Independent were therefore totally wrong to do this. Anyone making any claims on polls with less than 1,000 people are dumbasses.

I am not a cheerleader for polling companies but this is not ComRes's fault. This tells you more about the Independent than ComRes. This is an example of fake news! If you are not happy then you can make a complaint to the regulator as they should retract this, issue a clarification and/or issue an apology.

Happily the Sky Poll does not have this issue.

Getintaethem

21-03-2017, 10:44 AM

Oh, should have said, that this is exactly the reason why even though UK political polls come out on a monthly basis, no journalist (worth their salt) uses the figures from Scotland and extrapolates party support in Scotland. The number's polled are just not large enough. Only Scottish only polls (run far less often) are published as relevant to Scotland.

Also, should have said that this was a great spot, laBirra.

Stupie82

21-03-2017, 12:27 PM

I am not sure whether you are taking the piss or you really believe that this poll is bias.

So, just for clarification, Sky use external polling companies that are signed up members of the British Polling Council. Their polls and their methods are scrutinised by that body. The head of that body is Professor Curtice from Strathclyde Uni (the guy who appears on the BBC all the time). One interesting aspect of this poll is that it was with 2,000 people. Normally to be statistically relevant you need at least 1,000 people. The more people in a poll the more accurate the poll as the margin of error is reduced.

This poll also confirms other polls in the last 6 months showing Davidson more popular than Sturgeon.

However, if you were just taking the piss... Good een!

Oh aye because Sky Polls are always bang on! The last general election they said Milliband and Cameron were neck and neck going into the final day. Their Brexit and US election exit polls were almost f*cking laughable. Their Brexit exit poll stated remain was a winner by 3 points ! their US election exit poll said that Clinton was 4 points ahead. Polls have meant nothing in this country for the last 5-6 years! The public is completely split on all matters and thats why polls have failed.

Stupie82

21-03-2017, 12:32 PM

just to add, i dont like Sturgeon personally but theres not a cats chance in hell that Theresa May is more popular in Scotland. Not a bloody chance!!

Disco Buc

21-03-2017, 01:13 PM

just to add, i dont like Sturgeon personally but theres not a cats chance in hell that Theresa May is more popular in Scotland. Not a bloody chance!!

Agree with that Stupie.

InversneckieDob

21-03-2017, 01:36 PM

just to add, i dont like Sturgeon personally but theres not a cats chance in hell that Theresa May is more popular in Scotland. Not a bloody chance!!

See, I dinna mind Sturgeon but dinna like the SNP. I think she's a canny operator, in a political sense, though no doubt she's as ethically fluid and opportunistic as many in the SNP.

Getintaethem

21-03-2017, 01:52 PM

Oh aye because Sky Polls are always bang on! The last general election they said Milliband and Cameron were neck and neck going into the final day. Their Brexit and US election exit polls were almost f*cking laughable. Their Brexit exit poll stated remain was a winner by 3 points ! their US election exit poll said that Clinton was 4 points ahead. Polls have meant nothing in this country for the last 5-6 years! The public is completely split on all matters and thats why polls have failed.

Brexit exit poll - what poll is this then? In order to do an exit poll you need a baseline of other elections and therefore there was not one before Brexit and any that were done privately could not have been accurate. This is the reason that Prof Curtice did not do one for Brexit but his exit poll on election night was a pretty accurate prediction.

On US exit polls they were not outside the error of margin. If a candidate is on 48% say and their rival is on 45%, then with an error of margin of 3% the result could be that the rival is in fact on 48% and the other candidate is on 45%. That is why they should always quote what the error of margin is in every poll. US polling is in general a bit of a mess with no real body governing methodologies. This is why there is talk, quite rightly in my opinion, of polls being used as political tools in the US.

Did the polls get it wrong consistently in the wrong way, in the 2015 General Election - yes. No one says that because the SNP are getting a poll rating of 45% that that is what they will get in the election. What the 45% means is that on 95% of occasions, support for the SNP will be between 42% and 48% in the wider population based on the 1,000 people polled. However there are a number of things that can skew these figures which the pollsters try to use weighting to reduce. For example, if too many people polled of one type or another can skew polls. Things such as age, location, wealth, past voting intentions, social acceptability of certain answers, demographic assumption on who will vote etc. can affect polls. Clearly in the run up to the 2015 General Election, their weighting and assumptions were wrong and wrong consistently.

The 11 point difference, however, between people thinking Sturgeon is doing a good job vs Davidson and a total difference of 29 points between how they are doing - this is well outside the error of margin and therefore cannot be put down to polls being crap.

Getintaethem

21-03-2017, 01:57 PM

just to add, i dont like Sturgeon personally but theres not a cats chance in hell that Theresa May is more popular in Scotland. Not a bloody chance!!

You may be right - but unlikely. There is a 13 point difference between their total figures on doing a good/bad job between May and Sturgeon. This poll could be an outlier but 13 points is well outside the error of margin and its highly unlikely not to be that wrong.

Can you point to any evidence to back up your claim?

Stupie82

21-03-2017, 03:03 PM

You may be right - but unlikely. There is a 13 point difference between their total figures on doing a good/bad job between May and Sturgeon. This poll could be an outlier but 13 points is well outside the error of margin and its highly unlikely not to be that wrong.

Can you point to any evidence to back up your claim?

Well if we are going to use polls to gauge popularity, then I will refer to whatscotlandthinks. It uses various polls from up down the UK, over the course of period of time. So as of today, the current poll on how Scotland would vote in a GE is 47% SNP, 28% Cons and 14% Lab. The current poll on how Nicola Sturgeon is doing as FM is Fairly Well 34%, Very Well 19%, Fairly Bad 14%, Very Bad 23% and 10% don’t know.

Those figures don’t back up what SKY have said. Couple that with complete SNP domination of the last GE here in Scotland, again with a big win (albeit not majority) in the last Scottish Election, with the public knowing indyref2 was likely possibility! Plus the fact that the majority of Scots don’t want Brexit and the Cons are pushing for a hard Brexit? im sorry but I cannot for the life of me see how the Cons or Theresa May are rating higher than Nicola Sturgeon. As I have said, I’m not a NS or SNP fan, but no one can deny she and the party are popular among the masses here in Scotland. Ruth Davidson is gaining popularity, but to say Theresa May is doing a better job in a country that is vastly against Brexit and Austerity….? It doesn’t make any sense.

I know you are saying the margin for error is so vast it cant be wrong, but I would like to see the demographics on this.

As for SKY, they are propaganda specialists. Their anti Trump rhetoric lately has been laid on so thick, its disgusting. Their complete lack of impartiality in the last independence referendum was sickening to watch. Adam Bolton and Kay Burly were horrendous and were sickly in their approach to presenting any piece to do with it. I've no doubt they were pro-union but there was no impartiality and attacked anyone who thought otherwise. Using them as a basis of truth and matter of fact is probably bout as bad as it can get.

kigoretrout

21-03-2017, 03:18 PM

spot on

Getintaethem

21-03-2017, 04:20 PM

How people would vote in a GE is not entirely applicable here. You may think the leader of a party is doing badly but still vote for that party over the alternatives. Case in point, the SNP polling has not changed vastly but the last three polls in whatscotlandthinks does show a significant trend of lower support for Sturgeon (very well or well) with the last three between 50% and 53% whereas before the polls were showing (very well or well) between 60% and as high as 75%.

With regards to SKY being bias and therefore the poll being bias, as I said above, polls are run by third parties and the body that looks into these Chairman is Professor Curtice. The guy behind whatscotlandthinks. I believe the methodologies of both are sound. In actual fact, the polling companies in the UK go to great lengths to reduce any hint of bias. (bearing in mind my above comments around sampling errors that happened in the 2015 GE etc.)

You do raise an interesting point with regards to this poll though. As the whatscotlandthinks poll is run more often then there is more validity to the general trend than the SKY poll. The two are also asking different questions and the SKY one is comparing party leaders so it is hard to directly compare. But what the hell!

very well or well - 53%, fairly badly or bad - 37% with 10% don't know - Poll on WhatScotlandThinks

good 42%, bad 54% with 4% don't know - Sky Poll

One of the differences between the two polls was the SKY poll was done right after Sturgeon made her announcement. Although polls can show trends they are only a snapshot of what people are thinking at that point in time. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that there has been a 5% swing since her announcement (i.e. 10% total). There was a 4% increase in (very well/well) between Feb and March - so large variances on this poll are common. With the "dont know's" far lower in the SKY Poll also this would explain the differences in the polls. Remember there is also a margin of error in these polls.

Although I was winding it up a little in my original post of the Sky Poll, my honest opinion is that the poll from SKY is not bias or widely wrong. However, there is a always a slim possibility that it could be an outlier or it was a widely inaccurate sample. I do believe that the timing of it is significant and probably reflects people's opinions of her announcement being badly timed. Also, you can see from whatscotlandthinks, that opinions on leaders have a higher variance than polls around parties because thinking someone is doing a good or bad job is less fundamental to what party you will vote for and is therefore more open to events that happen. They do, however, provide general trends. This is why SKY rerunning their poll (like whatscotlandthinks) is important. You never know, it could show a large swing in her favour in a months time... polls are snapshots.

Edit: although polls may not have bias in them, the media can represent them incorrectly or in a biased manner. The Independent is a case in point - in my opinion either bias or ignorance. As SKY gave the headline figures, I cannot see any bias in their presentation of them.

Disco Buc

21-03-2017, 04:29 PM

Getintaethem

21-03-2017, 05:13 PM

Loved that post Stupie .
Sky are certainly biased as bad as the good old beeb.. i got interviewed on sky here in Aberdeen Sept 2014 they were biased alright right in front of me.
Rather disappointing they knew how to play the game Westminster way that's for sure.

Are you saying that because SKY is biased then the polls that they commission are also biased. Because if you are then you are wrong.

Getintaethem

21-03-2017, 05:49 PM

Stupie - sorry, I did not respond to you wanting to see the demographics on the SKY poll.

What the polling companies do is take the raw data they get back from the people polled (e.g. who they will vote for). They also get their demographic data, such as age, location, who they voted for in the last election, wealth category (by postcode) and some other things. They then run these figures through the demographics of people that voted in the past, intention to vote and use statistical weighting algorithms to make the people that are polled more representative of the people who vote. All the polling companies use different weighting methods and they are all looking to improve but it is also a big reason why some polling companies constantly poll Labour, for example, higher than others. And also the reason why the BBC etc. use a poll of polls to try and reduce errors and spot underlying trends. The polling companies have to make this data available on request (both the raw data and the weighted data) to prove there is no bias in their weighting.

This can cause issues. For example, far more people say they will vote than actually vote. It happens in all polls! So, for example, the polling company could assume that x percentage of SNP voters (just using them as an example) will vote based on previous voting patterns but a lesser percentage actually vote in comparison to other parties. Predicting turnout is also an issue because a greater turnout can benefit one party over another... also the weather, local issues can skew local results in ways that national polls cannot predict. The list is almost endless. They have measures in place to reduce these effects but they can still get it wrong.

Mostly polling works (within the error of margin), although issues with this (called sampling errors) in the 1992 election was widely accepted as to why the polls were out. More tories voted than they were expecting. Although I have not looked into the last GE, I remember at the time, it was widely anticipated that sampling errors were the cause of Labour support being consistently over estimated and Tories being under estimated.

This is also the issue why there were no exit polls at Brexit or Scottish inde ref. There just are not enough referendums for exit polls (80% in a ref and 60% in a GE shows demographics between the two are very different). For Brexit, I believe the pollsters predicted more younger voters would vote than actually happened. Although they were not wrong outside the margin of error - they were consistently wrong.

Disco Buc

21-03-2017, 06:04 PM

Are you saying that because SKY is biased then the polls that they commission are also biased. Because if you are then you are wrong.

No i am not saying that .
You weren't there when i got interviewed unless you were at the NO table.
What i will say is the lass that interviewed me spoke to me later .And later agreed with what i had said but she got pulled away when i started to mention trident the cost the damage it could cause then went to the next person from the campaign.

Disco Buc

21-03-2017, 06:10 PM

renewing trident - My own personal opinion is that I would personally rather there were no nuclear missiles but unilaterally declaring that we wont have them is not the way to reduce them. If the US did the same, Russia would hold the balance of power and would have no issue dominating even more countries. We would have a less safe world especially with the likes of North Korea and Iran either having or actively trying to build them. It is my own personal opinion. Economically, wrt Scotland it is peanuts.

noncing - I do not understand this in this context.

tay payer funded hotel w@nks - I do not understand this

the DWP suiciding off disabled claimants - all welfare powers are being transferred to Scotland so you do not need to worry about it. If the SNP Government had not decided to delay their adoption by three years then the SNP could have stopped DWP suiciding off disabled claimants in Scotland.

Yemen - this is a hugely complex area in its own right. However, Scotland cannot blame our problems in this country on Westminsters actions with respect to Yemen.

Huns in general - ?

I am not confusing the SNP and Scottish Independence. We were talking about blaming our problems on Westminster. Blaming Westminster is a SNP mantra which we hear every time they are in a spot of bother or want to stoke grievance.

edit: stoke not stock... i am dyslexic

Firstly you post loads and say a lot on here you just love the union it appears.
What about the dept 1.7 trillion dept who are you going to blame on that.
Prefer you didn't answer with a big speel as I'm dyslexic.

Getintaethem

21-03-2017, 06:18 PM

Firstly you post loads and say a lot on here you just love the union it appears.
What about the dept 1.7 trillion dept who are you going to blame on that.
Prefer you didn't answer with a big speel as I'm dyslexic.

Our debt was increased during the good times by the Labour government and when the crash came tax revenues tanked plus we had to bail out the banks. We are in debt because the UK wanted to maintain spending (both Labour and Tories) over and above what we earned through tax so our debt escalated dramatically - even though we reduced spending.

I missed the SNP wanting to spend less money - all I heard was how bad reducing spending was... so I presume the SNP would want the UK to have even higher debt than £1.7M?

Mason89

21-03-2017, 06:35 PM

Getintaethem

21-03-2017, 06:42 PM

Who do you think would do a better job in the Scottish parliament? It's fine bashing the SNPs record but I can't see much in the way of talent on the opposition. Who am I missing & why? Where's the saviour of Scottish education?

The SNP are the Government in Scotland. I just want them to do a better job of governing as do the majority of people in Scotland.

What they have done in many areas, education being an example, so far has sent us backwards not forwards.

Independence now is not the answer to these problems whoever is in Government and because of the financial situation will mean less not more money into services we all care about.

Mason89

21-03-2017, 06:50 PM

So you can't think of anyone either. Sound

Getintaethem

21-03-2017, 06:53 PM

So you can't think of anyone either. Sound

I have no clue what any of the other parties policies are on education, but one thing is for sure, reducing public spending in the way it is clear an Independent Scotland would have to do is not the way to improve it.

Disco Buc

21-03-2017, 07:01 PM

[QUOTE=Getintaethem;38473797]I have no clue what any of the other parties policies are on education, but one thing is for sure, reducing public spending in the way it is clear an Independent Scotland would have to do is not the way to improve it.

If you have no clue on any other parties policies how can you complain about the current system. To back up an argument it may be better to see what others are offering. What exactly is wrong with the education system in Scotland ?

Getintaethem

21-03-2017, 07:08 PM

If you have no clue on any other parties policies how can you complain about the current system. To back up an argument it may be better to see what others are offering. What exactly is wrong with the education system in Scotland ?

Quite simple Buc, Sturgeon herself said - judge me by my record on education. I am just doing what she told me to. She did not say judge me by my record in education by what the others have to offer!

So I looked at what the SNP have done on her watch. Scotland has gone backwards in league tables (and fallen behind England in science, maths and english for this first time), kids from poorer backgrounds are less likely to go to University than any other country in the UK and standards of literacy and maths according to Scotland's own report has not improved and gone backwards for poorer kids.

Disco Buc

21-03-2017, 07:14 PM

Quite simple Buc, Sturgeon herself said - judge me by my record on education. I am just doing what she told me to. She did not say judge me by my record in education by what the others have to offer!

So I looked at what the SNP have done on her watch. Scotland has gone backwards in league tables (and fallen behind England in science, maths and english for this first time), kids from poorer backgrounds are less likely to go to University than any other country in the UK and standards of literacy and maths according to Scotland's own report has not improved and gone backwards for poorer kids.

Who do you feel would do a better job.

Getintaethem

21-03-2017, 07:21 PM

Who do you feel would do a better job.

At the right time before the next election I will look at the various parties and what they say and will make my mind up as to who will do a better job. The fact is the SNP is in power.

As I said above, one thing is for sure, reducing public spending in the way it is clear an Independent Scotland would have to do is not the way to improve education (or other services) no matter who is in Government.

Disco Buc

21-03-2017, 07:24 PM

Can you tell me the source of where you got your information regarding the education statistics from .

As it doesn't match with the Scottish government web site.

Disco Buc

21-03-2017, 07:34 PM

At the right time before the next election I will look at the various parties and what they say and will make my mind up as to who will do a better job. The fact is the SNP is in power.

As I said above, one thing is for sure, reducing public spending in the way it is clear an Independent Scotland would have to do is not the way to improve education (or other services) no matter who is in Government.

The SNP are doing an amazing job with the services like the NHS for example .
Come May the SNP will be triumphant in many areas around Scotland and rightly so.

Getintaethem

21-03-2017, 07:53 PM

Can you tell me the source of where you got your information regarding the education statistics from .

As it doesn't match with the Scottish government web site.

Sure.

Programme for International Student Assessment (Pisa) figures is managed through the OECD. It started in 2000 and looks at countries every three years. It is recognised by Governments internationally. In the last figures we dropped below England and as the following graph demonstrates this is the worst set of results that Scotland has ever had.
www.oecd.org/pisa

3876

The proportion of pupils performing well or very well in reading has fallen since 2011 in all three of the age groups measured by the Scottish Survey of Literacy and Numeracy - Primary 4, Primary 7 and Second Year at High School. Writing standards also reduced for the oldest category, while maths has decreased for all three age groups measured. The biggest decrease during this timeframe in both writing and numeracy performance among 13 and 14-year-olds has been the poorest kids. Stats are all to be found on the Scottish Governments website.
http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/School-Education/SSLN

Getintaethem

21-03-2017, 07:58 PM

The SNP are doing an amazing job with the services like the NHS for example .
Come May the SNP will be triumphant in many areas around Scotland and rightly so.

Even if it was true on the NHS there are lots of people who will disagree with this statement, I repeat, it is clear an Independent Scotland would have to reduce public spending - no matter who was in power. So will services improve in an Independent Scotland - no.

The SNP will do better in May because since the last local government elections support for the Labour party has plummeted. This will not be the story, the percentage of the vote will be the interesting aspect to these elections.

Disco Buc

21-03-2017, 08:18 PM

Sure.

Programme for International Student Assessment (Pisa) figures is managed through the OECD. It started in 2000 and looks at countries every three years. It is recognised by Governments internationally. In the last figures we dropped below England and as the following graph demonstrates this is the worst set of results that Scotland has ever had.
www.oecd.org/pisa

3876

The proportion of pupils performing well or very well in reading has fallen since 2011 in all three of the age groups measured by the Scottish Survey of Literacy and Numeracy - Primary 4, Primary 7 and Second Year at High School. Writing standards also reduced for the oldest category, while maths has decreased for all three age groups measured. The biggest decrease during this timeframe in both writing and numeracy performance among 13 and 14-year-olds has been the poorest kids. Stats are all to be found on the Scottish Governments website.
http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/School-Education/SSLN

On the website it doesn't SEEM to seperate Scotland from England .

Getintaethem

21-03-2017, 08:56 PM

On the website it doesn't SEEM to seperate Scotland from England .

Hmm. They definitely show Scotland stats separately somewhere but I cannot find them easily either. Anyway, the separate reports from England and Scotland can be found here.

Scottish report (produced by Scotland) can be found here:
http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0051/00511095.pdf

This chart shows how countries below us have improved to be similar to us and the ones that were similar to us have gone ahead of us.

3880

English report (produced by the UK Government) can be found here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pisa-2015-national-report-for-england

Our performance against England is shown here. First time we have gone behind England in science, english and maths.

3879

Stupie82

21-03-2017, 09:13 PM

These stats are all good and well, but the truth is we can all find some sort of data that fits our agendas. Thats not to say yours are not truthful or informative , only that someone will find something to counteract them.

The truth of the matter is that no one knows what would happen in an independent Scotland, nor can we use current graphs and models help to support that it would/wouldnt work. All we know is what we have now and make an informative decision based on that. The trouble with human nature is that not everyone can be pleased by the same things and because of this we will mostly differ on independence.

My own thoughts are that it would be successful, or else i wouldnt vote for it. Its blind faith to a degree, but then i dont rate the current UK government, nor the plenty before them and an independent Scotland in my eyes would be no worse than the state the UK is now. Would it improve? i dont know, but IMO its worth the shot. Mediocre governments have become the norm and people are almost settling for it and that to me is the saddest part of it all.

ohno

21-03-2017, 09:32 PM

Until there is a balanced discussion on actual finance no side can really determine if Scotland will be worse or better off.
We hear Scotland has no debt as Westminster holds the purse strings and we cannot borrow money yet as the UK debt is pushing TWO TRILLION POUNDS Scotlands share is a tenth of that, so we must be in debt.
There is an argument about tax raising too again but if you don't raise ALL the taxes payable in Scotland then nobody has any accurate figures to work on.
What I do know is we are faced with another right wing tory goverment for years who will destroy the NHS, show no mercy on the sick and disabled and when we are pulled out of Europe blame ALL our problems on Johnny Foreigner. Inflicting more austerity on the lower/middle class whilst rewarding big business.

Getintaethem

21-03-2017, 09:32 PM

These stats are all good and well, but the truth is we can all find some sort of data that fits our agendas.

I was asked to provide this by Buc! As they are from the Scottish Governments own website and produced by the Scottish Government (its their own report/figures), I doubt they can be refuted.

Secondly, we can know what will happen post independence because we know what our financial position will be after independence because these are also Government figures. We (in Scotland) have a current deficit of £15bn per year. That £15bn deficit was created in Scotland by spending more money than we are now able to produce as a nation. Unless you have a smart way of getting rid of that (that no one else has thought of), we will need to borrow (at a worse interest rate than the UK), put up taxes and reduce services. At the moment the rest of the UK makes up this £15bn deficit. I watched some of the debate tonight from BBC Scotland and someone said after Independence we would be able to spend more on the NHS. This is just pure fantasy.

I respect your belief that things would be better but if the SNP are ever going to convince a majority of Scotland to vote for it, surely they need to tell us what the current situation is and what services will be cut, what taxes will raise and what borrowing will look.

Getintaethem

21-03-2017, 09:39 PM

What I do know is we are faced with another right wing tory goverment for years who will destroy the NHS, show no mercy on the sick and disabled and when we are pulled out of Europe blame ALL our problems on Johnny Foreigner. Inflicting more austerity on the lower/middle class whilst rewarding big business.

NHS is a devolved matter for the Scottish Government. The rest of the UK can do what it wants with the NHS - wont affect Scotland.

Sick and disabled (welfare) is a devolved matter for the Scottish Government. Well it would be if the Scottish Government had not delayed taking control of it for 3 years.

Austerity - I still do not understand how people can both complain about the £1.7T debt while at the same time complain about austerity. With a current deficit of $15bn per year which is around 10% of our GDP we cannot borrow more (as an independent country). Our bonds would be trash on the market. To join the EU, deficits should run no more than 3%. Therefore, as an independent country we would have to cut services - that is the truth of the matter.

Mason89

21-03-2017, 09:49 PM

if the SNP are ever going to convince a majority of Scotland to vote for it

Theresa May will do most of the donkey work. Not that you'll be changing your mind anyway

57vintage

21-03-2017, 09:55 PM

I watched some of the debate tonight from BBC Scotland and someone said after Independence we would be able to spend more on the NHS

Ach, just graffiti that on to the side of a bus. That's how voters are influenced, it seems.

Getintaethem

21-03-2017, 09:55 PM

Theresa May will do most of the donkey work. Not that you'll be changing your mind anyway

Yesterday Brexit was the big hope. Today May saying nah is the big hope. What will it be tomorrow? :)

Getintaethem

21-03-2017, 09:56 PM

Ach, just graffiti that on to the side of a bus. That's how voters are influenced, it seems.

apparently, it is rolled out as some sort of rallying call as if the majority voted for Brexit cos of a bus.

ohno

21-03-2017, 10:19 PM

The NHS budget is still determined by Westminster via the block grant so England still decides how much we get for our NHS.
The welfare budget too is determined by Westminster eg the hated bedroom tax which the Scottish goverment have to find £50M to stop it hurting the vulnerable.
Again who have we a borrowing deal with that we borrowed this money from?
£1.7 T is the equivalent of £62K for ever man woman and child in this countrys (up from £600B) so forgive me for being worried.
Austerity ain't working.
There is no accurate figures out there as the Gers figures don't take into consideration figures like VAT or other things ie £4B whisky industry.

Getintaethem

21-03-2017, 11:19 PM

What are the estimates around the GERS figures that make a dent on the £15bn deficit? A deficit of £1.7bn is worrying but borrowing more is hardly the answer.

Scotland gets independence and we stop austerity. How, by borrowing more money and spend and we will be able to reduce the deficit and ultimately debt? Even if that had been proven to work, the EU would not allow it if we were ever to consider joining it. Secondly, our Government bonds would have junk status if we even considered borrowing to maintain our existing deficit when we are already running the largest deficit in the western world.

This is not me saying it. Moody's have said that Scotland would be facing a high fiscal imbalance that we would immediately need to deal with. What this means is less spending and higher taxes (the deficit is equivalent to £5,600 per year for every worker in Scotland so obviously higher taxes wont cut it on its own).

So get independence and get austerity max.

This is not like the uncertainty of what would happen after Brexit that we can all argue about. This is reality. This is why even some grandees in the SNP are saying this is the worst possible time to call for a referendum.

Mason89

21-03-2017, 11:22 PM

F*ck the deficit.

Call ourselves The Scotland. We won Bannockburn on the pitch & they can't take the memories away from us.

Mason89

21-03-2017, 11:48 PM

3884

Aldo1983

21-03-2017, 11:57 PM

3884

The No voters already saved their club. The war is lost.

Disco Buc

22-03-2017, 07:08 AM

Yesterday Brexit was the big hope. Today May saying nah is the big hope. What will it be tomorrow? :)

Brexit was the big hope :D
The most googled question the next day was indeed WHAT DOES BREXIT MEAN.you couldn't make that up.
For me the masses were falling for the front page headlines from the likes of the daily Mail which were to put it mildly racist .
Even the Tories weren't ready for the leave vote they are still clueless on what to do and how to move forward .
At least the SNP have set up what they intend to do for the most part.
I've no time for racism but the people i know who are voted to leave . I'm not saying everyone who voted to leave was racist but with MSM backing it certainly helped to get people thinking this is not right they are taking our jobs our social money our council houses when indeed they help the economy grow with some amazing input.

Edit to say i know Barney has a friend on here is he a friend of yours

http://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=133

Getintaethem

22-03-2017, 07:15 AM

F*ck the deficit.

Call ourselves The Scotland. We won Bannockburn on the pitch & they can't take the memories away from us.

Now that's funny. :D

But perhaps we could just take care of the deficit by giving away the countries naming rights in a sponsorship deal. Nikeland or keeping with the Scottish theme Macdonaldsland or even better Disneyland. ;D

Disco Buc

22-03-2017, 08:43 AM

Now that's funny. :D

But perhaps we could just take care of the deficit by giving away the countries naming rights in a sponsorship deal. Nikeland or keeping with the Scottish theme Macdonaldsland or even better Disneyland. ;D

Would like to say both sides of this political discussion have been put across very well .
Would like to add also in a friendly manner very commendable indeed.
Nice one lads.

StandfreeFM

22-03-2017, 09:27 AM

Would like to say both sides of this political discussion have been put across very well .
Would like to add also in a friendly manner very commendable indeed.
Nice one lads.

Well, apart form Mason, who has added nothing to the debate except cheap jibes and snarky insults. Fast becoming his raison d'etre on here :P

ohno

22-03-2017, 11:34 AM

Stupie82

22-03-2017, 12:21 PM

Would like to say both sides of this political discussion have been put across very well .
Would like to add also in a friendly manner very commendable indeed.
Nice one lads.

Well said Buc... couldnt agree more!

We should find out today about the Holyrood vote on Indyref2! No doubt it will get the green light and i would expect some backtracking from Theresa May on this. She said "now is the not time" for it, but she will likely shoot down the media outlets portraying that as she wouldnt allow it to happen at all. She will of course let it happen!

SKY NEWS :
SNP Angus Robertson: Goes again on UK-wide agreement before triggering Brexit

He pushed her on this last week. May had said that she would reach UK-wide agreement on Brexit before triggering Article 50 - Robertson points out she has not.

May says Brexit plan is for all the people of the UK.

Robertson says both houses had say so why not people of Scotland?

May: This isn't about whether people of Scotland should have a choice... they made choice in 2014 independence vote.

She has a point there to be fair, but it is also the reason why IMO, we need to be independent. These decisions can and will be made by the UK government as a whole, because it was a UK vote. Scotlands voting pattern for Brexit is of little concern to her and is merely a stat. She views Scotland as part of the UK, which it is and the Scottish public made sure of that. I have seen so many people who voted NO in the referendum, complain that she shouldnt be able to pull us out of the EU... well sorry but thats exactly what they voted for when they wanted to stay in a union. BAsed on those type of people, I would expect a much higher swing towards YES this time around, albeit maybe not a majority.

ohno

22-03-2017, 01:11 PM

Well said Buc... couldnt agree more!

We should find out today about the Holyrood vote on Indyref2! No doubt it will get the green light and i would expect some backtracking from Theresa May on this. She said "now is the not time" for it, but she will likely shoot down the media outlets portraying that as she wouldnt allow it to happen at all. She will of course let it happen!

SKY NEWS :
SNP Angus Robertson: Goes again on UK-wide agreement before triggering Brexit

He pushed her on this last week. May had said that she would reach UK-wide agreement on Brexit before triggering Article 50 - Robertson points out she has not.

May says Brexit plan is for all the people of the UK.

Robertson says both houses had say so why not people of Scotland?

May: This isn't about whether people of Scotland should have a choice... they made choice in 2014 independence vote.

She has a point there to be fair, but it is also the reason why IMO, we need to be independent. These decisions can and will be made by the UK government as a whole, because it was a UK vote. Scotlands voting pattern for Brexit is of little concern to her and is merely a stat. She views Scotland as part of the UK, which it is and the Scottish public made sure of that. I have seen so many people who voted NO in the referendum, complain that she shouldnt be able to pull us out of the EU... well sorry but thats exactly what they voted for when they wanted to stay in a union. BAsed on those type of people, I would expect a much higher swing towards YES this time around, albeit maybe not a majority.

Exactly if 100% of Scotland voted to remain it wouldn't make any difference. "Do what your and like it!"

57vintage

22-03-2017, 02:29 PM

Exactly if 100% of Scotland voted to remain it wouldn't make any difference. "Do what your and like it!"

Despite that being an absurdly simplistic calculation, it's not correct. Alternative truth, false facts.

All UK Leave votes, excepting Scotland, numbered 16392420, Remain aggregating 14480050.

If everyone (your 100%) who voted in Scotland had voted Remain (2679513), that number added to the rest of the UK's Remain vote would give a total of 17159563, outstripping the Leave vote of 16392420 by 767143. Add in Gibraltar's majority to Remain and the gap widens a bit more. That would mean that the UK would not be leaving the EU, and we would not be in the constitutional and almost certainly economic clusterf>ck as we are.

It wasn't clear-cut along party lines either. The whole of Scotland's Leave vote amounted to 38% of those who voted. Research has shown that the proportion of both Nationalist and Labour voters who voted Leave almost exactly matched that.

High-profile figures in both parties also voted Leave (Alex Neil, Jim Sillars most notably, with Neil saying that he knew of a number of SNP MSPs who had also voted Leave, and Labour's Tom Harris headed up a Scottish Leave campaign).

Statistics, minskirts etc.

ohno

22-03-2017, 06:46 PM

Despite that being an absurdly simplistic calculation, it's not correct. Alternative truth, false facts.

All UK Leave votes, excepting Scotland, numbered 16392420, Remain aggregating 14480050.

If everyone (your 100%) who voted in Scotland had voted Remain (2679513), that number added to the rest of the UK's Remain vote would give a total of 17159563, outstripping the Leave vote of 16392420 by 767143. Add in Gibraltar's majority to Remain and the gap widens a bit more. That would mean that the UK would not be leaving the EU, and we would not be in the constitutional and almost certainly economic clusterf>ck as we are.

It wasn't clear-cut along party lines either. The whole of Scotland's Leave vote amounted to 38% of those who voted. Research has shown that the proportion of both Nationalist and Labour voters who voted Leave almost exactly matched that.

High-profile figures in both parties also voted Leave (Alex Neil, Jim Sillars most notably, with Neil saying that he knew of a number of SNP MSPs who had also voted Leave, and Labour's Tom Harris headed up a Scottish Leave campaign).

Statistics, minskirts etc.

You are right.What I should have said was even with significant numbers in favour of remaining we can be outvoted by a relatively
small differentials in England. Good old Ebbe

Brian Grantland

22-03-2017, 08:15 PM

The Gers figures as you say and I agree aren't accurate they are a very poor estimates

on what basis do you make this assertion?

when did you come to this conclusion?

57vintage

22-03-2017, 09:20 PM

You are right.What I should have said was even with significant numbers in favour of remaining we can be outvoted by a relatively
small differentials in England. Good old Ebbe

I read that as "good old Elsie". :D

Getintaethem

22-03-2017, 09:38 PM

The Gers figures as you say and I agree aren't accurate they are a very poor estimates however in the next 5 years the UK debt could easily be £3T in the next few years at current levels.
Here's another thought the NHS is being run down so the Tories can put it out to not be fit for the purpose therefore needs to be funded by insurance policies paid by all.
Whether you agree or disagree with private healthcare it will be forced on Scotland as the NHS budget will be decimated

I didn't say the Ger figures were inaccurate.

With regards to the NHS, that will not happen for 3 reasons. Firstly, the NHS has been around for 70 off years and even though there has been a cry of privatisation ever since I can remember, guess what, it has not been privatised. In fact, in every government since the inception (except one in the 70's) funding for the NHS has gone up in real terms.

Secondly, even if the UK Government were to privatise the NHS and the government saved money, this money would be spent in many different ways. i.e. overall spending would not change dramatically if at all.

Thirdly, no political party has a policy of taking the NHS out of free at the point of use. The NHS is such a political hot potato then no Government would dare put that into their manifesto. I think UKIP spoke about something but backtracked very quickly and it never got into their manifesto.

Getintaethem

22-03-2017, 09:50 PM

At least the SNP have set up what they intend to do for the most part.

What will they do then?

Has the SNP got agreement to enter EFTA?
When will we be able to join EFTA after independence?
What currency will we use?
What plans does the SNP have if we are not allowed to join EFTA?
Does the SNP Government have formal agreement that we can join the EU?
How many years will there be between independence and joining the EU?
What plans does the SNP have if we are not allowed to join the EU?
Will they negotiate trade deals with every country that the UK will negotiate trade deals between independence and joining EFTA?
How does the SNP Government propose to meet fiscal entry requirement to either EFTA or the EU?
Which taxes will rise in order to reduce the deficit?
Which services will face cuts in order to reduce the deficit?

Edit to say i know Barney has a friend on here is he a friend of yours

http://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=133

I have met 2 councillors in my entire life and he is not one of them.

Getintaethem

22-03-2017, 10:25 PM

on what basis do you make this assertion?

when did you come to this conclusion?

When the GERS figures were good, in the past, Salmond was out saying we were x years in surplus. That was based on GERS figures. So you would think they would like them as they also used them in their document around the economic case for independence in the last referendum.

Now the GERS figures are awful, they do not like them and say the figure is made up of some estimates.

Well, fact is loads of Government figures are based on estimates. GDP is based on some estimates to show if the country is growing or in recession. GDP is also internationally recognised even though it is based upon some estimates and no one credibly says that the GDP figures are significantly wrong. But that is what the SNP would have you believe around GERS.

Even if some of the estimates were out (very arguable) it still does not get around a £15bn deficit... not even close. And if the estimates are wrong, they could be wrong in the wrong direction for the SNP and our deficit could be even greater!

ohno

23-03-2017, 12:48 PM

I didn't say the Ger figures were inaccurate.

With regards to the NHS, that will not happen for 3 reasons. Firstly, the NHS has been around for 70 off years and even though there has been a cry of privatisation ever since I can remember, guess what, it has not been privatised. In fact, in every government since the inception (except one in the 70's) funding for the NHS has gone up in real terms.

Secondly, even if the UK Government were to privatise the NHS and the government saved money, this money would be spent in many different ways. i.e. overall spending would not change dramatically if at all.

Thirdly, no political party has a policy of taking the NHS out of free at the point of use. The NHS is such a political hot potato then no Government would dare put that into their manifesto. I think UKIP spoke about something but backtracked very quickly and it never got into their manifesto.

You like me said everything isn't calculated into the Gers figures ie Vat All taxes that would be raised in Scotland not Westminister.
So where are the figures including Corp tax etc?
The NHS is being rubbished in the news/papers almost everyday as too expensive and not fit for purpose. Its constantly underfunded and put under more pressure with social care underfunded too. And here is the point with private firm directorships etc being held by 100s of MPs they are constantly pushing for private medical care.
Bit by bit the NHS will be privatised until eventually it will be major purchases in your life life ( like a mortgage).
It is vastly privitised just now.

Getintaethem

23-03-2017, 07:49 PM

You like me said everything isn't calculated into the Gers figures ie Vat All taxes that would be raised in Scotland not Westminister.
So where are the figures including Corp tax etc?
The NHS is being rubbished in the news/papers almost everyday as too expensive and not fit for purpose. Its constantly underfunded and put under more pressure with social care underfunded too. And here is the point with private firm directorships etc being held by 100s of MPs they are constantly pushing for private medical care.
Bit by bit the NHS will be privatised until eventually it will be major purchases in your life life ( like a mortgage).
It is vastly privitised just now.

The NHS has had real term increases by every government (except one in the 70's) since its inception. It will always be under funded because there are so many more medical treatments coming to the market each year, these medical treatments use more and more expensive techniques and machines, we have an ageing population etc. i.e. you could put in all tax we collect as a country into the NHS and it will still be under funded. The same debate as we have in England, Scotland and Wales happens in Ireland, the Netherlands and the other European countries.

The use of private companies in the NHS has always been there. One of the reasons they use private companies is because they deliver the services cheaper than the public service itself. However, this does not matter with regards to your point as the money is still coming from Government. Therefore, the amount Scotland gets to fund our services remains the same no matter how the rest of the UK choose to deliver health services.

As I said before, it has always been the case that the Tories were going to privatise the NHS. It has not happened so far. In fact, the Government that gave more NHS to private companies was in fact the last Labour Government.

stewarty27

23-03-2017, 11:49 PM

What will they do then?

Has the SNP got agreement to enter EFTA?
When will we be able to join EFTA after independence?
What currency will we use?
What plans does the SNP have if we are not allowed to join EFTA?
Does the SNP Government have formal agreement that we can join the EU?
How many years will there be between independence and joining the EU?
What plans does the SNP have if we are not allowed to join the EU?
Will they negotiate trade deals with every country that the UK will negotiate trade deals between independence and joining EFTA?
How does the SNP Government propose to meet fiscal entry requirement to either EFTA or the EU?
Which taxes will rise in order to reduce the deficit?
Which services will face cuts in order to reduce the deficit?

I have met 2 councillors in my entire life and he is not one of them.

Whoa Whoa. No referendum has actually been called yet. And here's you whipping yersel into a frenzy. You must be one of those millions of Scots who don't want a referendum. ;D Why don't you concentrate your efforts and tell us all about something that WILL be happening, A post brexit Scotland.

Getintaethem

24-03-2017, 01:10 AM

Whoa Whoa. No referendum has actually been called yet. And here's you whipping yersel into a frenzy. You must be one of those millions of Scots who don't want a referendum. ;D Why don't you concentrate your efforts and tell us all about something that WILL be happening, A post brexit Scotland.

With Brexit, we have either a negotiated free Trade deal or trade under WTO rules. Simple. See, I answered your question.

The SNP have called for a referendum and Buc said there was a plan so I was just wondering what it was. Just interested in answers to a few basic questions. If asking for answers to a few simple questions is working yourself up into a "frenzy" then what chance does an independent Scotland have.... really :O

stewarty27

24-03-2017, 09:40 AM

With Brexit, we have either a negotiated free Trade deal or trade under WTO rules. Simple. See, I answered your question.

The SNP have called for a referendum and Buc said there was a plan so I was just wondering what it was. Just interested in answers to a few basic questions. If asking for answers to a few simple questions is working yourself up into a "frenzy" then what chance does an independent Scotland have.... really :O

Errr not really :?

What will being out of the EU actually mean for me you our families?
Will investors start pulling money out of the U.K., ?
Will the pound continue to crash ?
Will brexit help or hinder the UKs 1.7 Trillion current account deficit ?
Is Scotland staying in this political Union a massive risk to the people of Scotland ?
How would the UK fill a black hole of about £30 billion ($42.6 billion) per year if the U.K. left the EU. ?
Would brexit be a race to the bottom as May has hinted at ?
Better Together was the slogan last time will we be Better Together outwith the EU ?

The point I'm making to you is... you were happy to fire off all these questions at Buc and the answer to both sets of questions is NOBODY Knows at this stage. May I suggest you actually spend some time looking at the certain advantages and opportunities an Independent Scotland would undoubtedly bring.

Stupie82

24-03-2017, 12:51 PM

As I have said, there are so many questions but theres no way any can be answered with any certainty. Plenty of countries who have gone independent throughout history have survived and in some cases have come better off. Look at Australia, granted a different set of circumstances and a different period of time, but it is now one of the most prosperous countries in the world with a fantastic style of living. They were issued with the exact same threats we are hearing today.

Better together? I beg to differ. How can the same people who are pulling us out of the EU say we are better together in a union. How can we trust those same people who threatened potential independence voters with threats about Scotland not getting back into the EU as a terrible thing, but its now okay for the UK to do it. I dont trust anyone at Westminster and if Scotland was such a drain and couldnt cope on its on, why are so they against us breaking away. We would survive and yes it would be difficult to begin with, but f*ck it, for me this isnt about the now or the near future or even my future, this to me is about my kids future and the future generations decades from now!

Getintaethem

24-03-2017, 02:54 PM

The point I'm making to you is... you were happy to fire off all these questions at Buc and the answer to both sets of questions is NOBODY Knows at this stage.

No, the difference is that we have a plan around Brexit. i.e. we want a free trade deal. If the EU wont play ball we will trade under WTO rules. This is the plan and we know exactly what we will do. The consequences of the plan are not completely known and open for debate but that is the same with every decision the Government makes.

The difference between Brexit and Scottish Independence is that the SNP don't have a plan, cannot articulate the plan and the alternatives to the plan if the UK Government or the EU say no to anything on the plan. We can argue about the consequences but unless we get a plan there is no point as it is pie in the sky.

Mason89

24-03-2017, 03:07 PM

This is the plan and we know exactly what we will do

If it's that easy, why do they seem to be making an absolute c*nt of it before a balls even kicked? You might want to nip down and give David Davis a hand, seeing as you've got all the answers & he's got f*ck all

Getintaethem

24-03-2017, 04:55 PM

If it's that easy, why do they seem to be making an absolute c*nt of it before a balls even kicked? You might want to nip down and give David Davis a hand, seeing as you've got all the answers & he's got f*ck all

So you are complaining that he has got f*ck all in a 2 year process that has not started yet :confused:

ohno

24-03-2017, 06:01 PM

So you are complaining that he has got f*ck all in a 2 year process that has not started yet :confused:

So you want a deal that we will remain in the single market as we are now. Its not the EU leaving us its meant to be us leaving the EU.

ohno

24-03-2017, 06:04 PM

Would it not have been more simple if England left the UK? A lot easier to do to.

Getintaethem

24-03-2017, 07:53 PM

So you want a deal that we will remain in the single market as we are now. Its not the EU leaving us its meant to be us leaving the EU.

So, you went through the whole Brexit referendum and presumably voted and do not know the difference between a free trade deal with the EU and the single market?

stewarty27

24-03-2017, 08:59 PM

Would it not have been more simple if England left the UK? A lot easier to do to.

What and give up Scotland's huge resources that's bailed them out for years. Oh no that would never do. Can't fault your logic tho,

Getintaethem

24-03-2017, 09:32 PM

Would it not have been more simple if England left the UK? A lot easier to do to.

They could, however, just like Scotland - they don't want to.

Mason89

24-03-2017, 10:00 PM

They could, however, just like Scotland - they don't want to.

Why is that?

Donanddusted

24-03-2017, 10:20 PM

Why is that?
They need someone to look down on.

ohno

25-03-2017, 07:32 AM

They could, however, just like Scotland - they don't want to.

Ye canna get it both ways min. Either you think Scotland whilst being part of the Union has had its wealth taken from it and is a terrible state or you believe Scotland has a sustainable economy that is worth grabbing.
Many Scots have had enough of the broken promises and lies of the Unionist parties and this right wing Tory goverment with there solitary 1 MP in Scotland ignoring the equal partners and getting an agreement with us before triggering article 50.
I will give you another thought if the EU told the UK you cannot hold a vote to come out you would quite rightly be up in arms so when the SNP (the Scottish GOV!) put in there manifesto another ref if there are significant changes enforced on us, and couldn't have been clearer, Westminster has no right to withhold this from us.
You couldn't make it up a country begging another if it can have a vote.

Getintaethem

25-03-2017, 08:55 AM

Ye canna get it both ways min. Either you think Scotland whilst being part of the Union has had its wealth taken from it and is a terrible state or you believe Scotland has a sustainable economy that is worth grabbing.
Many Scots have had enough of the broken promises and lies of the Unionist parties and this right wing Tory goverment with there solitary 1 MP in Scotland ignoring the equal partners and getting an agreement with us before triggering article 50.
I will give you another thought if the EU told the UK you cannot hold a vote to come out you would quite rightly be up in arms so when the SNP (the Scottish GOV!) put in there manifesto another ref if there are significant changes enforced on us, and couldn't have been clearer, Westminster has no right to withhold this from us.
You couldn't make it up a country begging another if it can have a vote.

"Ye canna get it both ways min. Either you think Scotland whilst being part of the Union has had its wealth taken from it and is a terrible state or you believe Scotland has a sustainable economy that is worth grabbing." I have absolutely no idea what this means in this context.

The EU does not hold sovereignty over member states. The UK Government is sovereign and as Article 50 says all members of the EU (agreed by all member states) has the right to leave under the terms of the agreement.

When England joined the UK, they gave its sovereignty to the UK. Just like Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The UK Government is sovereign over the countries of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

So you cannot compare the two examples.

Secondly, if the SNP were not happy with the fact that in order to hold a referendum on independence that they needed to seek permission from the UK Government then they should not have voted for it. They did, so you should be directing your anger at the situation at the SNP.

So the SNP explicitly voted for the thing you say "you couldn't make up."

Did you find out the difference between the EU single market and a free trade deal with the EU yet?

ohno

25-03-2017, 09:52 AM

Did you find out the difference between the EU single market and a free trade deal with the EU yet?
Think you will find that that is you hope to gain access to the goods and services tariff free without the rules that protect workers and movement.
The Scottish government was promised agreement before Article 50 was triggered. Yet another broken promise from the Westminster government.
We are politically drifting apart from "Little England" and if the will of the Scottish parliament is denied by May there will be a major constitutional crisis ahead.

57vintage

25-03-2017, 10:46 AM

Whilst it had more holes than a Dons defence where the central defenders are John ****ing Inglis and Dave Bus, the 2014 independence referendum was supported by a White Paper, explaining governmental, fiscal and social structures that the Nationalists would have built in the event of a vote to leave the UK.

The 2016 EU Referendum, on the other hand, had no such underpinning. Rather, it was a series of back-of-a-fag-packet slogans to attempt to appeal to 'the left' (£35000000000000000000000000 a second to the NHS skited on the side of a bus) and to the knuckle-scrapers on the right (UKIP's "Look at all these ****ing darkies queuing to get in" billboard launched on the day Jo Cox was murdered).

Johnson's caught in the headlights reaction the following day proved that there was no thought given to post-referendum vision, strategy or tactics, and that arsehole May has done **** all since to suggest that anything exists yet beyond some muddy, opaque bluster about seeing through the 'will of the people'. Her conversion from, albeit lukewarm, supporter of the Remain cause, to full-blooded, goggle-eyed anti-EU fanatic is quite breathtaking.

There is no vision, no plan, nor are there experienced negotiators to get 'a deal'. The government is in full panic mode on this one, and if it was a board of directors in a commercial organisation, the shareholders would have had them sacked by August last year.

Burn, baby, burn.

InversneckieDob

25-03-2017, 10:48 AM

We are politically drifting apart from "Little England" and if the will of the Scottish parliament is denied by May there will be a major constitutional crisis ahead.

For me, that's the single, incontrovertible, difference.

You can argue all day about the socio-economic implications of independance, naebody knows.
It depends on the hue of the government a post independence Scotland elects, it depends (in the short term) on the terms of the "divorce" and many other imponderables that naebody kens the answer to (including the inevitable situation that Westminster would do EVERYTHING to shaft us).

My argument against independence previously was that there was mir united us than divided us.
I had mair in common with a, say, joiner fae Gateshead, a brikkie fae Sheffield or a sparky fae Hounslow than I did with s c u m like Malcolm Rifkind and Michael Forsyth.
But I've come to realise that the said brikkie, joiner, sparky and millions like them, are the c u n t s that have rendered the likes of Johnston, Farage, Cameron et al credible politicians and the likes of UKIP as a political movement.

Scotland is now just fundamentally disparate from England.
End of.

InversneckieDob

25-03-2017, 10:55 AM

Johnson's caught in the headlights reaction the following day proved that there was no thought given to post-referendum vision, strategy or tactics

Johnson never ever thought leave would win.
He was positioning himself to be next leader.

He went with leave thinking that remain would win narrowly, the right of the tory party (by f u c k there's a scary phrase, a bit like "fundamentalist h*n") would cause seven different kinds oh sh!t for Trish, these odious vermin would then chamion him in a leadership bid, but he'd keep the "moderate" tories (oxymoron corner........"hygienic h*ns") onside because he's loveable BoJo.

Sadly for him, he was WELL outmaneuvered by Nurse Ratched, who played a blinder.

Getintaethem

25-03-2017, 11:51 AM

For me, that's the single, incontrovertible, difference.

...

End of.

Rubbish.

By the very fact that I said "rubbish" makes it not incontrovertible.

End of.

Getintaethem

25-03-2017, 12:18 PM

Think you will find that that is you hope to gain access to the goods and services tariff free without the rules that protect workers and movement.

First you said I wanted to be in the single market and now you say I want to be have a tariff free trade deal with the EU.
As you obviously know what I want (even though I have not said what I want), please tell me, because I am getting really confused.

The Scottish government was promised agreement before Article 50 was triggered. Yet another broken promise from the Westminster government.

The Scottish Government was not promised agreement before Article 50 was triggered. It was promised to be consulted. They have been. What the SNP then said what they wanted was to remain in the single market. The Westminster government does not need to say no - the EU already said no to their demands! So, not only should you be pissed with the SNP for voting to need to ask the UK Government to hold a referendum, but you should be pissed with the EU for not agreeing to allowing Scotland into the single market.

We are politically drifting apart from "Little England" and if the will of the Scottish parliament is denied by May there will be a major constitutional crisis ahead.

So the Scottish parliament will vote to seek permission to hold a referendum when it chooses. That is not what happened in 2014, it was agreed by both the Scottish parliament and the UK Parliament as to when it would happen. This time sturgeon is not only seeking permission but demanding when it will be. This is not up to her. She knows no Prime Minister would agree to hold a referendum when we are still negotiating Brexit... she did it to sow grievance that would play well for the fundamentalist nationalists.

Sturgeon is acting counter productively to the cause of an independent Scotland. The more rational SNP grandees are now publicly saying it.

There will be no constitutional crisis because the UK Government will be acting well within its powers. There has not been agreement on when to hold it.

ohno

25-03-2017, 12:56 PM

First you said I wanted to be in the single market and now you say I want to be have a tariff free trade deal with the EU.
As you obviously know what I want (even though I have not said what I want), please tell me, because I am getting really confused.

"You" is the wrong term your side of the argument is correct. P.S. May voted to remain so doesn't really believe in any rational for walking off the cliff.

The Scottish Government was not promised agreement before Article 50 was triggered. It was promised to be consulted. They have been. What the SNP then said what they wanted was to remain in the single market. The Westminster government does not need to say no - the EU already said no to their demands! So, not only should you be pissed with the SNP for voting to need to ask the UK Government to hold a referendum, but you should be pissed with the EU for not agreeing to allowing Scotland into the single market.

ALL devolved regions where promised an agreement. There has not even been ONE proposal by any of them taken on board.

So the Scottish parliament will vote to seek permission to hold a referendum when it chooses. That is not what happened in 2014, it was agreed by both the Scottish parliament and the UK Parliament as to when it would happen. This time sturgeon is not only seeking permission but demanding when it will be. This is not up to her. She knows no Prime Minister would agree to hold a referendum when we are still negotiating Brexit... she did it to sow grievance that would play well for the fundamentalist nationalists.

Sturgeon is acting counter productively to the cause of an independent Scotland. The more rational SNP grandees are now publicly saying it.

There will be no constitutional crisis because the UK Government will be acting well within its powers. There has not been agreement on when to hold it.

Watch this space if you think there will be no repercussions.

Now what will be the job loses if there is no access to the single market.
What will happen to the 250000 pensioners in Spain ( who pension has been reduced by 1/3 due to the crash of sterling)
What will happen to the NHS/ Care workers from Europe doing jobs UK workers won't do?