View Full Version : Scexit UK
tonkatojo
13-Oct-16, 15:37
Here we go yet again, personally, I think the whole of the UK should have a vote in this saga of Scottish independence and settle the subject for good, I think England's public would be pleased to vote and I fear the vote would be good riddance as they must be sick of hearing the old bleats of indignation that come out of Scotland on most if not all subjects that arise regarding anything political regarding the UK, the threats of leaving do not instill fears South of the order and why should they ?, the submarine saga I suppose will come up but what the hell just move it or scrap it and there is not many levers left for the SNP to pull as the oil is near finished and apparently there is loads in the south of England as that report in the summer stated along with shale gas.
So yes go for the referendum and give the whole of the Uk a vote on the outcome and have final democratic decision for once, but have the wording agreed so no wriggle room at all, as appears there's believed to be with the Brexit carry on.
As long as they say it's "once in a generation" let's go for it!:lol:
rob murray
13-Oct-16, 16:40
She's playing to the gallery, its a draft bill to see if the bill's contents and tory hard brexiteers will push leavers into a majortiy.... then she makes her move...providing May sanctions an indyref vote and her stance is simple, in 2014 a majority voted to stay in the UK and in 2016 a majority in the UK voted to leave EU, so cant see Sturgeon being granted an indyerf2 ? If rUK were involved in an indy2 ref vote they would undoubtedly vote us out the UK..on a good riddance to irritations basis.
She must be at a loose end. Snoopy's whole purpose is cutting the kingdom in half: they are a one-issue pressure group, but now they find themselves in government expected actually to take some responsibility for normal things, which is a distraction. What else can she do? It's as if a "Stop the Windfarms" group found itself running the council, and tried to turn every report on road junctions and bin collections into a wind turbine protest.
She's playing to the gallery, its a draft bill to see if the bill's contents and tory hard brexiteers will push leavers into a majortiy.... then she makes her move...providing May sanctions an indyref vote and her stance is simple, in 2014 a majority voted to stay in the UK and in 2016 a majority in the UK voted to leave EU, so cant see Sturgeon being granted an indyerf2 ? If rUK were involved in an indy2 ref vote they would undoubtedly vote us out the UK..on a good riddance to irritations basis.
Excuse me, Scotland does not have to be "granted a referendum"......no need for any "Westminster sanction" ! There is nothing stopping the SG having a consultative/advisory referendum. If that produced a majority for independence, then May could certainly ignore it.......and then we could just declare UDI.....because the referendum would be a democratic mandate to do so. I don't think, however that Westminster would ignore it...wouldn't want to emulate the Soviet Union in 1990, would they? :confused
Here we go again.Family against family, wounds that have not healed from the last time vitriolic abuse aimed at people who dont agree with the SNP view, childrens flags taken from the front of houses and destroyed.Why not just concentrate on getting Scotland right and tight,wait and see if BREXIT works and if not then think about an Indyref.Nicola work for all of us not just yourself
rob murray
14-Oct-16, 09:27
Excuse me, Scotland does not have to be "granted a referendum"......no need for any "Westminster sanction" ! There is nothing stopping the SG having a consultative/advisory referendum. If that produced a majority for independence, then May could certainly ignore it.......and then we could just declare UDI.....because the referendum would be a democratic mandate to do so. I don't think, however that Westminster would ignore it...wouldn't want to emulate the Soviet Union in 1990, would they? :confused
Its all bluster, Consultation on a draft bill does not in any way mean that a second vote is going to happen any time soon :
1 WE dont know what Bexit will look ilke and how it will impact upon Scotland
2 AT last indy vote majority voted to stay in UK... thats democracy
3 May represents the UK as a whole and Scotland voted to stay part of UK so she will undoubtedly proceed on that basis and any indy situation has to be sanctioned by Westminster or at least thats how I understand it / UDI its a simple as that eh ? What about exiting the UK, divving up debts etc you cant just walk away international capital markets would treat a UDI Scotland as a pariah nation and wont lend or lend at extortionate rates. UDI... the last desparet suggestion by fanatics.
4 If May knocked back indy2 then she will have right on her side, unless SNP can demonstrable prove a proven appetite and desire to split from UK and that has to come from all not just the SNP
5 Its all bluff anyway, Sturgeon as polls stand cant do anything until we fully know what Brexit means ( polls arent on her side, call a vote and lose and she is finished like Salmon ) and if the majority of Scots eventually find it unpalatable that will take time so perhaps indy 2 by 2020 2021 at earliest if sanctioned e a serious issue to progress as it stands she is only talking for SNP not Scotland as a whole
6 The former soviet union was reknown for centralised control...remind you of anyone / any party ?
Its all speculation, Sturgeons statement yesterday doesn't really mean anything, just rabble rousing for the faithful. we dont have Brexit details neither do the SNP so they can only speculate scenarios. Indy carping just shows the SNP to be a single issue party, they wont let it go eh ?
rob murray
14-Oct-16, 09:37
Excuse me, Scotland does not have to be "granted a referendum"......no need for any "Westminster sanction" ! There is nothing stopping the SG having a consultative/advisory referendum. If that produced a majority for independence, then May could certainly ignore it.......and then we could just declare UDI.....because the referendum would be a democratic mandate to do so. I don't think, however that Westminster would ignore it...wouldn't want to emulate the Soviet Union in 1990, would they? :confused
what about “the initiative” to persuade No voters to vote Yes in the future, you know what the SNP said they were going to be doing over the summer...theres no initiative is there, rather "we" are being told what may or not may not happen regardless..a wholly desperate single issue undemocratic protest party, scots on the whole are canny ( economics and unanswered economic questions last time around resulted in a stay majority ) and if Im allowed to speculate I would imagine that the majority of Scots will wait to see how Brexit hits there pockets, if detrimental and negative and SNP can come out with solutions that negate this then I can see in time a swing to leave, but as it is, in turbulent times SNP are just adding more uncertainty and turmoil to the current situation and as poster says will once again raise vicious divisiveness in Scotland.
rob murray
14-Oct-16, 09:43
Excuse me, Scotland does not have to be "granted a referendum"......no need for any "Westminster sanction" ! There is nothing stopping the SG having a consultative/advisory referendum. If that produced a majority for independence, then May could certainly ignore it.......and then we could just declare UDI.....because the referendum would be a democratic mandate to do so. I don't think, however that Westminster would ignore it...wouldn't want to emulate the Soviet Union in 1990, would they? :confused
Does the SNP government have the constitutional authority to call another independence referendum without the approval of Westminster.?
The factual answer to that is ‘No’ as under the Scotland Act which established the Holyrood parliament the constitution is a matter reserved to Westminster.
The last independence referendum was agreed by the Scottish and Westminster governments under the so-called ‘Edinburgh agreement’.
Would the UK government give legislative blessing next time around? We don’t know. The UK government has so far said it does not support such a move.
But if there was an overwhelming groundswell of opinion in favour of a second independence referendum they might be unwise to block it. Blocking it might play into the Nationalists’ hands....so Sturgeon is poker playing if she can get enough support for indy 2 ( and how does she prove this ? ) then if westminster blocked it that act would further add to leave vote, however the polls arent in her favour.
The SNP need to concentrate on getting the NHS,Police .Fire and Rescue Service right and tight before she starts spending more of our budget on another Indyref or going on jollies around Europe try to gain favour with countries who will not help Scotland in any way as they have troubles of their own.
In regards to Police Scotland have they paid the Massive tax bill that was spoken about after the SNP made it a national force or are the thousands of pounds owing been pushed under the carpet and hidden because it causes too many problems
rob murray
14-Oct-16, 10:18
The SNP need to concentrate on getting the NHS,Police .Fire and Rescue Service right and tight before she starts spending more of our budget on another Indyref or going on jollies around Europe try to gain favour with countries who will not help Scotland in any way as they have troubles of their own.
In regards to Police Scotland have they paid the Massive tax bill that was spoken about after the SNP made it a national force or are the thousands of pounds owing been pushed under the carpet and hidden because it causes too many problems
Previous to 2013, local police and fire services were not permitted to pay VAT but the creation of national bodies ended this exemption.Police and fire services in Scotland used to be controlled by local council which can claim back VAT but the new national forces are controlled by the Scottish government, which cannot. Despite knowing this the SNP just pushed through these centralized bodies, HMRC pointed this out to them at the time, a total sum of £76 million has been paid to HMRC which cannot be claimed back as per normal circumstances ( ie suppliers addind vat to bills, Police Scotland paying bills plus vat which is normaly claimed back same as any other vat regiatered business, so thats £76 millions down the swanny, they cant claim it back. No doubt SNP will shout its Westminsters fault, trying to stop them "governing" ie creating centralised bodies but 1 The laws the law 2 Scotland is part of UK 3 Scotland does not have a case to do what they want and run rough shod over UK laws / UK HMRC
rob murray
14-Oct-16, 14:19
The SNP need to concentrate on getting the NHS,Police .Fire and Rescue Service right and tight before she starts spending more of our budget on another Indyref or going on jollies around Europe try to gain favour with countries who will not help Scotland in any way as they have troubles of their own.
In regards to Police Scotland have they paid the Massive tax bill that was spoken about after the SNP made it a national force or are the thousands of pounds owing been pushed under the carpet and hidden because it causes too many problems
Police under spends read this its appalling : http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14802865.Police_cars__held_together_with_duct_tape __and_officers_using__mouldy_interview_rooms__due_ to_lack_of_money/?ref=mrb&lp=8
pig whisperer
14-Oct-16, 20:16
how much hard cash did it cost the SNP to do the indyref 1, can they afford to waste money arranging another 1, lets make Scotland great, education , health care, jobs, all more important than independence, run the country right then ask the people again
As Nicola Sturgeon is spending money (the costs of which she refuses to divulge) on trips to the EU, proposed setting up of offices in Brussels and other vain projects, who is paying for this, the SNP or more probably the Scottish Taxpayer who has not been asked or given consent to such self absorbed grandstanding. Surely this money should be more properly (and legally) spent on services within Scotland which have been scandalously cut by the Scottish Government which has full responsibility for it.
As Nicola Sturgeon is spending money (the costs of which she refuses to divulge) on trips to the EU, proposed setting up of offices in Brussels and other vain projects, who is paying for this, the SNP or more probably the Scottish Taxpayer who has not been asked or given consent to such self absorbed grandstanding. Surely this money should be more properly (and legally) spent on services within Scotland which have been scandalously cut by the Scottish Government which has full responsibility for it.
It would be the Scottish taxpayer, a much bigger majority of which voted to stay in the EU than did to stay in the UK.It is therefore the job of the SG (and the course of action being followed was agreed by all opposition parties, btw) to ascertain if there is any way to do that, short of independence. This is what she is doing. You have a problem with her doing her job?
MSPs have handed Nicola Sturgeon a mandate to hold direct talks with European institutions and member states to protect Scotland's place in the EU.
Scotland's First Minister secured cross-party support at Holyrood for unilateral discussions in advance of meeting European Parliament President Martin Schulz in Brussels on Wednesday.
She sought the backing of the Scottish Parliament in an emergency debate following the UK's vote for Brexit despite 62% of Scots voting Remain.
The First Minister said she would return to Holyrood to propose a second independence referendum if the Scottish Government concludes it is ''the best or only way to protect Scotland's place in the EU''.
Labour, the Liberal Democrats and Greens backed her motion asking for a mandate for talks with the UK Government, other devolved administrations, EU institutions and member states, which passed by 92 votes to 0 with the Tories abstaining after their attempt to amend it failed.
http://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/scotlands-voice-will-be-heard-in-europe-nicola-sturgeon-says-11364070510485
Excuse me, Scotland does not have to be "granted a referendum"......no need for any "Westminster sanction" ! There is nothing stopping the SG having a consultative/advisory referendum. If that produced a majority for independence, then May could certainly ignore it.......and then we could just declare UDI.....because the referendum would be a democratic mandate to do so. I don't think, however that Westminster would ignore it...wouldn't want to emulate the Soviet Union in 1990, would they? :confused
"If that produced a majority for independence" - and what if it did not would that be 'once in a generation'? (Edinburgh agreement) or would it be the best of three?.. Time is running out for Sturgeon's minority government, and she knows it.. there is no way the fishing communities - for starters - would accept loosing their new fishing grounds which would be returned to them.. Independence from UK? then no way will it be the £Sterling (no Chancellor would not act as bail out)it's going to be the Euro.. what's the deficit? about 3% as it must be to join EU? hmmm.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVynXGj4eyA was quite interesting! AND: (BBC)
Official Scottish government statistics showed the country spent £14.8bn more than it raised in taxes in 2015/16, including a share of North Sea revenue. That figure represented a 9.5% share of GDP, the report said - more than double the 4% figure for the UK as a whole.
Its all bluster, Consultation on a draft bill does not in any way mean that a second vote is going to happen any time soon :
1 WE dont know what Bexit will look ilke and how it will impact upon Scotland
2 AT last indy vote majority voted to stay in UK... thats democracy
3 May represents the UK as a whole and Scotland voted to stay part of UK so she will undoubtedly proceed on that basis and any indy situation has to be sanctioned by Westminster or at least thats how I understand it / UDI its a simple as that eh ? What about exiting the UK, divving up debts etc you cant just walk away international capital markets would treat a UDI Scotland as a pariah nation and wont lend or lend at extortionate rates. UDI... the last desparet suggestion by fanatics.
4 If May knocked back indy2 then she will have right on her side, unless SNP can demonstrable prove a proven appetite and desire to split from UK and that has to come from all not just the SNP
5 Its all bluff anyway, Sturgeon as polls stand cant do anything until we fully know what Brexit means ( polls arent on her side, call a vote and lose and she is finished like Salmon ) and if the majority of Scots eventually find it unpalatable that will take time so perhaps indy 2 by 2020 2021 at earliest if sanctioned e a serious issue to progress as it stands she is only talking for SNP not Scotland as a whole
6 The former soviet union was reknown for centralised control...remind you of anyone / any party ?
Its all speculation, Sturgeons statement yesterday doesn't really mean anything, just rabble rousing for the faithful. we dont have Brexit details neither do the SNP so they can only speculate scenarios. Indy carping just shows the SNP to be a single issue party, they wont let it go eh ?
Well duh, Rob....like the Boy Scouts, she is being prepared. A bill doesn't just get magicked out of thin air at a moment's notice,
1)She has not said there will be an indy referendum before she sees how Brexit will impact on Scotland. She is certainly not saying it will be tomorrow or the next day or next month or next year..or even the next one....just that the option is there if it becomes necessary....and however much you object...she has been elected to make the decision as to what necessary means....that is democracy. It won't become necessary in the short term (ie in this Parliament) if May does sensible.
2) At this Brexit vote an even bigger majority of Scots who voted voted to remain in the EU, compared to the indyref result.....is that not also democracy. Just think, Rob.... if the UK Government decided to let the whole UK vote in the next Scottish Referendum, and the only country/region to vote for Scottish Independence, by a big, even overwhelming, majority, was the Scots...would you be ignoring that result and refusing independence, because it is "democracy"?
3) May does not represent the UK as a whole, and she doesn't even try.....she represents right-wing UK on a much smaller, and more polarised to specific areas, popular vote than than the SNP got in Scotland. And no Unionist Westminster government has ever represented me, because I have never voted for any one of them in my 50 years of voting.
Let's be honest, if any political party in the UK tries to represent the whole population, it is the SNP.....because they HAVE to....as the second aim in their two aim constitution is the furtherance of all Scottish interests. If they are perceived to fail to do that, it harms their main aim. The others only need worry about furthering the interests of those who bank-roll them and those who vote for them, so all they really do in elections is produce policies to attract (or at least not scare away) the swing voters in around 29 constituencies(mostly the ones which are being checked out by the police for election fraud, in fact), while keeping their core support onside. The SNP, on the other hand, don't have the luxury of only talking to the converted.
I dunno about problems with UDI....the Republic of Ireland managed it...and without a majority democratic vote ....and without taking any UK debt. It isn't my favoured option, but is definitely the option of last resort. A Declaration of UDI does not mean negotiations about division of assets and liabilities don't take place.....it just means they take place after the declaration and not before it. Anyway, we'd likely be OK without a share of UK debt and assets.....because what we'd need to set us up would cost us a lot less than our share of UK debt, given we have much of the infrastructure already in place..and we'd probably have no problem with foregoing assets as long as the rUK pays public and private pensions until nobody is left alive who has paid anything into the UK Treasury (that's a really big black hole right there for the UK if it is required to find it all at once) That would save us a whack over around 40 years. .:)
4) She may have that right, but would she be so stupid...after all, everybody who voted for the SNP and pro-indy party's knew the indy2 possibility existed, (apart from the clue in the Party name, and constitution).....it was in their manifesto, loudly and clearly....and they were still elected on 46.5% of the popular vote in constituencies, compared to the Tories in England who had a mandate from only 38.6% of the whole UK electorate to hold the Brexit referendum.
Of course, The SG could always have an advisory referendum to prove there is a desire for independence...couldn't they? :roll: Afaik, Thatcher said (when she thought it would never happen) that if we ever had a majority of SNP MPs in parliament, we didn't need a referendum. If we had believed that the way you lot believe Alex Salmond spoke for the SNP and all pro-indy people when he gave his personal opinion that the indyref was a once in a lifetime occurrence, we'd have declared UDI after the 2015 GE....but we're not daft enough to think a throw-away remark by even the head of a government is agreed policy.
5) Is it all bluff anyway? I do agree she has to see which way the wind blows....which is why she has set out red lines...did you notice them? They are actually quite reasonable and surmountable lines....but I suspect she does not really expect any Westminster Government, which knocked back 120 reasonable amendments to the Scotland Act 2016, supported by every Scottish MP bar Mundell, to do reasonable. (If as May says, she is triggering a hard Brexit in March 2017, I suspect an indyref will be towards the end of 2018 to be within the window before the UK is formally out of the EU.....but if she plays sensible and guarantees Scotland gets what the SG thinks will help Scotland weather the fall-out, that would probably put an indyref back....until May emulates Cameron and fails to deliver)
6) I was thinking more of the Soviet Union sending in the tanks, tbh (though I was only kidding)...after all the UK doesn't have enough tanks any more to send them into the streets of Glasgow again to threaten the Scots who have unwelcome opinions.
6a)You are always harping on about central control...but what you always seem to forget is that it is very possible, if it is such anathema to the Scottish population, that it can vote the SNP out every four years.....and you also seem to forget that many who vote for the SNP are well aware that centralisation, while not ideal, is a way of reducing costs at the top (the most expensive ones) so the savings can be spent elsewhere .
Can't say I have ever noticed you railing about the fact that the Scottish Police and Fire Service pay VAT while English equivalents do not, adding to their costs; Or commenting that centralisation of both in England has been mooted to save money (so maybe the idea wasn't all bad); Or that, despite Scotland pleading for the Foreign Student right to stay post graduation rules to be resurrected for Scotland. it has been resurrected....but only for Oxford, Cambridge , Bath and Imperial College London.....in a country which voted to leave the EU because there are too many foreigners....(go figure!) But, hey....Scotland can safely be ignored, can't it...we just roll over and take it, don't we?
You know, Rob, the people who won't let it go are Unionists, not the SNP or even pro-indy people. On the day Nicola made one mention of independence in a FM questions.....Ruthie, Kez and Willie Rennie etc got five rants in about independence, and not a lot about what the SNP was doing in order to hold them to account. Sure we pro-indy people talk to each other on FB....but so do the Unionists on the same subject.
If you check out this forum since the indyref....the majority of posts are by yourself and Better Together, or others who "came out" as no voters, either gloating about oil/Scottish finances etc or making remarks about the SNP on SNP BAD lines, and throwing independence into the mix just because you could. Most of us pro-indy people are getting on with just getting along......and we rarely initiate posts regarding independence,(because that is not a current issue)...or even the Westminster government on here. Count the posts....count the ones which didn't start as being anything about the SNP or independence, but ended up being about one, the other or both anyway......though I do have to admit that since the cutting the sock head off Better Together, there aren't as many as there used to be.
Most of the "talk about independence" is us responding to unionists starting the conversation....so who is really "not letting it go"? :confused
But Nicola Sturgeon absolutely HAS been talking about a second indy referendum in the last days and is on all the national media doing so! People on a forum are entitled to discuss it, whichever side of the argument they are on.
Indeed I do not 'have a problem with her doing her job' but merely ask when she is going to do the rest of it ,as she presides over a Government imposing cuts to Services for which they have devolved responsibility. As the SNP have now lost the majority in Parliament it would appear I am not the only one to think likewise.
I do really find it hilarious about how Scotland 'voted to remain in EU', I well remember on Referendum night Dimbleby turning to Salmond and saying "turnout's quite low in Scotland Alex".. Well it certainly was! you've got the South West of England with a turnout of 76.67%, we then run through all the regions.. North West 69.99%.. London 69.63%.. North East 69.31% and then we have Scotland with a miserly 67.21% turnout, gosh, it was ONLY Northern Ireland with a lower turnout of 62.71% (why even the good ole Taffs came in with 71.7%!) so it's total nonsense to say the will of the Scottish people was to stay in EU?? duh!
tonkatojo
17-Oct-16, 20:03
I do really find it hilarious about how Scotland 'voted to remain in EU', I well remember on Referendum night Dimbleby turning to Salmond and saying "turnout's quite low in Scotland Alex".. Well it certainly was! you've got the South West of England with a turnout of 76.67%, we then run through all the regions.. North West 69.99%.. London 69.63%.. North East 69.31% and then we have Scotland with a miserly 67.21% turnout, gosh, it was ONLY Northern Ireland with a lower turnout of 62.71% (why even the good ole Taffs came in with 71.7%!) so it's total nonsense to say the will of the Scottish people was to stay in EU?? duh!
I must have missed the bit where it said in the referendum the different regions/parts of the UK were going to vote and the results were to say whether that area had a right to dictate about staying or going, silly me thought it was a UK vote of all eligible voters saying IN or OUT and a simple majority democratically won. For Christs sake !.
rob murray
18-Oct-16, 09:21
Well duh, Rob....like the Boy Scouts, she is being prepared. A bill doesn't just get magicked out of thin air at a moment's notice,
1)She has not said there will be an indy referendum before she sees how Brexit will impact on Scotland. She is certainly not saying it will be tomorrow or the next day or next month or next year..or even the next one....just that the option is there if it becomes necessary....and however much you object...she has been elected to make the decision as to what necessary means....that is democracy. It won't become necessary in the short term (ie in this Parliament) if May does sensible.
2) At this Brexit vote an even bigger majority of Scots who voted voted to remain in the EU, compared to the indyref result.....is that not also democracy. Just think, Rob.... if the UK Government decided to let the whole UK vote in the next Scottish Referendum, and the only country/region to vote for Scottish Independence, by a big, even overwhelming, majority, was the Scots...would you be ignoring that result and refusing independence, because it is "democracy"?
3) May does not represent the UK as a whole, and she doesn't even try.....she represents right-wing UK on a much smaller, and more polarised to specific areas, popular vote than than the SNP got in Scotland. And no Unionist Westminster government has ever represented me, because I have never voted for any one of them in my 50 years of voting.
Let's be honest, if any political party in the UK tries to represent the whole population, it is the SNP.....because they HAVE to....as the second aim in their two aim constitution is the furtherance of all Scottish interests. If they are perceived to fail to do that, it harms their main aim. The others only need worry about furthering the interests of those who bank-roll them and those who vote for them, so all they really do in elections is produce policies to attract (or at least not scare away) the swing voters in around 29 constituencies(mostly the ones which are being checked out by the police for election fraud, in fact), while keeping their core support onside. The SNP, on the other hand, don't have the luxury of only talking to the converted.
I dunno about problems with UDI....the Republic of Ireland managed it...and without a majority democratic vote ....and without taking any UK debt. It isn't my favoured option, but is definitely the option of last resort. A Declaration of UDI does not mean negotiations about division of assets and liabilities don't take place.....it just means they take place after the declaration and not before it. Anyway, we'd likely be OK without a share of UK debt and assets.....because what we'd need to set us up would cost us a lot less than our share of UK debt, given we have much of the infrastructure already in place..and we'd probably have no problem with foregoing assets as long as the rUK pays public and private pensions until nobody is left alive who has paid anything into the UK Treasury (that's a really big black hole right there for the UK if it is required to find it all at once) That would save us a whack over around 40 years. .:)
4) She may have that right, but would she be so stupid...after all, everybody who voted for the SNP and pro-indy party's knew the indy2 possibility existed, (apart from the clue in the Party name, and constitution).....it was in their manifesto, loudly and clearly....and they were still elected on 46.5% of the popular vote in constituencies, compared to the Tories in England who had a mandate from only 38.6% of the whole UK electorate to hold the Brexit referendum.
Of course, The SG could always have an advisory referendum to prove there is a desire for independence...couldn't they? :roll: Afaik, Thatcher said (when she thought it would never happen) that if we ever had a majority of SNP MPs in parliament, we didn't need a referendum. If we had believed that the way you lot believe Alex Salmond spoke for the SNP and all pro-indy people when he gave his personal opinion that the indyref was a once in a lifetime occurrence, we'd have declared UDI after the 2015 GE....but we're not daft enough to think a throw-away remark by even the head of a government is agreed policy.
5) Is it all bluff anyway? I do agree she has to see which way the wind blows....which is why she has set out red lines...did you notice them? They are actually quite reasonable and surmountable lines....but I suspect she does not really expect any Westminster Government, which knocked back 120 reasonable amendments to the Scotland Act 2016, supported by every Scottish MP bar Mundell, to do reasonable. (If as May says, she is triggering a hard Brexit in March 2017, I suspect an indyref will be towards the end of 2018 to be within the window before the UK is formally out of the EU.....but if she plays sensible and guarantees Scotland gets what the SG thinks will help Scotland weather the fall-out, that would probably put an indyref back....until May emulates Cameron and fails to deliver)
6) I was thinking more of the Soviet Union sending in the tanks, tbh (though I was only kidding)...after all the UK doesn't have enough tanks any more to send them into the streets of Glasgow again to threaten the Scots who have unwelcome opinions.
6a)You are always harping on about central control...but what you always seem to forget is that it is very possible, if it is such anathema to the Scottish population, that it can vote the SNP out every four years.....and you also seem to forget that many who vote for the SNP are well aware that centralisation, while not ideal, is a way of reducing costs at the top (the most expensive ones) so the savings can be spent elsewhere .
Can't say I have ever noticed you railing about the fact that the Scottish Police and Fire Service pay VAT while English equivalents do not, adding to their costs; Or commenting that centralisation of both in England has been mooted to save money (so maybe the idea wasn't all bad); Or that, despite Scotland pleading for the Foreign Student right to stay post graduation rules to be resurrected for Scotland. it has been resurrected....but only for Oxford, Cambridge , Bath and Imperial College London.....in a country which voted to leave the EU because there are too many foreigners....(go figure!) But, hey....Scotland can safely be ignored, can't it...we just roll over and take it, don't we?
You know, Rob, the people who won't let it go are Unionists, not the SNP or even pro-indy people. On the day Nicola made one mention of independence in a FM questions.....Ruthie, Kez and Willie Rennie etc got five rants in about independence, and not a lot about what the SNP was doing in order to hold them to account. Sure we pro-indy people talk to each other on FB....but so do the Unionists on the same subject.
If you check out this forum since the indyref....the majority of posts are by yourself and Better Together, or others who "came out" as no voters, either gloating about oil/Scottish finances etc or making remarks about the SNP on SNP BAD lines, and throwing independence into the mix just because you could. Most of us pro-indy people are getting on with just getting along......and we rarely initiate posts regarding independence,(because that is not a current issue)...or even the Westminster government on here. Count the posts....count the ones which didn't start as being anything about the SNP or independence, but ended up being about one, the other or both anyway......though I do have to admit that since the cutting the sock head off Better Together, there aren't as many as there used to be.
Most of the "talk about independence" is us responding to unionists starting the conversation....so who is really "not letting it go"? :confused
Whew ! Well what can I say !
rob murray
18-Oct-16, 16:31
Lets get one thing clear I never gloated on oil price drop as you say, and made it very very clear on here that this wasn't anything to do with the SNP. How you can say independence is not a current issue is totally beyond me, Orwellian double speak ?
Lets get one thing clear I never gloated on oil price drop as you say, and made it very very clear on here that this wasn't anything to do with the SNP. How you can say independence is not a current issue is totally beyond me, Orwellian double speak ?
Re-read your post "Oil Price" of 18/12/2014, and " Oil-the denial stops now" of 18/6/2015, or "The SNP : FFA / OIL Revenue Sham Exposed At Last : The Dream Is Dead" of 25/6/2015...and then come back and tell me you were not gloating.
Sure independence is a current issue.....I didn't say it wasn't....but it wasn't a current issue until Brexit, given the 2014 referendum result......and what I actually said was Most of the "talk about independence" is us responding to unionists starting the conversation....so who is really "not letting it go"? We didn't start threads like "Referedum mark 2" on 27/7/2015, "Possible secondf referedum" on 14/9/2015 and "Swinney : Indy Gradualist Indy Approach" on 24/3/2016...and that isn't even counting all the SNP bad posts, yours and others, which usually manage to get the indy word, and often the oil one in there somewhere as well.....so who are the ones not letting it go?
I don't see why people should 'let it go' when She Who Must Be Obeyed keeps on pronouncing on the subject! It's not as though it isn't of VITAL importance to all of us, so why shouldn't we talk about it?
rob murray
21-Oct-16, 12:32
Re-read your post "Oil Price" of 18/12/2014, and " Oil-the denial stops now" of 18/6/2015, or "The SNP : FFA / OIL Revenue Sham Exposed At Last : The Dream Is Dead" of 25/6/2015...and then come back and tell me you were not gloating.
Sure independence is a current issue.....I didn't say it wasn't....but it wasn't a current issue until Brexit, given the 2014 referendum result......and what I actually said was Most of the "talk about independence" is us responding to unionists starting the conversation....so who is really "not letting it go"? We didn't start threads like "Referedum mark 2" on 27/7/2015, "Possible secondf referedum" on 14/9/2015 and "Swinney : Indy Gradualist Indy Approach" on 24/3/2016...and that isn't even counting all the SNP bad posts, yours and others, which usually manage to get the indy word, and often the oil one in there somewhere as well.....so who are the ones not letting it go?
I did, Im not, bye bye ta ta
At what point do the people of Scotland realise that the ambitions for Scotland do not match the ambitions of the rest of the UK? Why would the people of Scotland allow their country to be ruled in a way that is disagreeable?
tonkatojo
23-Oct-16, 10:00
At what point do the people of Scotland realise that the ambitions for Scotland do not match the ambitions of the rest of the UK? Why would the people of Scotland allow their country to be ruled in a way that is disagreeable?
That depends if folk are thinking with their head or heart, do they want the benefit of the Uk with all that goes with it including beneficial treatment with the "barnet formula" or the certainty/uncertainty of being a minority of one member against all of the EU with all the rules regulations being dished out by non-elected officials. There are numerous ways to look at your question including borders and being able to cross non EU countries to do trade with the EU states as it is not pointed out how much goes North overland at present but I suppose everything could go by shipping via Scottish ports. I personally have not the knowledge to make a decision with my head but my heart says go for it and quickly.
That depends if folk are thinking with their head or heart, do they want the benefit of the Uk with all that goes with it including beneficial treatment with the "barnet formula" or the certainty/uncertainty of being a minority of one member against all of the EU with all the rules regulations being dished out by non-elected officials. There are numerous ways to look at your question including borders and being able to cross non EU countries to do trade with the EU states as it is not pointed out how much goes North overland at present but I suppose everything could go by shipping via Scottish ports. I personally have not the knowledge to make a decision with my head but my heart says go for it and quickly.
Why is the Barnet formula a benefit? It sounds like Scotland is a scrounger, we are on benefits, lol.
Seriously though, as i understand it, the Barnet formula is calculated using expenditure patterns and practices per person in England, so it seems to me that it is pretty restrictve if the Scottish government want to prioritise something for the 'benefit' of the people in Scotland. For instance, if there was an increased difference due to the amount of privatisation in the health service in England then there would be a reduced Barnett Formula grant to Scotland based upon privatisation in the English NHS. That would force the Scottish government to consider extra privatisation against the wishes of the Scottish people. I say that arrangement is not in the best interests of the Scottish people and the Barnett formula is actually a hinderance rather than a benefit.
tonkatojo
23-Oct-16, 13:09
Why is the Barnet formula a benefit? It sounds like Scotland is a scrounger, we are on benefits, lol.
Seriously though, as i understand it, the Barnet formula is calculated using expenditure patterns and practices per person in England, so it seems to me that it is pretty restrictve if the Scottish government want to prioritise something for the 'benefit' of the people in Scotland. For instance, if there was an increased difference due to the amount of privatisation in the health service in England then there would be a reduced Barnett Formula grant to Scotland based upon privatisation in the English NHS. That would force the Scottish government to consider extra privatisation against the wishes of the Scottish people. I say that arrangement is not in the best interests of the Scottish people and the Barnett formula is actually a hinderance rather than a benefit.
Make your mind up either it is (a benefit) beneficial or not as your statement above says , if you can work out the formula you are a far more intelligent person than me but the block grant figures speak for themselves. I note the silence regarding the other points or is there no jokes to be made regarding them.
Make your mind up either it is (a benefit) beneficial or not as your statement above says , if you can work out the formula you are a far more intelligent person than me but the block grant figures speak for themselves. I note the silence regarding the other points or is there no jokes to be made regarding them.
I don't think it is a benefit to Scotland. What benefit is there in making out Scotland to be a scrounger? Scots pay more than they receive back in the block grant anyway so why are we subsidising the rest of the UK when we can spend our money on what is best for Scotland?
tonkatojo
23-Oct-16, 18:55
I don't think it is a benefit to Scotland. What benefit is there in making out Scotland to be a scrounger? Scots pay more than they receive back in the block grant anyway so why are we subsidising the rest of the UK when we can spend our money on what is best for Scotland?
The "Benefit" is where you get an advantage over the rest of the UK, your playing games regarding the word. regarding paying more than receiving I don't think so, perhaps years ago but not the now. Frankly I do not care who benefits more, this futile discussion has no bearing on the subject of Brexit, but it is high time a decision was made regarding the continuation of UK membership and accept the result and not keep on chucking toys out the pram stamping feet and pointless threats of I want a new referendum every other year it is wearing thin, other parts of the UK do not give a toss whether Scotland stays or goes and no the wonder.
The "Benefit" is where you get an advantage over the rest of the UK, your playing games regarding the word. regarding paying more than receiving I don't think so, perhaps years ago but not the now.
I believe it still is the case and always will be that Scotland is paying more than it receives back in the block grant. I think we need an honest and open debate about it but I don't think we will achieve it. I live in hope though. Everything needs to be included and accounted for in the discussion. For example, Scots pay more tax through via drink, tobacco and transport excise. That sort of tax is not generally accounted for in those calculations.
tonkatojo
23-Oct-16, 20:46
I believe it still is the case and always will be that Scotland is paying more than it receives back in the block grant. I think we need an honest and open debate about it but I don't think we will achieve it. I live in hope though. Everything needs to be included and accounted for in the discussion. For example, Scots pay more tax through via drink, tobacco and transport excise. That sort of tax is not generally accounted for in those calculations.
Your talking rubbish, 53 million people live in England while 5.422 million live in Scotland how can the Scotts pay more tax into the pot via drink, tobacco, transport, or any other commodity.
alas a sensible discussion has failed to materialise.
tonkatojo
24-Oct-16, 21:24
alas a sensible discussion has failed to materialise.
Your probably correct.
What is really frustrating is that there is a clear north/south divide in personal wealth in the UK. But wealth is getting generated in Scotland fairly consistent with the rest of the UK but the instruments of Union are sucking the wealth out of Scotland.
http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/where-does-scotlands-wealth-go/
tonkatojo
25-Oct-16, 09:39
What is really frustrating is that there is a clear north/south divide in personal wealth in the UK. But wealth is getting generated in Scotland fairly consistent with the rest of the UK but the instruments of Union are sucking the wealth out of Scotland.
http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/where-does-scotlands-wealth-go/
Instead of whinging on here get the public to back the SNP and get out of the union, as Sturgeon says "I am not bluffing" well Wow I bet the English population will be losing loads of sleep now and panicking close to riot with such a threat. She is going about her referendum the wrong way, she should be pushing for a UK wide referendum on the subject to guarantee it, as I cannot see the majority of the Scottish public voting for it. Then the Scots can keep all of their generated wealth to finance all of its expenditure and debt. Probably the rest of the UK should be voting to go their separate ways when the referendum happens it will put an end to the excuses infighting claims of inequality and the I want for my country cries forever coming since devolved governments were formed.
Why this is not on the agenda beats me.
Hopefully not too far off topic, but really nice to see that the SNP government and Westminster are in FULL agreement; Heathrow it is! hopefully ALL the MSP's of various parties will support the SNP?
Instead of whinging on here get the public to back the SNP and get out of the union, as Sturgeon says "I am not bluffing" well Wow I bet the English population will be losing loads of sleep now and panicking close to riot with such a threat. She is going about her referendum the wrong way, she should be pushing for a UK wide referendum on the subject to guarantee it, as I cannot see the majority of the Scottish public voting for it. Then the Scots can keep all of their generated wealth to finance all of its expenditure and debt. Probably the rest of the UK should be voting to go their separate ways when the referendum happens it will put an end to the excuses infighting claims of inequality and the I want for my country cries forever coming since devolved governments were formed.
Why this is not on the agenda beats me.
The tory governmemnt don't want Scotland to go because we are ploughing more than our fair share of cash into the UK coffers, they're not looking at this Scottish gift horse in the mouth.
What beats me is that virtually all economists and financial advisers were warning that Brexit will harm the markets and the UK's ability to generate enough income to pay off the debt. you don't give up your day job when you've got to pay off the mortgage. There has been nothing evident that has proved those fforecasts wrong. It is just crazy the brexit world we live in.
tonkatojo
25-Oct-16, 20:15
The tory governmemnt don't want Scotland to go because we are ploughing more than our fair share of cash into the UK coffers, they're not looking at this Scottish gift horse in the mouth.
What beats me is that virtually all economists and financial advisers were warning that Brexit will harm the markets and the UK's ability to generate enough income to pay off the debt. you don't give up your day job when you've got to pay off the mortgage. There has been nothing evident that has proved those fforecasts wrong. It is just crazy the brexit world we live in.
To coin a phrase, the proof will be in the pudding. you I and everyone will have to wait till it is cooked to find out, and it will all come out in the wash eventually. Financial advisers forecasters, don't make me laugh.
tonkatojo
25-Oct-16, 20:20
Hopefully not too far off topic, but really nice to see that the SNP government and Westminster are in FULL agreement; Heathrow it is! hopefully ALL the MSP's of various parties will support the SNP?
Aye in public they are apparently,not sure about everyone, I still think Boris's island airport was a better idea.
Your talking rubbish, 53 million people live in England while 5.422 million live in Scotland how can the Scotts pay more tax into the pot via drink, tobacco, transport, or any other commodity.
Only have to look back at the 2014 fiasco:http://uk.businessinsider.com/companies-planning-to-leave-scotland-if-it-goes-independent-2014-9 I know many influential (rich) friends who transferred their assets out of Scotland to England - just in case... There was no chance that Scotland (as a foreign country) would ever get to keep the £pound - why the hell should the Bank of ENGLAND underwrite Scotland's debt - what is is right now? £15,000,000,000? What's the entry to EU? 3% of GDP, what's Scotland's? 9% (worse than GREECE!).. OK thoseSNP who want Independence for Cultural reasons will be happy, but don't give much for the others.. strange that on here, there are at least TWO Englanders who want Independence for Scotland, " With the SNP set to relaunch their campaign for Independence, 50% of Scots oppose a second Referendum" (Yougov, NOT SNP Herald).. find it amusing that Scotland's 'government' (although having 400 food banks in Scotland) increased overseas aid by £1,000,000 up to 10m.. Strange that, as it's the United Kingdom that does Overseas Aid!:roll:
Aye in public they are apparently,not sure about everyone, I still think Boris's island airport was a better idea.
Yea, could have been OK, but they were worried about the blinking seabirds, can't shoot 'em (poor things) visions of the Hudson River?
tonkatojo
25-Oct-16, 21:06
Yea, could have been OK, but they were worried about the blinking seabirds, can't shoot 'em (poor things) visions of the Hudson River?
Aye, there are quite a few shitehawks around, they are all over the coastal areas in fact, too many.
tonkatojo
25-Oct-16, 21:15
Only have to look back at the 2014 fiasco:http://uk.businessinsider.com/companies-planning-to-leave-scotland-if-it-goes-independent-2014-9 I know many influential (rich) friends who transferred their assets out of Scotland to England - just in case... There was no chance that Scotland (as a foreign country) would ever get to keep the £pound - why the hell should the Bank of ENGLAND underwrite Scotland's debt - what is is right now? £15,000,000,000? What's the entry to EU? 3% of GDP, what's Scotland's? 9% (worse than GREECE!).. OK thoseSNP who want Independence for Cultural reasons will be happy, but don't give much for the others.. strange that on here, there are at least TWO Englanders who want Independence for Scotland, " With the SNP set to relaunch their campaign for Independence, 50% of Scots oppose a second Referendum" (Yougov, NOT SNP Herald).. find it amusing that Scotland's 'government' (although having 400 food banks in Scotland) increased overseas aid by £1,000,000 up to 10m.. Strange that, as it's the United Kingdom that does Overseas Aid!:roll:
"TWO" on here and how many South of the border I wonder. Regarding the overseas aid, a sore point with some but what the hell it makes some politicians feel and look good in some circles, it is so easy when spending or wasting public finances.
Only have to look back at the 2014 fiasco:http://uk.businessinsider.com/companies-planning-to-leave-scotland-if-it-goes-independent-2014-9 I know many influential (rich) friends who transferred their assets out of Scotland to England - just in case... There was no chance that Scotland (as a foreign country) would ever get to keep the £pound - why the hell should the Bank of ENGLAND underwrite Scotland's debt - what is is right now? £15,000,000,000? What's the entry to EU? 3% of GDP, what's Scotland's? 9% (worse than GREECE!).. OK thoseSNP who want Independence for Cultural reasons will be happy, but don't give much for the others.. strange that on here, there are at least TWO Englanders who want Independence for Scotland, " With the SNP set to relaunch their campaign for Independence, 50% of Scots oppose a second Referendum" (Yougov, NOT SNP Herald).. find it amusing that Scotland's 'government' (although having 400 food banks in Scotland) increased overseas aid by £1,000,000 up to 10m.. Strange that, as it's the United Kingdom that does Overseas Aid!:roll:
Good for them. They'd have gone anyway if Labour had got in in 2016, and raised taxes, I suspect.
Good Grief, bekisman, have you not yet grasped that no foreign country needs permission to use the pound, or the dollar or other currencies. What they need permission for is a currency union.....and that was what Westminster vetoed. Personally, I'm glad that option has been hit into the long grass.
Scotland doesn't have any debt, Westminster has debt. Scotland, to date, has never knowingly borrowed a single solitary penny for anything. Scotland does, however have a deficit, which is not the same thing at all.And Scotland's annual deficit is predominantly down, not to what the SG spends in Scotland, but what Westminster spends, theoretically, on or on behalf of Scotland.
The SG has no choice as to whether to pay a share of debt interest, defence costs, international services,the net cost of the bank interventions etc, and has no choice about having Westminster departments charging the SG because no devolved competency is completely devolved..so "head office" has to be funded, including, of course, the Scotland Office. We don't get a choice about undertaking expensive foreign "adventures",renewing Trident, funding HS2, the Olympics or the Channel Tunnel or London's sewage system etc. It's like the next door neighbour buying a new car on your credit card.
I once worked out that the £1500 per head that Scots are meant to get more than the rest of the UK is actually around the amount Westminster spends on our behalf on Westminster things, as above.
Even Deloitte understands that GERS has no bearings on the fiscal choices of an independent Scotland......shame thinking people don't accept that and expect Scotland to continue forever as if we were still in the UK.
England has a deficit if considered on the same terms as Scotland, and that is without England paying for its own Parliament and administration etc, so are you saying England couldn't afford to be independent? In 2010, the UK's deficit, as a percentage of GDP was bigger than Scotland's is said to be now, did I hear anyone saying the UK couldn't afford to be independent?
No it wasn't, if it is the same YouGov Poll at the end of August/begiining of September that I'm thinking about.....it said that 50% didn't want an immediate Referendum (ie before the UK exits the EU) And if I had been asked, which I wasn't, I'd have said the same. Other polls have up to 55% for a second referendum if it is a hard Brexit. The only poll by the Herald I ever heard about was a BMG one. Got a link that won't hit the paywall? I don't believe polls any more than I believe advertising or the UK media, anyway though.
Re the Foreign Aid, UK Aid is, or at least was in 2013, channelled through big multilateral organisations and British firms..like KPMG...so it is a nice little earner for the Global Aid business. Scottish Aid is support for specific small projects being run by charities, and Emergency Aid as and when necessary.
rob murray
27-Oct-16, 09:15
Logically I would like to see what BREXIT turns out to be and then see what an SNP indy scotland and their non BREXIT model would be, then people would have the information to make their minds up on what options are on the table, seeing as how neither have produced blue prints / strategies ( ok its a work in progress and I appreciate that its a complex situation ) how can I / people do that do that ? It is illogical to use BREXIT as yet unknown to try and force an indy referendum surely..people wouldnt know what they were voting for, just basically a trust us and we go or dont trust us and we remain based on very little hard evidence.
PS Apparently we will know soon enough re Scots plans : IN todays Herald : A BLUEPRINT for a special post-Brexit deal between Scotland and the EU will be published by the end of the year.The detailed Scottish Government plans will explain how the country could maintain membership of the single market even if the rest of the UK leaves and proposals for sweeping new powers to be transferred to Holyrood. Can I say thats great as it will get meaningful debate going and also put the heat on May to get something out as WM's handling of the BREXIT situation is a shambles
Good for them. They'd have gone anyway if Labour had got in in 2016, and raised taxes, I suspect.
Good Grief, bekisman, have you not yet grasped that no foreign country needs permission to use the pound, or the dollar or other currencies. What they need permission for is a currency union.....and that was what Westminster vetoed. Personally, I'm glad that option has been hit into the long grass.
Scotland doesn't have any debt, Westminster has debt. Scotland, to date, has never knowingly borrowed a single solitary penny for anything. Scotland does, however have a deficit, which is not the same thing at all.And Scotland's annual deficit is predominantly down, not to what the SG spends in Scotland, but what Westminster spends, theoretically, on or on behalf of Scotland.
The SG has no choice as to whether to pay a share of debt interest, defence costs, international services,the net cost of the bank interventions etc, and has no choice about having Westminster departments charging the SG because no devolved competency is completely devolved..so "head office" has to be funded, including, of course, the Scotland Office. We don't get a choice about undertaking expensive foreign "adventures",renewing Trident, funding HS2, the Olympics or the Channel Tunnel or London's sewage system etc. It's like the next door neighbour buying a new car on your credit card.
I once worked out that the £1500 per head that Scots are meant to get more than the rest of the UK is actually around the amount Westminster spends on our behalf on Westminster things, as above.
Even Deloitte understands that GERS has no bearings on the fiscal choices of an independent Scotland......shame thinking people don't accept that and expect Scotland to continue forever as if we were still in the UK.
England has a deficit if considered on the same terms as Scotland, and that is without England paying for its own Parliament and administration etc, so are you saying England couldn't afford to be independent? In 2010, the UK's deficit, as a percentage of GDP was bigger than Scotland's is said to be now, did I hear anyone saying the UK couldn't afford to be independent?
No it wasn't, if it is the same YouGov Poll at the end of August/begiining of September that I'm thinking about.....it said that 50% didn't want an immediate Referendum (ie before the UK exits the EU) And if I had been asked, which I wasn't, I'd have said the same. Other polls have up to 55% for a second referendum if it is a hard Brexit. The only poll by the Herald I ever heard about was a BMG one. Got a link that won't hit the paywall? I don't believe polls any more than I believe advertising or the UK media, anyway though.
Re the Foreign Aid, UK Aid is, or at least was in 2013, channelled through big multilateral organisations and British firms..like KPMG...so it is a nice little earner for the Global Aid business. Scottish Aid is support for specific small projects being run by charities, and Emergency Aid as and when necessary.
Usual waffle - hang your head in shame:http://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/report/nhs-in-scotland-2016 or is this 'Westminster's fault' (again)
Logically I would like to see what BREXIT turns out to be and then see what an SNP indy scotland and their non BREXIT model would be, then people would have the information to make their minds up on what options are on the table, seeing as how neither have produced blue prints / strategies ( ok its a work in progress and I appreciate that its a complex situation ) how can I / people do that do that ? It is illogical to use BREXIT as yet unknown to try and force an indy referendum surely..people wouldnt know what they were voting for, just basically a trust us and we go or dont trust us and we remain based on very little hard evidence.
PS Apparently we will know soon enough re Scots plans : IN todays Herald : A BLUEPRINT for a special post-Brexit deal between Scotland and the EU will be published by the end of the year.The detailed Scottish Government plans will explain how the country could maintain membership of the single market even if the rest of the UK leaves and proposals for sweeping new powers to be transferred to Holyrood. Can I say thats great as it will get meaningful debate going and also put the heat on May to get something out as WM's handling of the BREXIT situation is a shambles
That is exactly why nobody but the relatively few want an immediate referendum, and they are mostly those who think declaring UDI would be a good idea. However, if as is being said, May et al manage to make "special arrangements" for London, for example, then that isn't going to go down well in Scotland. Many of us were already angry that the Fresh Talent system McConnell set up to try to reduce Scotland's "brain drain" , and which was taken up by the Labour government, was changed without warning by the Coalition, by May herself, when the Coalition scrapped the Post-Study Work Visa resulting in people here under it being threatened with deportation, and are now more angry that it has been re-introduced, for a "pilot period" but only in four English Universities, none even in areas which struggle for fresh blood (or any more blood).
There are ways and ways to let Scotland stay in the EU, I believe, but without Independence that takes the Westminster Government to agree and negotiate for us,afaik, and currently it appears to be a case of "do as you are told". I believe too, though I have not seen anything definitive, just heard it when I was out this afternoon, that Nissan has been given a "special deal" not to move out of the UK after Brexit.so if Westminster can't/won't do something for Scotland,(and NI and Gibraltar), while they are ensuring the jobs are safe in London and Sunderland, then they only have themselves to blame for what happens to the Union.
Usual waffle - hang your head in shame:http://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/report/nhs-in-scotland-2016 or is this 'Westminster's fault' (again)
Which part of " A combination of increasing costs, staffing pressures and unprecedented savings targets" in a country with a limited income, subject to ongoing cuts in that income, and no control over immigration, all a result of Westminster decisions, leads you to believe it is the fault of the SG? They spent more than they were allocated for health spending in PESA.....but a finite pot of money can't pay for an infinite level of monetary support to services.
Maybe if we didn't have to help fund Westminster's deficit and debt, we could afford to put more money into areas important to us.
tonkatojo
28-Oct-16, 10:45
Which part of " A combination of increasing costs, staffing pressures and unprecedented savings targets" in a country with a limited income, subject to ongoing cuts in that income, and no control over immigration, all a result of Westminster decisions, leads you to believe it is the fault of the SG? They spent more than they were allocated for health spending in PESA.....but a finite pot of money can't pay for an infinite level of monetary support to services.
Maybe if we didn't have to help fund Westminster's deficit and debt, we could afford to put more money into areas important to us.
Weird where an extra 9 million appeared from to send overseas that could have been spent on the NHS from the overall pot.
Which part of " A combination of increasing costs, staffing pressures and unprecedented savings targets" in a country with a limited income, subject to ongoing cuts in that income, and no control over immigration, all a result of Westminster decisions, leads you to believe it is the fault of the SG? They spent more than they were allocated for health spending in PESA.....but a finite pot of money can't pay for an infinite level of monetary support to services.
Maybe if we didn't have to help fund Westminster's deficit and debt, we could afford to put more money into areas important to us.
Oh my Goodness.. you really are using a Nelson eye; in case you missed it: "The Audit Scotland report said health boards would have to make "unprecedented" savings this year. And it said NHS Scotland had failed to meet seven of its eight key waiting times targets." .."Health boards will need to make "unprecedented savings" this year and there is a risk that some will not be able to balance their budgets, its report states.Boards are also struggling to meet the majority of key national targets in areas such as waiting times and the major shift in care from hospitals to the community has not happened."
Oh yes I see today the 'Indy Camp eviction appeal thrown out' thought they were staying there til Scotland was Independent? come on then MUST have been that Westminster lot who dd that:eek:
rob murray
31-Oct-16, 13:41
Oh my Goodness.. you really are using a Nelson eye; in case you missed it: "The Audit Scotland report said health boards would have to make "unprecedented" savings this year. And it said NHS Scotland had failed to meet seven of its eight key waiting times targets." .."Health boards will need to make "unprecedented savings" this year and there is a risk that some will not be able to balance their budgets, its report states.Boards are also struggling to meet the majority of key national targets in areas such as waiting times and the major shift in care from hospitals to the community has not happened."
Oh yes I see today the 'Indy Camp eviction appeal thrown out' thought they were staying there til Scotland was Independent? come on then MUST have been that Westminster lot who dd that:eek:
read this "alternative" take on Scots economy : http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/revealed-the-accounting-trick-that-hides-scotlands-wealth/
Notice that tucked away is a neat little reference to the past ie if Scotland had £'s in the past then we would be massively wealthy.....but its the future that counts as we cant undo the past no matter how "true" the content of the article is.
Oh my Goodness.. you really are using a Nelson eye; in case you missed it: "The Audit Scotland report said health boards would have to make "unprecedented" savings this year. And it said NHS Scotland had failed to meet seven of its eight key waiting times targets." .."Health boards will need to make "unprecedented savings" this year and there is a risk that some will not be able to balance their budgets, its report states.Boards are also struggling to meet the majority of key national targets in areas such as waiting times and the major shift in care from hospitals to the community has not happened."
Oh yes I see today the 'Indy Camp eviction appeal thrown out' thought they were staying there til Scotland was Independent? come on then MUST have been that Westminster lot who dd that:eek:
The Scottish government has been trying to protect NHS scotland from cuts but something has to give way. There has been a 7% cut in the block grant from westminster in relation to Health spending so which Scottish government would not impose cuts in response to that?
The Scottish government has been trying to protect NHS scotland from cuts but something has to give way. There has been a 7% cut in the block grant from westminster in relation to Health spending so which Scottish government would not impose cuts in response to that?
Maybe an idea to stop sending £10,000,000 in overseas aid (the SNP gave an extra £1,000,000 this year) it's the UNITED KINGDOM that deals with aid, NOT parts of the UK - I did a bit of research and seems that it could show - in the minds of SNP - that an independent Scotland could manage to give OA without help from UK.. eh? duh!
Maybe an idea to stop sending £10,000,000 in overseas aid (the SNP gave an extra £1,000,000 this year) it's the UNITED KINGDOM that deals with aid, NOT parts of the UK - I did a bit of research and seems that it could show - in the minds of SNP - that an independent Scotland could manage to give OA without help from UK.. eh? duh!
I would welcome an independent Scotland to give overseas aid. It has to be appropriate and commensurate with the ability to give and the needs of the recipient.
I would welcome an independent Scotland to give overseas aid. It has to be appropriate and commensurate with the ability to give and the needs of the recipient.
"the ability to give"????
"the ability to give"????
Definitely!!!
"SUPPORT FOR INDEPENDENCE SINKS" Oh dear, oh dear (Hot off the press, Today November 30th):~(
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/support-for-independence-sinks-0j2bc7jxc
"SUPPORT FOR INDEPENDENCE SINKS" Oh dear, oh dear (Hot off the press, Today November 30th):~(
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/support-for-independence-sinks-0j2bc7jxc
How much faith do you put in opinion polls? :confused
Lol Rheghead, perhaps when it sinks to less that it was in 2011 we should be concerned - in the meantime Christmas is coming and then it's a new year and who knows what that will bring :)
Come on you two Sassenachs whats the results of there 'ere 'National Survey'???
Well the news is that there have been over 2 million responses. Gonna take a wee bit of time to sort the results yet.
Oh my [G]od been watching BBC Parliament on 504 'Brexit Negotiation Objectives' very interesting and complex questions by the Select Committee (very aptly controlled by Hilary) all pertinent questions pertaining to the negotiations by mostly erudite members - that is until the SNP Peter Grant asked - paraphrase - "You [John Longworth] were in the leave campaign.. it is said by a UKIP person 'Hofer did not win as not enough Austrians have been killed by migrants' AND seeing that UKIP was financed by Mr Banks and You (John Longworth) were in the Leave campaign, do you agree"? Eh!! Duh! if this is the standard of ability - notwithstanding outwith the compass of the Committee - I lower my head in abject incredulation :roll:
Well.....there we have it....a Brexit plan even woollier than the White Paper at the time of the indyref......and not even produced before the vote on it, either. Wishful thinking isn't just the prerogative of ScotNats, it appears, it is also in the armoury of the BritNats, along with lies and misrepresentation. So it is a waiting and seeing game....waiting for leaks from the negotiations and seeing how they will be spun by Westminster and the media.
It doesn't, however, look as if there is much chance of what rules/regulations/laws get "repatriated to Westminster" being devolved further down the line...given the paper makes only the commitment that no decisions "currently taken" by the devolved administrations will be removed from them....and no commitments as to what, if any, "repatriated powers" will be devolved. I wonder why the paper said "decisions currently taken" as opposed to "powers already passed" ..and it leads one, if cynical, to consider that perhaps some promised powers...like the APD and VAT assignment, which have not yet taken effect may not take effect.
When it comes to what the UK expects from the EU. it appears to be making the same assumption we did in 2014...that the EU will play ball...but regarding the repatriation of powers...the EU doesn't have to play ball....given we are "taking our sovereignty back". Logically, if Westminster knows nothing else right now, it [I]knows what sovereignty we have handed to the EU, so it knows exactly what sovereignty is going to be repatriated....doesn't it? Or are bits of UK sovereignty still available as bargaining chips in the Brexit negotiations, like our fishing waters, so that is why they can't tell us yet even what they are considering devolving, in whole or part, away from the high heid yins in Westminster?
RELAX! stop worrying, it will all turn out fine, watch this space... all these snowflakes waffling and whinging, just 'cos those nasty judges (including the Scots one) said the devolved governments had no involvement.. and what's this about the Welsh 'government' voting against - thought Wales voted leave? oh dear oh dear
Talks have been going on with EU to allow an independent Scotland to have transitional EU membership if Scotland decides to leave the UK, all the benefits and access to the Single market. This would prevent a hard Scexit from the EU which Theresa May and her cohorts at Westminster seem to be falling into the abyss. Jacqueline Minor confirmed that only an independent Scotland can apply for full membership but due to the extraordinary circumstances to Scotland's case of being dragged out of the EU against popular support then the fact that we are already in compliance with EU law and standards will be taken into consideration during the application process.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14591378.EU__transitional_holding_pen__talks_for_S cotland_have_been_held__MSPs_told/?ref=fbshr
Talks have been going on with EU to allow an independent Scotland to have transitional EU membership if Scotland decides to leave the UK, all the benefits and access to the Single market. This would prevent a hard Scexit from the EU which Theresa May and her cohorts at Westminster seem to be falling into the abyss. Jacqueline Minor confirmed that only an independent Scotland can apply for full membership but due to the extraordinary circumstances to Scotland's case of being dragged out of the EU against popular support then the fact that we are already in compliance with EU law and standards will be taken into consideration during the application process.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14591378.EU__transitional_holding_pen__talks_for_S cotland_have_been_held__MSPs_told/?ref=fbshr
I'm not overly inclined to take what individuals say as fact....although it would be good if it turns out to be correct. There is certainly much more chance of the EU having some sympathy for the Scottish pro-EU majority than of the Westminster negotiating team having any, though.
I was just thinking that if all of us in the peripheral nations of the "Union" held our breath waiting for Westminster do do something to benefit the whole UK...there would be no problems with Wales, Scotland and NI...because we'd all have died of asphyxiation a long, long time ago.
The Herald talks about
'Dr Kirsty Hughes told MSPs discussions have been taking place about putting Scotland in a "transitional holding pen" after Brexit to avoid "an absurd out and then in process".
Just about sums it up really. As far as I'm concerned, a 'holding pen' is generally used for sheep.
The Herald talks about
'Dr Kirsty Hughes told MSPs discussions have been taking place about putting Scotland in a "transitional holding pen" after Brexit to avoid "an absurd out and then in process".
Just about sums it up really. As far as I'm concerned, a 'holding pen' is generally used for sheep.
"£350 million per week for the NHS" pmsl
"£350 million per week for the NHS" pmsl
There's a meme going around on FB atm...saying "Why not just leave things as they are and just tell the Brexiteers we have left Europe? After all, they believed every lie that was told to them before the vote!"
Sound like a plan? :)
Scottish fishery won't get what they want out of Brexit, it looks like they've been shafted but it also looks like they will lose their customer base as they will have sell their produce through WTO rules which could mean import taxes on Scottish exports.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/15/uk-fishermen-may-not-win-waters-back-after-brexit-eu-memo-reveals
Scottish fishery won't get what they want out of Brexit, it looks like they've been shafted but it also looks like they will lose their customer base as they will have sell their produce through WTO rules which could mean import taxes on Scottish exports.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/15/uk-fishermen-may-not-win-waters-back-after-brexit-eu-memo-reveals
Don't see how they can say there is an imbalance when the UK, one country out of 27, gets 20% upwards of the quotas. At least there are still fish to be fished for...if not for the EU and quotas, there wouldn't be enough fish for the current number of Scottish fishermen to make a living from, given their over-fishing before we joined the EU.
Not getting the "world class" shipbuildingginvestment promised either it seems
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15101460.Major_investment_scrapped_at_Upper_Clyde_ s_last_yards/
Not getting the "world class" shipbuildingginvestment promised either it seems
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15101460.Major_investment_scrapped_at_Upper_Clyde_ s_last_yards/
Anybody surprised?
I see Scottish Labour are trying to push a vision of a federal UK to kill off Scottish independence. I would go along with that vision but how realistic is it? To make it a real option then they have to convince us that a federal UK has the support of the majority of the UK otherwise it is just a pipedream and thus it is a diversion.
I see Scottish Labour are trying to push a vision of a federal UK to kill off Scottish independence. I would go along with that vision but how realistic is it? To make it a real option then they have to convince us that a federal UK has the support of the majority of the UK otherwise it is just a pipedream and thus it is a diversion.
It's a Scottish Labour policy, so of course it's not realistic. The Labour Party in Scotland doesn't DO realistic, though to be fair nor does their head office.
They expect us to believe they are for federalism...when that the VOW promised as near Home Rule as dammit...and the Labour Party was a big player in rejecting every proposal of any use during the Smith Commission to leave us with the current pointless poisoned chalice. I'll bet they don't even know what federalism means.
Federalism won't get rid of Trident, though, or stop us being sucked into America's wars..because I'd also be prepared to bet that under no circumstances would Westminster permit a Federal Parliament of the nations which would allow the three wee nations to outvote the big one......and in a federal Parliament of the regions....there's England's built in majority back again.
It's a Scottish Labour policy, so of course it's not realistic. The Labour Party in Scotland doesn't DO realistic, though to be fair nor does their head office.
They expect us to believe they are for federalism...when that the VOW promised as near Home Rule as dammit...and the Labour Party was a big player in rejecting every proposal of any use during the Smith Commission to leave us with the current pointless poisoned chalice. I'll bet they don't even know what federalism means.
Federalism won't get rid of Trident, though, or stop us being sucked into America's wars..because I'd also be prepared to bet that under no circumstances would Westminster permit a Federal Parliament of the nations which would allow the three wee nations to outvote the big one......and in a federal Parliament of the regions....there's England's built in majority back again.
Totally agree.
However, the Westminster government could kill off the prospect of Scottish independence right now if they gave any realistic indication that within ten years that we would have a federalised UK, true and proper proportional representation in all elections, agreement from all devolved parliaments to all overseas conflicts, abolishment of the House of Lords and written constitutional protection for NHS treatment. We need a UK that we all can be proud to be a part of if we are look at a modern future of the UK.
Totally agree.
However, the Westminster government could kill off the prospect of Scottish independence right now if they gave any realistic indication that within ten years that we would have a federalised UK, true and proper proportional representation in all elections, agreement from all devolved parliaments to all overseas conflicts, abolishment of the House of Lords and written constitutional protection for NHS treatment. We need a UK that we all can be proud to be a part of if we are look at a modern future of the UK.
:lol::lol::lol:
Aye, right! I won't be holding my breath...because Westminster promises only last until the paper they are written on can be scrunched up and thrown in the bucket. Did we not see that with the first indyref? We voted NO and everything they said would happen if we voted YES happened anyway....and we got EVEL into the bargain. That's how Westminster keeps promises.
The Horseman
14-Mar-17, 19:06
Simply put by someone....
Why would Scotland be better off on their own.....won't the problems that caused England to sever it's ties with the EU multiply with Scotland on it's own.....?
Simply put by someone....
Why would Scotland be better off on their own.....won't the problems that caused England to sever it's ties with the EU multiply with Scotland on it's own.....?
What problems?
The Horseman
15-Mar-17, 13:33
Obviously there is a prob, or for want of a Better Phrase......Brexit....Br.....
Everyone knows the main problems but one cannot say it aloud....
By all means expand on my thoughts.....
Obviously there is a prob, or for want of a Better Phrase......Brexit....Br.....
Everyone knows the main problems but one cannot say it aloud....
By all means expand on my thoughts.....
Brexit was not the problem to cause the UK to severe its ties with the EU, it was the consequence of the problems, what problems were they?
The UK has a national debt of £1.7 trillion, a falling currency value one of worst in the world, and a trade deficit of £133 billion and it left its biggest trade partner. Can the UK afford to be an independent country? :confused :lol:
The Horseman
15-Mar-17, 21:01
Brexit was not the problem to cause the UK to severe its ties with the EU, it was the consequence of the problems, what problems were they?
Yes I agree...my wording was 'off' there. Perhaps you can tell us/me what the 3 probs were.
The U.K. Is an independent country
The U.K. Is an independent country
The UK is not a country, it is a union of three countries and a province.
The UK is not a country, it is a union of three countries and a province.
That's why we fly the Union Flag
Yes I agree...my wording was 'off' there. Perhaps you can tell us/me what the 3 probs were.
I don't know, you were the one who said there were problems. What are they?
The Horseman
16-Mar-17, 01:44
[QUOTE=Rheghead;1162945]I don't know, you were the one who said there were problems. What are they?[/QUOTE
I thought the United Kingdon, minus Scotland and a few other 'bits and pieces' voted to escape the clutches of Brussels for certain reasons. As it would appear that I am in the Company of an intellectual, I would pass the reasons over to you, as I am a 'bit of a foreigner'. I am not truly up to date on all things Europe. The gavel.....Sir/Madame.
[QUOTE=Rheghead;1162945]I don't know, you were the one who said there were problems. What are they?[/QUOTE
I thought the United Kingdon, minus Scotland and a few other 'bits and pieces' voted to escape the clutches of Brussels for certain reasons. As it would appear that I am in the Company of an intellectual, I would pass the reasons over to you, as I am a 'bit of a foreigner'. I am not truly up to date on all things Europe. The gavel.....Sir/Madame.
No,The UK as a whole voted to leave the European Union.
When we voted as a nation to remain part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in 2014 we opted to remain part of the democratic process, not to pick and choose what we like or do not like.
No,The UK as a whole voted to leave the European Union.
When we voted as a nation to remain part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in 2014 we opted to remain part of the democratic process, not to pick and choose what we like or do not like.
When it comes to Scotland's future I think the Scottish people do have the right to pick and choose what they want.
When it comes to Scotland's future I think the Scottish people do have the right to pick and choose what they want.
Well they've already binned your loony independence idea, back when it was referedummed!
When it comes to Scotland's future I think the Scottish people do have the right to pick and choose what they want.
The SNP have NOT got their independence yet, come back and spout your nationalist nonsense when they do.
When it comes to Scotland's future I think the Scottish people do have the right to pick and choose what they want.
We did choose what we wanted.
We wanted to remain part of the UK's democratic process.
Indepandant or as part of the UK we will still be out of the EU, wee Jimmy Krankie has been told that in no uncertain terms.
We did choose what we wanted.
We wanted to remain part of the UK's democratic process.
Indepandant or as part of the UK we will still be out of the EU, wee Jimmy Krankie has been told that in no uncertain terms.
And we will continue to choose what we want. Times have changed, circumstances have changed.
And we will continue to choose what we want.
"We" being that minority who want something silly.
Times have changed, circumstances have changed.
They always do.
The Voting card said "No."
It did not say "No, (until something happens that some people don't like)"
"We" being that minority who want something silly.
They always do.
The Voting card said "No."
It did not say "No, (until something happens that some people don't like)"
The SNP's manifesto said they had a mandate to call another referendum if the material circumstances changed like taking Scotland out of the EU. It was in black and white. The country voted on that manifesto pledge and the SNP was returned to government. That is democracy.
Ruth Davidson says the UK government should not block a request for a referendum on Scottish independence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dXbczEt3Rk#t=8m25s
The SNP's manifesto said they had a mandate to call another referendum if the material circumstances changed like taking Scotland out of the EU. It was in black and white. The country voted on that manifesto pledge and the SNP was returned to government. That is democracy.
You lot must enjoy losing plebiscites.
Ruth Davidson says the UK government should not block a request for a referendum on Scottish independence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dXbczEt3Rk#t=8m25s
it hasn't been blocked, wee Jimmy has just been told to keep her powder dry until after we have finished with the Brexit palava
Fullfact has investigated the claim that Spain would veto an independent Scotland's application for full EU membership to be bogus.
https://fullfact.org/bbcqt/2017/Mar/16
The Horseman
18-Mar-17, 18:56
Madame May will not allow a Scottish referendumuntil Brexit has been completed.....so sayeth the U.K. 'Rags' today.
Madame May will not allow a Scottish referendumuntil Brexit has been completed.....so sayeth the U.K. 'Rags' today.
Brexit negotiations are due to be completed within 18 months, when the terms are put to the other 27 EU Nations to be voted on, so the deal will be known, substantially at least, by September 2019. There is no need to wait until Brexit is completed and the UK is out of the EU......we just need to wait until it is clear what the negotiations have produced.
The Horseman
18-Mar-17, 21:39
I cannot get my head around Scotland exiting. If they were Monte Carlo or some exotic place with a certain appeal, I could see it.
Was in Inverness when the last referendum was happening and a guy with a canoe was paddling up and down the River with a large YES sign!
Shabbychic
19-Mar-17, 09:37
I cannot get my head around Scotland exiting. If they were Monte Carlo or some exotic place with a certain appeal, I could see it.
Was in Inverness when the last referendum was happening and a guy with a canoe was paddling up and down the River with a large YES sign!
Unlike you, obviously, some of us love our country, and are proud of our heritage. It does not need to be exotic to have appeal, it just needs to be home.
Can I ask though..... if Scotland is such an awful place...... why do you stay here?? :confused
Unlike you, obviously, some of us love our country, and are proud of our heritage. It does not need to be exotic to have appeal, it just needs to be home.
Can I ask though..... if Scotland is such an awful place...... why do you stay here?? :confused
if you love your country then why do you want to take a political leap of faith, blindfolded off a cliff?
it sounds very reckless to me
Shabbychic
19-Mar-17, 10:33
if you love your country then why do you want to take a political leap of faith, blindfolded off a cliff?
it sounds very reckless to me
Here's the thing...... no matter what political side you are on, everything is about to change throughout the UK. There is no longer a status quo. Even most of the arguments from the last Scottish referendum have changed. So, the question now is..... who do you trust to lead us into the future? You have the choice of May or Sturgeon. That's it.
I personally know who I trust with my future, and it certainly isn't a Tory government based in Westminster.
if you love your country then why do you want to take a political leap of faith, blindfolded off a cliff?
it sounds very reckless to me
But the UK is taking a leap off a cliff with Brexit except it wasn't blind or on faith. The rest of the UK knew exactly what the consequences were to the economy and they said it was just scaremongering and they voted for Brexit for reasons which most of us feel are absurd. The vast majority of economists, business leaders, scientists, social groups and politicians etc warned that Brexit would be damaging and the crows are now coming home to roost.
I think the people of Scotland are waking up to the reality that their country is not safe in the hands of a majority of voters in England that do not share their own social values. Once we do not have that shared interest then the Union of GB is finished.
The Horseman
19-Mar-17, 17:39
I do not live in Scotland but return regularly to the North....
Yes we should be proud of whom we are....
Years ago I used to fly into Prestwick Airport and on the walls were pictures and descriptions of those Scots who did great things around the World. We had more successful people per Capita than any other Country!
But Scotland is populated by 5 million people....England is 50 million.
It is the Economy I think about and if we split can we go it on our own...Oil is being depleted rapidly in the North East and in addition the prices crashed and methinks the prices are on their way down again. Yes we have Wind farms but as I said on another thread they will become unaffordable, and they won't have many people on Windmills.
With the present set up when joined as the United Kingdom, Scotland gets bits and pieces. I am sure much more than would apportioned in a 1 to 10 ratio. So where are the revenues to come from? You think the ecenomy is bad now.....and the healthcare system......
I have watched the issues of separation over the years.....and have yet to read/ hear anything that would make it a feasible proposition.....I read that Air Bases are closing....how about the employment with the Trident issue.....like it or not it is a pay check which is/was then spent in the local economy, as is the good money that was taken in from North Sea oil....
In my opinion and others, The European Union is in it's last 10 years. They live on debt , each Country owing the other....That is called a Ponzi scheme......recently there was a documentary on the Brussels HQ. Quite a bureaucracy, and unaffordable..
I dunno....someone do the Math....just my thoughts....
Either way we are out of Europe
in 2014 we voted as a nation to remain as part of the U.K. as such we go with the U.K. democratic decisions
Either way we are out of Europe
in 2014 we voted as a nation to remain as part of the U.K. as such we go with the U.K. democratic decisions
We voted as individuals.
We voted as individuals.
indeed but for the majority to win on behalf of the nation (UK)
the ballot was not regionalised, it stated should the UK remain in Europe?
Not Scotland, England, Wales or NI
But the UK is taking a leap off a cliff with Brexit except it wasn't blind or on faith. The rest of the UK knew exactly what the consequences were to the economy and they said it was just scaremongering and they voted for Brexit for reasons which most of us feel are absurd. The vast majority of economists, business leaders, scientists, social groups and politicians etc warned that Brexit would be damaging and the crows are now coming home to roost.
I think the people of Scotland are waking up to the reality that their country is not safe in the hands of a majority of voters in England that do not share their own social values. Once we do not have that shared interest then the Union of GB is finished.
Scotland has not been an independent country since 1707.
The UK has only been in the EEC since 1973.
We have recent history of being the UK outside of EEC membership and out on our own and we were fine.
Back in 1707 things were rubbish apparently!!!
Scotland has not been an independent country since 1707.
The UK has only been in the EEC since 1973.
We have recent history of being the UK outside of EEC membership and out on our own and we were fine.
Back in 1707 things were rubbish apparently!!!
I have more political interest in where we are going to instead of where we have come from. I believe that people who live in a country should have sovereignty over that country. Localism usually works best. I see the UK as a means of control for Scotland but as a means to exploit the resources for another. The UK wanted out of the EU because it wants its sovereignty back, but that was really England and Wales speaking, Brexit was a referendum on English and Welsh independence. Scotland didn't vote for Brexit. Scotland isn't even getting the powers from the EU back. If Theresa May had assured Scotland that powers on agriculture and fisheries were coming to Holyrood then she could have killed the referendum dead but she hasn't. She is a centralist from Westminster, they do not like to give powers away.
I have more political interest in where we are going to instead of where we have come from. I believe that people who live in a country should have sovereignty over that country. Localism usually works best. I see the UK as a means of control for Scotland but as a means to exploit the resources for another. The UK wanted out of the EU because it wants its sovereignty back, but that was really England and Wales speaking, Brexit was a referendum on English and Welsh independence. Scotland didn't vote for Brexit. Scotland isn't even getting the powers from the EU back. If Theresa May had assured Scotland that powers on agriculture and fisheries were coming to Holyrood then she could have killed the referendum dead but she hasn't. She is a centralist from Westminster, they do not like to give powers away.
What did you ballot paper say on it Rheg?
The Horseman
19-Mar-17, 20:03
I shall be over in 6 weeks and I shall give you my expert opinion after that.......haha
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.