Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 7
Discussion
davepoth said:
Just over 1 million people in Scotland voted to leave the EU. And just over 1 million people voted for the SNP in the last Scottish election - only 50,000 voters more.
They don't command quite so much of the Scottish electorate as they'd like everyone to believe.
You are correct. I,m one of those that Nicola does NOT represent. I voted to remain in the UK , and I voted to leave the EU also. And I don,t believe I,m alone in taking both of these positions.They don't command quite so much of the Scottish electorate as they'd like everyone to believe.
If I,ve got to repeat either or both, due to people who can,t or won,t accept the respective results of the two prior outings then I,ll vote exactly the same way again ............ on both issues, and I doubt I,ll be the only one.
A Scotland which is part of the UK , a UK which is NOT part of the EU doesn,t amount to Armageddon imho.
SilverSixer said:
r11co said:
I'll say it once more though 1/3 of Scottish independence supporting voters also supported Brexit. Nippy Niccy's linking of the two issues stands to alienate both sets of voters.
Meaning 2/3rds don't. If that number plus the number of those opposed to independence last time but in favour of an EU remain, and who prioritise the EU over the UK equals, say, 51.89%, then she's over the line and it's independence for Scotland.B'stard Child said:
SilverSixer said:
r11co said:
I'll say it once more though 1/3 of Scottish independence supporting voters also supported Brexit. Nippy Niccy's linking of the two issues stands to alienate both sets of voters.
Meaning 2/3rds don't. If that number plus the number of those opposed to independence last time but in favour of an EU remain, and who prioritise the EU over the UK equals, say, 51.89%, then she's over the line and it's independence for Scotland.
GoneAnon said:
a very slim possibility.
Tosay that this material change was on the table is really stretching things a bit far
But you admit it was a possibility and thus should have factored into people's votes? Only a complete idiot wouldn't have thought such a referendum was inevitable - even if not in this term. There was just no way this issue was ever going away.Tosay that this material change was on the table is really stretching things a bit far
Scotland was faced with two choices - vote yes and leave the EU (oh the irony) or vote no and possibly exit the EU with UK at a later date. Scotland made its choice.
SBDJ said:
Scotland was faced with two choices - vote yes and leave the EU (oh the irony) or vote no and possibly exit the EU with UK at a later date. Scotland made its choice.
Ah but but.... Scotland was to automatically accede to EU membership according to liar Salmond.It was a lie, but in the parallel universe that the SNats inhabit SNP lies are the truth.
SBDJ said:
GoneAnon said:
a very slim possibility.
Tosay that this material change was on the table is really stretching things a bit far
But you admit it was a possibility and thus should have factored into people's votes? Only a complete idiot wouldn't have thought such a referendum was inevitable - even if not in this term. There was just no way this issue was ever going away.Tosay that this material change was on the table is really stretching things a bit far
Scotland was faced with two choices - vote yes and leave the EU (oh the irony) or vote no and possibly exit the EU with UK at a later date. Scotland made its choice.
- stamps feet*
hidetheelephants said:
B'stard Child said:
SilverSixer said:
r11co said:
I'll say it once more though 1/3 of Scottish independence supporting voters also supported Brexit. Nippy Niccy's linking of the two issues stands to alienate both sets of voters.
Meaning 2/3rds don't. If that number plus the number of those opposed to independence last time but in favour of an EU remain, and who prioritise the EU over the UK equals, say, 51.89%, then she's over the line and it's independence for Scotland.It really is tiring to keep having to explain these concepts to the conclusion jumpers. But I hadn't realised BC was a Yank.
Cheers bud, have a Bud.
SBDJ said:
GoneAnon said:
a very slim possibility.
Tosay that this material change was on the table is really stretching things a bit far
But you admit it was a possibility and thus should have factored into people's votes? Only a complete idiot wouldn't have thought such a referendum was inevitable - even if not in this term. There was just no way this issue was ever going away.Tosay that this material change was on the table is really stretching things a bit far
Scotland was faced with two choices - vote yes and leave the EU (oh the irony) or vote no and possibly exit the EU with UK at a later date. Scotland made its choice.
(To GoneAwayAndCameBackAgainAnon)
Edited by simoid on Thursday 20th October 11:16
SilverSixer said:
hidetheelephants said:
B'stard Child said:
SilverSixer said:
r11co said:
I'll say it once more though 1/3 of Scottish independence supporting voters also supported Brexit. Nippy Niccy's linking of the two issues stands to alienate both sets of voters.
Meaning 2/3rds don't. If that number plus the number of those opposed to independence last time but in favour of an EU remain, and who prioritise the EU over the UK equals, say, 51.89%, then she's over the line and it's independence for Scotland.It really is tiring to keep having to explain these concepts to the conclusion jumpers. But I hadn't realised BC was a Yank.
Cheers bud, have a Bud.
B'stard Child said:
SilverSixer said:
hidetheelephants said:
B'stard Child said:
SilverSixer said:
r11co said:
I'll say it once more though 1/3 of Scottish independence supporting voters also supported Brexit. Nippy Niccy's linking of the two issues stands to alienate both sets of voters.
Meaning 2/3rds don't. If that number plus the number of those opposed to independence last time but in favour of an EU remain, and who prioritise the EU over the UK equals, say, 51.89%, then she's over the line and it's independence for Scotland.It really is tiring to keep having to explain these concepts to the conclusion jumpers. But I hadn't realised BC was a Yank.
Cheers bud, have a Bud.
simoid said:
(To GoneAwayAndCameBackAgainAnon)
To Simoid I will respond to a decent argument but I've given up on anyone who resorts to petty-name calling, insults and fallacies, and simply won't bother myself with those again.
If you have more time that me, pick any three pages in this thread and count the insults etc from Better Together supporters and Independent-minded people. I did it for the the first page and started noting them but there are just too many, notably from your side of the argument.
Some of the gems include:
thuggery
Mugabe-style
jealous waster
sectarian
knuckledargging
thick
clueless
Fat Alex
My personal favourite is Scotch people
GoneAnon said:
simoid said:
(To GoneAwayAndCameBackAgainAnon)
To Simoid I will respond to a decent argument but I've given up on anyone who resorts to petty-name calling, insults and fallacies, and simply won't bother myself with those again.
If you have more time that me, pick any three pages in this thread and count the insults etc from Better Together supporters and Independent-minded people. I did it for the the first page and started noting them but there are just too many, notably from your side of the argument.
Some of the gems include:
thuggery
Mugabe-style
jealous waster
sectarian
knuckledargging
thick
clueless
Fat Alex
My personal favourite is Scotch people
It's interesting that you consider me to be on "the other side" from you. I consider us to be on the same side, with the same objectives. Perhaps you can clarify:
Do you want the best for Scotland?
GoneAnon said:
The tories were the only party talking about a Brexit referendum and in 2014 (and beyond) even they didn't expect to win the outright majority required, because Labour and the Lib Dems had said they would block it, so we were NOT well aare of an upcoming referendum, and it was - at best -a very slim possibility.
The British public were pressing for a referendum and the fact that one of the major parties committed to one being held should they gain a majority pretty much set the precedent.I wonder how much of the Tories majority win came down to the fact that they had made that promise.
Rather than being a "slim possibility", i'd say a referendum on the EU was at some point, inevitable.
Let's be honest though. The EU referendum result is just a convenient excuse for the nats. They were plotting a second referendum within hours/days of the 2014 result being announced and would have pushed for another one regardless of the EU referendum result.
To dress a second Scottish independence referendum up under the pretence of wanting to stay in Europe is totally disingenuous (quelle surprise)- especially given the fact that the nats were quite prepared to suffer an exit from Europe in order to gain independence.
IfI found that wee poke offensive I would have ignored it.Same as Scotch People is mildly amusing in a Billy Bunter speak kind of way.
Of course I want the best for Scotland and remain utterly convinced that Independence offers the best future for me and my family. You probably want the same but see a different way of achieving it. I'm reminded of the saying about repeating the same actions and expecting a different result... but you think the Union has been a success for Scotland and I don't.
Note that I didn't say we were on opposite sides, but opposite sides of the argument - and I'm sure you have to agree with that?
As for the tories winning an election on the back of their promise to have a euro referendum, that is certainly possible, but it did nothing whatsoever to increase their representation in Scotland. And if even the leader of the Scottish tories can go into the election saying they didn't expect to win the majority they needed, I doubt if the Scottish public would have forecast the result and been swayed in how to cast the indy ref vote.
Conversley, Labour and the Lib Dems said there would be no referendum and have been virtually wiped out in the Westminster parliament.
Is there a corrolation for that? Again, it's a possibility, but I doubt if it can be proved one way or the other.
Of course I want the best for Scotland and remain utterly convinced that Independence offers the best future for me and my family. You probably want the same but see a different way of achieving it. I'm reminded of the saying about repeating the same actions and expecting a different result... but you think the Union has been a success for Scotland and I don't.
Note that I didn't say we were on opposite sides, but opposite sides of the argument - and I'm sure you have to agree with that?
As for the tories winning an election on the back of their promise to have a euro referendum, that is certainly possible, but it did nothing whatsoever to increase their representation in Scotland. And if even the leader of the Scottish tories can go into the election saying they didn't expect to win the majority they needed, I doubt if the Scottish public would have forecast the result and been swayed in how to cast the indy ref vote.
Conversley, Labour and the Lib Dems said there would be no referendum and have been virtually wiped out in the Westminster parliament.
Is there a corrolation for that? Again, it's a possibility, but I doubt if it can be proved one way or the other.
GoneAnon said:
Of course I want the best for Scotland and remain utterly convinced that Independence offers the best future for me and my family. .
You would be wrong to believe the English wish Scotland ill. The SNP's method of getting independence is to blame everything on their neighbours and try and stir discord between these islands. They have yet to come up with a workable independence plan; this is important as a "broke" Scotland will impact on everybody else. If you had a Ruth Davidson leading your independence campaign, married to a workable exit strategy, you might get a more sympathetic hearing down south. As it is the bile emanating from the SNP, married to their behaviour in Holyrood and Westminster, just gets everybodies backs up. It seems to me that if Scotland is ever to gain independence, they'll need a sizeable dowry from rUK and all the goodwill they can get. Ask yourself is this likely under the SNP's leadership. Why doesn't the Scots Govt start to reduce their dependence upon the Barnet formula? They have the perfect opportunity to show how Scotland can stand on its own feet. Screaming about austerity, when much more public money is spent in Scotland, just makes your Govt look greedy, selfish and dishonest. Add to this their incompetence, doesn't augur well for an iScotland does it?
I don't think the English wish Scotland ill - where did you get that idea from.
As for the idea of using the "powers" of the Scottish Parliament, you might need to point out for me exactly what it is you think could actually be DONE with these "powers". Someone wrote a piece recently that makes it plain how limited the options are under the current arrangements. I'll try to find it...
Found it. And as a brucey-bonus it's on Wings Over Scotland so that should be an added wind-up for at least some of my fans on here!! If any of our unionist chums can find an actual flaw in the piece, do please share. Don't say something that isn't there, or twist a convuluted non-intended meaning when the proper intention is clear, and don't make anything up. And don't resort to name-calling etc.
"Because the fact of the matter is that the devolved Scottish Parliament has almost no powers whatsoever to affect the economy, so it’s a bit unfair to be demanding that Nicola Sturgeon be held responsible for reducing a “deficit” that she doesn’t actually have in the first place (since the Scottish Government isn’t allowed to run a deficit and has to balance its books every year).
Let’s imagine how that conversation might go.
NICOLA STURGEON: Okay, I’ve got an idea. Let’s raise the minimum wage so that people have more money to spend. That’ll generate retail and service-sector growth, which are the biggest areas of the economy.
SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT ADVISOR: Nope, sorry. Minimum-wage law is reserved. Scottish Labour specifically fought against devolving it during the Smith Commission talks, despite the proposal being backed by the STUC.
NS: Oh. Well, maybe there’s another way. Could we reduce VAT to lower prices and bring about the same result?”
SGA: VAT is reserved. So you can’t reduce it to boost consumer spending and you can’t increase it to generate more government revenue either.
NS: Huh. I guess if we made businesses wealthier they might employ more people and create growth that way. Could we maybe cut Corporation Tax to try to draw any of them away from the South-East of England?
SGA: No. Corporation Tax is reserved.
NS: Can we at least get them to pay the tax they owe now, then? Corporate tax avoidance costs billions, can we have a proper crackdown on it and boost the coffers that way?
SGA: Nope, that’s reserved too. Westminster employs ten times as many people chasing a tiny amount in benefit fraud than it does on clawing back far higher sums dodged in tax, and is in fact cutting back even further on HMRC staffing levels. So we can’t do anything about it, and there’s also not much point hoping the UK government does and passes any of the results on to us.
NS: What about fuel duty? If we reduced that and got petrol and diesel prices down it’d be good for nearly everyone – haulage firms, businesses transporting their products and end consumers, who’d once again have more growth-creating money in their pockets.
SGA: Fuel duty is reserved.
NS: Our fabulous new income tax powers?
SGA: Those are essentially useless. Firstly we don’t control the basic personal allowance, the thing that affects every taxpayer. We can fiddle around with the margins of the upper rates but that generates very little and also gets you hammered remorselessly from both sides in the press.
Even Labour’s supposedly radical plans for across-the-board increases would only amount to maybe £390m at the most, which is chickenfeed – barely 1% of Holyrood’s budget. That’s not going to plug the gap.
NS: Jeez. Well, can we make some savings somewhere? Nobody on the face of the planet actually wants to invade us, surely we can cut a pile of money out of the defence budget?
SGA: It’s reserved. Plus according to Labour Trident supports more jobs than there are actually people in Scotland, so everyone would be on the dole.
NS: Can we bring in some extra cash from anywhere? What do finance ministers usually do in budgets? They bump up booze and fag tax, right? Can we do that one?
SGA: You know what I’m going to say, don’t you? Here’s the Guardian’s list of the 26 key points in the last UK budget. Basically the only things in the list related to the economy that Holyrood controls in Scotland are stamp duty and business rates, and you’ve already done stuff about those. No dice.
NS: Oil?
SGA: Ha ha ha ha ha.
NS: Okay, let’s think outside the box. We need to get more people into the country, because everyone knows immigrants contribute more than they take out, and we’ve got plenty room. That could help.
SGA: Immigration is reserved, and the UK government is busting a gut trying to throw out the people who are already here.
NS: Bloody hell. Okay, so what are Scotland’s advantages? We know that we’re really well-off for renewable energy resources, and I noticed that there are eye-wateringly massive subsidies being chucked at that new nuclear power station in Somerset, so presumably we could get something similar to invest in our renewables, yeah?
SGA: You’re really not getting how this works.
And so on, etc. Devolution was never intended to let the Scottish Government run the economy – it was always envisaged as a glorified parish council, handling what are in essence administrative municipal matters like education, health and law. There’s a reason it was originally called the Scottish Executive – it’s not a “government” in any true sense of the word and just calling it one doesn’t change that.
If the UK government gave up control of the economy, Scotland would be independent on the day-to-day level in all but name, and every “revision” of devolved powers that’s been grudgingly conceded since 1999 has set out with the primary goal of ensuring that that didn’t happen. (But hey, have all the road signs and air guns you can eat.)
So to recap: the Scottish Government doesn’t have a deficit (the UK one does, and palms some of it off onto Scotland); if Scotland was independent nobody has the remotest clue how big its deficit would be even to within the nearest £10bn (because it would depend on independence negotiations and a raft of policy choices that haven’t been made yet); and until it is the Scottish Government can – by design – do almost nothing to affect the country’s economy."
As for the idea of using the "powers" of the Scottish Parliament, you might need to point out for me exactly what it is you think could actually be DONE with these "powers". Someone wrote a piece recently that makes it plain how limited the options are under the current arrangements. I'll try to find it...
Found it. And as a brucey-bonus it's on Wings Over Scotland so that should be an added wind-up for at least some of my fans on here!! If any of our unionist chums can find an actual flaw in the piece, do please share. Don't say something that isn't there, or twist a convuluted non-intended meaning when the proper intention is clear, and don't make anything up. And don't resort to name-calling etc.
"Because the fact of the matter is that the devolved Scottish Parliament has almost no powers whatsoever to affect the economy, so it’s a bit unfair to be demanding that Nicola Sturgeon be held responsible for reducing a “deficit” that she doesn’t actually have in the first place (since the Scottish Government isn’t allowed to run a deficit and has to balance its books every year).
Let’s imagine how that conversation might go.
NICOLA STURGEON: Okay, I’ve got an idea. Let’s raise the minimum wage so that people have more money to spend. That’ll generate retail and service-sector growth, which are the biggest areas of the economy.
SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT ADVISOR: Nope, sorry. Minimum-wage law is reserved. Scottish Labour specifically fought against devolving it during the Smith Commission talks, despite the proposal being backed by the STUC.
NS: Oh. Well, maybe there’s another way. Could we reduce VAT to lower prices and bring about the same result?”
SGA: VAT is reserved. So you can’t reduce it to boost consumer spending and you can’t increase it to generate more government revenue either.
NS: Huh. I guess if we made businesses wealthier they might employ more people and create growth that way. Could we maybe cut Corporation Tax to try to draw any of them away from the South-East of England?
SGA: No. Corporation Tax is reserved.
NS: Can we at least get them to pay the tax they owe now, then? Corporate tax avoidance costs billions, can we have a proper crackdown on it and boost the coffers that way?
SGA: Nope, that’s reserved too. Westminster employs ten times as many people chasing a tiny amount in benefit fraud than it does on clawing back far higher sums dodged in tax, and is in fact cutting back even further on HMRC staffing levels. So we can’t do anything about it, and there’s also not much point hoping the UK government does and passes any of the results on to us.
NS: What about fuel duty? If we reduced that and got petrol and diesel prices down it’d be good for nearly everyone – haulage firms, businesses transporting their products and end consumers, who’d once again have more growth-creating money in their pockets.
SGA: Fuel duty is reserved.
NS: Our fabulous new income tax powers?
SGA: Those are essentially useless. Firstly we don’t control the basic personal allowance, the thing that affects every taxpayer. We can fiddle around with the margins of the upper rates but that generates very little and also gets you hammered remorselessly from both sides in the press.
Even Labour’s supposedly radical plans for across-the-board increases would only amount to maybe £390m at the most, which is chickenfeed – barely 1% of Holyrood’s budget. That’s not going to plug the gap.
NS: Jeez. Well, can we make some savings somewhere? Nobody on the face of the planet actually wants to invade us, surely we can cut a pile of money out of the defence budget?
SGA: It’s reserved. Plus according to Labour Trident supports more jobs than there are actually people in Scotland, so everyone would be on the dole.
NS: Can we bring in some extra cash from anywhere? What do finance ministers usually do in budgets? They bump up booze and fag tax, right? Can we do that one?
SGA: You know what I’m going to say, don’t you? Here’s the Guardian’s list of the 26 key points in the last UK budget. Basically the only things in the list related to the economy that Holyrood controls in Scotland are stamp duty and business rates, and you’ve already done stuff about those. No dice.
NS: Oil?
SGA: Ha ha ha ha ha.
NS: Okay, let’s think outside the box. We need to get more people into the country, because everyone knows immigrants contribute more than they take out, and we’ve got plenty room. That could help.
SGA: Immigration is reserved, and the UK government is busting a gut trying to throw out the people who are already here.
NS: Bloody hell. Okay, so what are Scotland’s advantages? We know that we’re really well-off for renewable energy resources, and I noticed that there are eye-wateringly massive subsidies being chucked at that new nuclear power station in Somerset, so presumably we could get something similar to invest in our renewables, yeah?
SGA: You’re really not getting how this works.
And so on, etc. Devolution was never intended to let the Scottish Government run the economy – it was always envisaged as a glorified parish council, handling what are in essence administrative municipal matters like education, health and law. There’s a reason it was originally called the Scottish Executive – it’s not a “government” in any true sense of the word and just calling it one doesn’t change that.
If the UK government gave up control of the economy, Scotland would be independent on the day-to-day level in all but name, and every “revision” of devolved powers that’s been grudgingly conceded since 1999 has set out with the primary goal of ensuring that that didn’t happen. (But hey, have all the road signs and air guns you can eat.)
So to recap: the Scottish Government doesn’t have a deficit (the UK one does, and palms some of it off onto Scotland); if Scotland was independent nobody has the remotest clue how big its deficit would be even to within the nearest £10bn (because it would depend on independence negotiations and a raft of policy choices that haven’t been made yet); and until it is the Scottish Government can – by design – do almost nothing to affect the country’s economy."
Edited by GoneAnon on Thursday 20th October 21:51
GoneAnon said:
I don't think the English wish Scotland ill - where did you get that idea from.
As for the idea of using the "powers" of the Scottish Parliament, you might need to point out for me exactly what it is you think could actually be DONE with these "powers". Someone wrote a piece recently that makes it plain how limited the options are under the current arrangements. I'll try to find it...
The SNP totally control Scotland's education, NHS, transport, police, fire service, income tax rates, bands, and more. I'm not sure that counts as "limited". It's direct control over almost everything that affects our daily lives.As for the idea of using the "powers" of the Scottish Parliament, you might need to point out for me exactly what it is you think could actually be DONE with these "powers". Someone wrote a piece recently that makes it plain how limited the options are under the current arrangements. I'll try to find it...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff