Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 8
Discussion
@ Uppity
Now I will be honest and upfront that this is a bit unfair - as I do know the answer and unless you saw the articles - you don't.
At referendum time - An independent Scotland would get 4 Eurofighters as part of the distribution of military assets. ( multiple sources )
Given the budget Nicola Sturgeon and John Sweeney have allocated for defence.
How many weeks of the year can an independent Scotland launch QAR ( Quick Action Response ) again Russian tests against our defences?
How many weeks of the year would there be no money to have our planes in the sky?
The answer may surprise you.
Before you answer - please do your own research on this ( Not a Sturgeon sock puppet, but from those who know the answer - and yes - it is freely available ).
Now I will be honest and upfront that this is a bit unfair - as I do know the answer and unless you saw the articles - you don't.
At referendum time - An independent Scotland would get 4 Eurofighters as part of the distribution of military assets. ( multiple sources )
Given the budget Nicola Sturgeon and John Sweeney have allocated for defence.
How many weeks of the year can an independent Scotland launch QAR ( Quick Action Response ) again Russian tests against our defences?
How many weeks of the year would there be no money to have our planes in the sky?
The answer may surprise you.
Before you answer - please do your own research on this ( Not a Sturgeon sock puppet, but from those who know the answer - and yes - it is freely available ).
Edited by Troubleatmill on Monday 18th June 21:37
Uppity said:
As was widely reported, the Scottish Government imposed a moratorium on fracking licenses pending the outcome of the various assessments underway. That moratorium is still in place and discussions/challenges are ongoing at the Court of Session, primarily from Ineos - you know, the company that Westminster has sold 2 licences to for exploration in Central Scotland where commercial quantities of shale oil and gas are thought to be most likely. And where 3.5 million people rather inconveniently live (but hey, they put up with nukes - what's a little fracking?).
No doubt you're also aware that the description of a 'ban' was used by Ineos and the mainstream press. They were referring to the refusal of planning permission from local authorities for fracking-related construction, as recommended by the Scottish Government, as being an 'effective ban' (incidentally, an eventual ban being something that 99% of the 60,000 members of the public who responded to the consultation endorse. Fuds all, presumably)
Slow death spiral continuing with membership up 7300+ (and a quick twitter check will tell you how many of those are new)
Did you read the submissions for that consultation? I spent some time looking through them; for the most part they're a good argument against wasting money on undirected consultations. Three quarters were testicles from lobby groups that the faithful have cut-and-pasted and the majority of the few responses that were actually written by respondents were paraphrased regurgitation of the aforementioned spheroids. A significant number were clearly sent in by kids told to do so by their parents or teachers. When people start citing that bloody yootoob clip of someone setting alight to their tap and contradict the report(commissioned by the Scottish Government, written by scientists and engineers and paid for by you and I) on fracking using baseless propaganda from Greenpeace, FOTE, etc. it's time to apply some objective thought and perhaps let INEOS do what they've paid for a licence to do, subject to planning, HSE and any other appropriate lawsNo doubt you're also aware that the description of a 'ban' was used by Ineos and the mainstream press. They were referring to the refusal of planning permission from local authorities for fracking-related construction, as recommended by the Scottish Government, as being an 'effective ban' (incidentally, an eventual ban being something that 99% of the 60,000 members of the public who responded to the consultation endorse. Fuds all, presumably)
Slow death spiral continuing with membership up 7300+ (and a quick twitter check will tell you how many of those are new)
Uppity said:
b2hbm said:
Uppity said:
They do seem like obvious benefits but any economy of scale can only work if it is designed for the benefit of those partaking in it. That means that these activities have to be performed or designed with at least some consideration of the benefit they would afford Scotland - and that takes us right back to the representation problem. With only 59 MPs out of 650, Scotland has no significant political role or weight within the current union.
Ok.... so how many MPs would you consider to be fair ? You (Scotland) have roughly 8% of the UK population and 9% of the MPs at the moment. That strikes me that you're over represented but just for interest how many would you think is a fair number ? 70 ? and how much greater impact do you think those extra 11 MPs would make in a house of 661 MPs ?Up until recently, this imbalance was partly addressed by devolution. Powers in certain policy areas were reserved to Westminster and powers in other policy areas devolved to the Scottish Govt. What has changed is that Westminster is bypassing the devolution agreement because it doesn't fit with its requirements and it is taking control in devolved policy areas against the express wishes of the Scottish Govt (including Labour, Lib Dems and the Greens). Which means devolution is fatally undermined - who would have confidence they wouldn't just do it again when it suits them? What's to stop them?
Uppity said:
Nope - my point re representation refers. As an example, we need more migrants - never going to happen. Westminster needs to keep the anti-immigration element happy and Scotland's needs are irrelevant
b2hbm said:
The simple facts are that you can have as many immigrants as you want...
Afraid not, immigration is a reserved power. And the current supply is going to dry up post-brexithttps://beta.gov.scot/publications/new-scots-refug...
Annex D
Destitution
Destitution is extreme poverty. Section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 defines a person as destitute, if they do not have adequate accommodation or the means to obtain it; or, they have adequate accommodation or the means to obtain it, but cannot meet other essential living needs.
Now shouldn't the Scottish government ensure the existing destitution in Scotland is eradicated first, Uppity?
Popped in to this thread to see if the tory roasters had gained sufficient sentience to see how much damage they're doing to the union but apparently not. Keep it up boys n girls #ToryRoastersForIndyref2.
Some teasers for yous:
<><>01<><>
Context - Any complex structure, be that a country or an individual, will seek to expend its extremities at the expense of the core. EG a soldier protecting themselves from an incoming grenade may put an arm over their head because in a pinch they would rather lose their arm than their head.
The entire history of the British union leads me to believe that Scotland is seen as the expendable arm that is used to protect the London head. I struggle to think of any period of Britain's history where this is not the case, clearances to create empire is an obvious one but even after that the trend continues, Scots soldiers used as shock troops during the wars because it's 'no great mischief if they fall'. More recently again the Mastricht treaty is an example of how Britain, when forced to concede something in a negotiation, will concede a Scottish interest before an English one.
Question - Given that brexit means conducting free trade deals with countries like India and China why on earth would I trust Westminster to look after the Scottish people? For all that things appear to be a s
tshow brexit is still in its honeymoon period where we've not left the EU and haven't yet been subjected to the concessions and negotiations required for trade agreements, so to put the question another way, why would I give up my parliament when it is the only effective force to ensure Scotland is not treated as an expendable during trade negotiations?
<><>02<><>
Context - When I think of the Scotland I want to see then I imagine what Scotland would look like if the highlands hadn't been depopulated. This can to an extent be measured by the cost per mile of moving a shipping container, something that the ONS does not track but I know from experience goes up once you're north of the Ochils.
By looking at northern Europe we know there's no particular barrier to creating a motorway and port network in rugged terrain but a UK government will always point to the greater cost/benefit of investing infrastructure in the south. This leads to a feedback loop where Scotland experiences emigration to places where the infrastructure is, which means it's not worth investing in a well populated Scotland because everyone's going south to work, which means it's not worth building motorways and infrastructure, which means more people move south, etc, ad nauseam.
Question - In an independent Scotland there is an imperative to provide infrastructure and population growth north of the Ochils as a matter of national survival in a competitive world. In comparison Westminster have continuously proved their commitment to keeping the highlands as a rural theme park where people die a lot when trying to overtake. Why the juddering fk should I trust Westminster to provide even a modicum of what Scotland needs to become once independent.
<><>03<><>
[edit] - My experience of England is mostly rural. If you're some urbanite who's been to a city or two and thinks they know a country then this 03 point may not make sense. I have no sympathy.
Context - Most of my family are English and I have a deep love of the English countryside, folk music and history. I'd be willing to bet that I've danced round more maypoles and spent more solstices at ancient sites than your average English person. Probably done more sailing/cricket too but that was only because of the cakes, even as an honorary Glaswegian (originally from Stirling) I have never seen so many calories per mouthful but you guys do it with cream n eggs n flour n fruits n stuff which is so much more classy than square and bacon in a butter slathered roll.
There is so much England has to be proud of but as a country I have never seen a population so utterly ashamed of themselves. There's no rose when you drive south on the M6 and pass in to England, the St George flag itself has passed in to the hands of political minorities and is rarely seen in the hands of anyone left of Kim Jong Un. When I was last in Brighton there was hippies supporting Scottish independence who appeared to have no concept whatsoever of the England they wanted to build, the very concept of what England would look like without Scotland hadn't been parsed by them because to them Britain and England were indivisible concepts.
Not one of them could answer the question 'What do you think of David Mundel', a question and indeed similar suite of questions that my right wing mates in Norfolk also failed at.
Question - I do not believe that England is easy within it's own skin, the fact that it is so resistant to federalisation and comes out in hives of discomfiture the moment anybody suggests that England should be a sovereign country within a British union speaks a lot about the mentality of the people.
The combination of having its native creation story overwritten by an Arab creation story plus a colonial background has left England with an inability to act as a team player. How do we as Scots support our friends in England as they continually vote for borders and isolation when the reality they are regressing in to no longer exists?
<><><>
Bonus question. How long does a tory roaster need to be on the spit before it's done?
Some teasers for yous:
<><>01<><>
Context - Any complex structure, be that a country or an individual, will seek to expend its extremities at the expense of the core. EG a soldier protecting themselves from an incoming grenade may put an arm over their head because in a pinch they would rather lose their arm than their head.
The entire history of the British union leads me to believe that Scotland is seen as the expendable arm that is used to protect the London head. I struggle to think of any period of Britain's history where this is not the case, clearances to create empire is an obvious one but even after that the trend continues, Scots soldiers used as shock troops during the wars because it's 'no great mischief if they fall'. More recently again the Mastricht treaty is an example of how Britain, when forced to concede something in a negotiation, will concede a Scottish interest before an English one.
Question - Given that brexit means conducting free trade deals with countries like India and China why on earth would I trust Westminster to look after the Scottish people? For all that things appear to be a s
tshow brexit is still in its honeymoon period where we've not left the EU and haven't yet been subjected to the concessions and negotiations required for trade agreements, so to put the question another way, why would I give up my parliament when it is the only effective force to ensure Scotland is not treated as an expendable during trade negotiations?<><>02<><>
Context - When I think of the Scotland I want to see then I imagine what Scotland would look like if the highlands hadn't been depopulated. This can to an extent be measured by the cost per mile of moving a shipping container, something that the ONS does not track but I know from experience goes up once you're north of the Ochils.
By looking at northern Europe we know there's no particular barrier to creating a motorway and port network in rugged terrain but a UK government will always point to the greater cost/benefit of investing infrastructure in the south. This leads to a feedback loop where Scotland experiences emigration to places where the infrastructure is, which means it's not worth investing in a well populated Scotland because everyone's going south to work, which means it's not worth building motorways and infrastructure, which means more people move south, etc, ad nauseam.
Question - In an independent Scotland there is an imperative to provide infrastructure and population growth north of the Ochils as a matter of national survival in a competitive world. In comparison Westminster have continuously proved their commitment to keeping the highlands as a rural theme park where people die a lot when trying to overtake. Why the juddering f
k should I trust Westminster to provide even a modicum of what Scotland needs to become once independent.<><>03<><>
[edit] - My experience of England is mostly rural. If you're some urbanite who's been to a city or two and thinks they know a country then this 03 point may not make sense. I have no sympathy.
Context - Most of my family are English and I have a deep love of the English countryside, folk music and history. I'd be willing to bet that I've danced round more maypoles and spent more solstices at ancient sites than your average English person. Probably done more sailing/cricket too but that was only because of the cakes, even as an honorary Glaswegian (originally from Stirling) I have never seen so many calories per mouthful but you guys do it with cream n eggs n flour n fruits n stuff which is so much more classy than square and bacon in a butter slathered roll.
There is so much England has to be proud of but as a country I have never seen a population so utterly ashamed of themselves. There's no rose when you drive south on the M6 and pass in to England, the St George flag itself has passed in to the hands of political minorities and is rarely seen in the hands of anyone left of Kim Jong Un. When I was last in Brighton there was hippies supporting Scottish independence who appeared to have no concept whatsoever of the England they wanted to build, the very concept of what England would look like without Scotland hadn't been parsed by them because to them Britain and England were indivisible concepts.
Not one of them could answer the question 'What do you think of David Mundel', a question and indeed similar suite of questions that my right wing mates in Norfolk also failed at.
Question - I do not believe that England is easy within it's own skin, the fact that it is so resistant to federalisation and comes out in hives of discomfiture the moment anybody suggests that England should be a sovereign country within a British union speaks a lot about the mentality of the people.
The combination of having its native creation story overwritten by an Arab creation story plus a colonial background has left England with an inability to act as a team player. How do we as Scots support our friends in England as they continually vote for borders and isolation when the reality they are regressing in to no longer exists?
<><><>
Bonus question. How long does a tory roaster need to be on the spit before it's done?
Edited by Tartan Pixie on Tuesday 19th June 05:04
Tartan Pixie said:
A lot of Xenophobic stuff and did a good impersonation of Nicola Sturgeon talking about 'bad Torees'
You are a shining example of why Scotland will not be independent, because the majority of people realise it is not about spiting the English and one particular political party. Go join your 'All Under One Banner' pals.If independence were to be achieved you'd have to find something else to have a chip on your shoulder about and would soon all start fighting amongst yourselves anyway.
Edited by r11co on Tuesday 19th June 07:34
Tartan Pixie said:
Not one of them could answer the question 'What do you think of David Mundel', a question and indeed similar suite of questions that my right wing mates in Norfolk also failed at.
Well that's pretty conclusive, you win. 
No wonder you lot can't get what you want, you're all barking mad.
Tartan Pixie said:
Popped in to this thread to see if the tory roasters had gained sufficient sentience to see how much damage they're doing to the union but apparently not. Keep it up boys n girls #ToryRoastersForIndyref2.
Some teasers for yous:
<><>01<><>
Context - Any complex structure, be that a country or an individual, will seek to expend its extremities at the expense of the core. EG a soldier protecting themselves from an incoming grenade may put an arm over their head because in a pinch they would rather lose their arm than their head.
The entire history of the British union leads me to believe that Scotland is seen as the expendable arm that is used to protect the London head. I struggle to think of any period of Britain's history where this is not the case, clearances to create empire is an obvious one but even after that the trend continues, Scots soldiers used as shock troops during the wars because it's 'no great mischief if they fall'. More recently again the Mastricht treaty is an example of how Britain, when forced to concede something in a negotiation, will concede a Scottish interest before an English one.
Question - Given that brexit means conducting free trade deals with countries like India and China why on earth would I trust Westminster to look after the Scottish people? For all that things appear to be a stshow brexit is still in its honeymoon period where we've not left the EU and haven't yet been subjected to the concessions and negotiations required for trade agreements, so to put the question another way, why would I give up my parliament when it is the only effective force to ensure Scotland is not treated as an expendable during trade negotiations?
<><>02<><>
Context - When I think of the Scotland I want to see then I imagine what Scotland would look like if the highlands hadn't been depopulated. This can to an extent be measured by the cost per mile of moving a shipping container, something that the ONS does not track but I know from experience goes up once you're north of the Ochils.
By looking at northern Europe we know there's no particular barrier to creating a motorway and port network in rugged terrain but a UK government will always point to the greater cost/benefit of investing infrastructure in the south. This leads to a feedback loop where Scotland experiences emigration to places where the infrastructure is, which means it's not worth investing in a well populated Scotland because everyone's going south to work, which means it's not worth building motorways and infrastructure, which means more people move south, etc, ad nauseam.
Question - In an independent Scotland there is an imperative to provide infrastructure and population growth north of the Ochils as a matter of national survival in a competitive world. In comparison Westminster have continuously proved their commitment to keeping the highlands as a rural theme park where people die a lot when trying to overtake. Why the juddering fk should I trust Westminster to provide even a modicum of what Scotland needs to become once independent.
<><>03<><>
[edit] - My experience of England is mostly rural. If you're some urbanite who's been to a city or two and thinks they know a country then this 03 point may not make sense. I have no sympathy.
Context - Most of my family are English and I have a deep love of the English countryside, folk music and history. I'd be willing to bet that I've danced round more maypoles and spent more solstices at ancient sites than your average English person. Probably done more sailing/cricket too but that was only because of the cakes, even as an honorary Glaswegian (originally from Stirling) I have never seen so many calories per mouthful but you guys do it with cream n eggs n flour n fruits n stuff which is so much more classy than square and bacon in a butter slathered roll.
There is so much England has to be proud of but as a country I have never seen a population so utterly ashamed of themselves. There's no rose when you drive south on the M6 and pass in to England, the St George flag itself has passed in to the hands of political minorities and is rarely seen in the hands of anyone left of Kim Jong Un. When I was last in Brighton there was hippies supporting Scottish independence who appeared to have no concept whatsoever of the England they wanted to build, the very concept of what England would look like without Scotland hadn't been parsed by them because to them Britain and England were indivisible concepts.
Not one of them could answer the question 'What do you think of David Mundel', a question and indeed similar suite of questions that my right wing mates in Norfolk also failed at.
Question - I do not believe that England is easy within it's own skin, the fact that it is so resistant to federalisation and comes out in hives of discomfiture the moment anybody suggests that England should be a sovereign country within a British union speaks a lot about the mentality of the people.
The combination of having its native creation story overwritten by an Arab creation story plus a colonial background has left England with an inability to act as a team player. How do we as Scots support our friends in England as they continually vote for borders and isolation when the reality they are regressing in to no longer exists?
<><><>
Bonus question. How long does a tory roaster need to be on the spit before it's done?
Wow! That sent with the time it took to write. Or to skim through. Some teasers for yous:
<><>01<><>
Context - Any complex structure, be that a country or an individual, will seek to expend its extremities at the expense of the core. EG a soldier protecting themselves from an incoming grenade may put an arm over their head because in a pinch they would rather lose their arm than their head.
The entire history of the British union leads me to believe that Scotland is seen as the expendable arm that is used to protect the London head. I struggle to think of any period of Britain's history where this is not the case, clearances to create empire is an obvious one but even after that the trend continues, Scots soldiers used as shock troops during the wars because it's 'no great mischief if they fall'. More recently again the Mastricht treaty is an example of how Britain, when forced to concede something in a negotiation, will concede a Scottish interest before an English one.
Question - Given that brexit means conducting free trade deals with countries like India and China why on earth would I trust Westminster to look after the Scottish people? For all that things appear to be a s
tshow brexit is still in its honeymoon period where we've not left the EU and haven't yet been subjected to the concessions and negotiations required for trade agreements, so to put the question another way, why would I give up my parliament when it is the only effective force to ensure Scotland is not treated as an expendable during trade negotiations?<><>02<><>
Context - When I think of the Scotland I want to see then I imagine what Scotland would look like if the highlands hadn't been depopulated. This can to an extent be measured by the cost per mile of moving a shipping container, something that the ONS does not track but I know from experience goes up once you're north of the Ochils.
By looking at northern Europe we know there's no particular barrier to creating a motorway and port network in rugged terrain but a UK government will always point to the greater cost/benefit of investing infrastructure in the south. This leads to a feedback loop where Scotland experiences emigration to places where the infrastructure is, which means it's not worth investing in a well populated Scotland because everyone's going south to work, which means it's not worth building motorways and infrastructure, which means more people move south, etc, ad nauseam.
Question - In an independent Scotland there is an imperative to provide infrastructure and population growth north of the Ochils as a matter of national survival in a competitive world. In comparison Westminster have continuously proved their commitment to keeping the highlands as a rural theme park where people die a lot when trying to overtake. Why the juddering f
k should I trust Westminster to provide even a modicum of what Scotland needs to become once independent.<><>03<><>
[edit] - My experience of England is mostly rural. If you're some urbanite who's been to a city or two and thinks they know a country then this 03 point may not make sense. I have no sympathy.
Context - Most of my family are English and I have a deep love of the English countryside, folk music and history. I'd be willing to bet that I've danced round more maypoles and spent more solstices at ancient sites than your average English person. Probably done more sailing/cricket too but that was only because of the cakes, even as an honorary Glaswegian (originally from Stirling) I have never seen so many calories per mouthful but you guys do it with cream n eggs n flour n fruits n stuff which is so much more classy than square and bacon in a butter slathered roll.
There is so much England has to be proud of but as a country I have never seen a population so utterly ashamed of themselves. There's no rose when you drive south on the M6 and pass in to England, the St George flag itself has passed in to the hands of political minorities and is rarely seen in the hands of anyone left of Kim Jong Un. When I was last in Brighton there was hippies supporting Scottish independence who appeared to have no concept whatsoever of the England they wanted to build, the very concept of what England would look like without Scotland hadn't been parsed by them because to them Britain and England were indivisible concepts.
Not one of them could answer the question 'What do you think of David Mundel', a question and indeed similar suite of questions that my right wing mates in Norfolk also failed at.
Question - I do not believe that England is easy within it's own skin, the fact that it is so resistant to federalisation and comes out in hives of discomfiture the moment anybody suggests that England should be a sovereign country within a British union speaks a lot about the mentality of the people.
The combination of having its native creation story overwritten by an Arab creation story plus a colonial background has left England with an inability to act as a team player. How do we as Scots support our friends in England as they continually vote for borders and isolation when the reality they are regressing in to no longer exists?
<><><>
Bonus question. How long does a tory roaster need to be on the spit before it's done?
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 19th June 05:04
You need to get a job.
Tartan Pixie said:
Question - Given that brexit means conducting free trade deals with countries like India and China why on earth would I trust Westminster to look after the Scottish people? For all that things appear to be a stshow brexit is still in its honeymoon period where we've not left the EU and haven't yet been subjected to the concessions and negotiations required for trade agreements, so to put the question another way, why would I give up my parliament when it is the only effective force to ensure Scotland is not treated as an expendable during trade negotiations?
Go on then.We all 'trust' Westminster to look after the *British* people, for it is the parliament of the UK. In that context there are no 'Scottish people', or at least they are no more or less relevant than any other 'people'. They cannot and would not agree deal X for London and south of Newcastle and deal X-1 for Scotland. The only potential complication within that is Holyrood sticking its oar in.
The SP was the biggest mistake we ever made. It gives credence to the idea that the Scots and the English are somehow different and thus fosters division. The SNP are trying (but so far failing) to take that to the logical conclusion Dewar and the rest couldn't see. Labour took us halfway up the independence hill but it seems wee Nicky hasn't the puff to get us all the way. Thank f
k.r11co said:
Troubleatmill said:
Which brings us back to the EU saying that an independent Scotland is at the back of the queue for membership.
Indeed. Bosnia filed their application to join in 2003 and are still waiting. Montenegro 2005. Serbia 2007......r11co said:
You are correct - there is no 'queue' but what there is is a raft of nations who have applied to join but a decade or so later still fail to meet the criteria because their governments are finding it politically difficult to cow-tow to the EU conditions and keep their voters happy enough to remain in power.
Could you make up your mind?Edited by r11co on Monday 18th June 14:34
gofasterrosssco said:
It's a sensible and pragmatic solution to agree a small proportion (85% goes DIRECTLY to devolved admins) is subject to further discussion. As Brexit is against the clock, there is no time or political resource to sort out all of these things right now.
Could you please name me one policy area (that's what they are, not 'powers') which the Scot gov. will no longer be able to legislate for? Just one... Please..
Your 85% stat is a spurious meaningless stat chucked in to make it look like largesse from the UK GovCould you please name me one policy area (that's what they are, not 'powers') which the Scot gov. will no longer be able to legislate for? Just one... Please..
Say in a trade deal the UK Gov faces the decision, rule in direct conflict with the Scottish Parliament's wishes on a specific law or scupper a trade deal?
What option would you take as an Unionist?
Here's an idea of what powers the UK Gov will control for up to 7 years from Wales, Scotland & NI
Food Branding, GM foods, Sunday opening, minimum pricing, animal welfare, fracking, public procurement
https://twitter.com/tradasro/status/10089732421267...
Strocky said:
r11co said:
Troubleatmill said:
Which brings us back to the EU saying that an independent Scotland is at the back of the queue for membership.
Indeed. Bosnia filed their application to join in 2003 and are still waiting. Montenegro 2005. Serbia 2007......r11co said:
You are correct - there is no 'queue' but what there is is a raft of nations who have applied to join but a decade or so later still fail to meet the criteria because their governments are finding it politically difficult to cow-tow to the EU conditions and keep their voters happy enough to remain in power.
Could you make up your mind?The queue term is figurative as becoming a member isn't a linear process, but it also isn't a trivial one.
Edited by r11co on Tuesday 19th June 09:26
Strocky said:
Your 85% stat is a spurious meaningless stat chucked in to make it look like largesse from the UK Gov
Say in a trade deal the UK Gov faces the decision, rule in direct conflict with the Scottish Parliament's wishes on a specific law or scupper a trade deal?
What option would you take as an Unionist?
Here's an idea of what powers the UK Gov will control for up to 7 years from Wales, Scotland & NI
Food Branding, GM foods, Sunday opening, minimum pricing, animal welfare, fracking, public procurement
https://twitter.com/tradasro/status/10089732421267...
And? Say in a trade deal the UK Gov faces the decision, rule in direct conflict with the Scottish Parliament's wishes on a specific law or scupper a trade deal?
What option would you take as an Unionist?
Here's an idea of what powers the UK Gov will control for up to 7 years from Wales, Scotland & NI
Food Branding, GM foods, Sunday opening, minimum pricing, animal welfare, fracking, public procurement
https://twitter.com/tradasro/status/10089732421267...
You give the impression that the U.K. govt once powers are back from EU would start to allow eating and cats and dogs to destroy the countryside with fracking /or open cast mining which happens in so many places
I am sure I have posted this before, but for the benefit of our raging nats-
http://thebackbencher.co.uk/you-are-not-oppressed/
http://thebackbencher.co.uk/you-are-not-oppressed/
Uppity said:
gofasterrosssco said:
You are incorrect and missing the point. There was a 3-way split, with some policy areas residing with the EU, much of it to do with standardisation which oils the wheels of the 'internal market'. As we are leaving the EU, we need to ensure all the different devolved admins don't head off in different directions with certain policies typically relating to UK-wide markets, as that would be potentially bad and cause unneeded disruption.
The point in any 'devolution agreement' is that there needs to be agreement. Since there was no agreement (there was by Wales, but then they are not lead by nationalists), nothing can be devolved. The Sewel convention is just that, a convention. Which never accounted for such a huge political shift as Brexit. Not surprising as outwards political tone is always set to 'outrage and belligerence' from the SNP administration.
It's a sensible and pragmatic solution to agree a small proportion (85% goes DIRECTLY to devolved admins) is subject to further discussion. As Brexit is against the clock, there is no time or political resource to sort out all of these things right now.
Could you please name me one policy area (that's what they are, not 'powers') which the Scot gov. will no longer be able to legislate for? Just one... Please..
Fisheries Management & SupportThe point in any 'devolution agreement' is that there needs to be agreement. Since there was no agreement (there was by Wales, but then they are not lead by nationalists), nothing can be devolved. The Sewel convention is just that, a convention. Which never accounted for such a huge political shift as Brexit. Not surprising as outwards political tone is always set to 'outrage and belligerence' from the SNP administration.
It's a sensible and pragmatic solution to agree a small proportion (85% goes DIRECTLY to devolved admins) is subject to further discussion. As Brexit is against the clock, there is no time or political resource to sort out all of these things right now.
Could you please name me one policy area (that's what they are, not 'powers') which the Scot gov. will no longer be able to legislate for? Just one... Please..
Policies and Regulations relating to rules relating to the sustainability of fisheries (quotas), access
to waters, conservation measures, enforcement and financial support.
You're just spouting stuff without knowing or understanding the detail..
Troubleatmill said:
@ Uppity
Now I will be honest and upfront that this is a bit unfair - as I do know the answer and unless you saw the articles - you don't.
At referendum time - An independent Scotland would get 4 Eurofighters as part of the distribution of military assets. ( multiple sources )
Given the budget Nicola Sturgeon and John Sweeney have allocated for defence.
How many weeks of the year can an independent Scotland launch QAR ( Quick Action Response ) again Russian tests against our defences?
How many weeks of the year would there be no money to have our planes in the sky?
The answer may surprise you.
Before you answer - please do your own research on this ( Not a Sturgeon sock puppet, but from those who know the answer - and yes - it is freely available ).
Is it better than the 2 days it took in 2014 (and required hauners from NATO)?Now I will be honest and upfront that this is a bit unfair - as I do know the answer and unless you saw the articles - you don't.
At referendum time - An independent Scotland would get 4 Eurofighters as part of the distribution of military assets. ( multiple sources )
Given the budget Nicola Sturgeon and John Sweeney have allocated for defence.
How many weeks of the year can an independent Scotland launch QAR ( Quick Action Response ) again Russian tests against our defences?
How many weeks of the year would there be no money to have our planes in the sky?
The answer may surprise you.
Before you answer - please do your own research on this ( Not a Sturgeon sock puppet, but from those who know the answer - and yes - it is freely available ).
Edited by Troubleatmill on Monday 18th June 21:37
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2867929/Na...
Welshbeef said:
What is happening to the Scottish airport that went bust and then the SNP took it into national ownership?
Is it still loss making and if so by how much is it denying the poorest and most needy the help in NHS or education or benefits they do dearly need?
This Scottish Airport?Is it still loss making and if so by how much is it denying the poorest and most needy the help in NHS or education or benefits they do dearly need?
https://twitter.com/TrulyScottishtv/status/1001152...
Welshbeef said:
Strocky said:
Your 85% stat is a spurious meaningless stat chucked in to make it look like largesse from the UK Gov
Say in a trade deal the UK Gov faces the decision, rule in direct conflict with the Scottish Parliament's wishes on a specific law or scupper a trade deal?
What option would you take as an Unionist?
Here's an idea of what powers the UK Gov will control for up to 7 years from Wales, Scotland & NI
Food Branding, GM foods, Sunday opening, minimum pricing, animal welfare, fracking, public procurement
https://twitter.com/tradasro/status/10089732421267...
And? Say in a trade deal the UK Gov faces the decision, rule in direct conflict with the Scottish Parliament's wishes on a specific law or scupper a trade deal?
What option would you take as an Unionist?
Here's an idea of what powers the UK Gov will control for up to 7 years from Wales, Scotland & NI
Food Branding, GM foods, Sunday opening, minimum pricing, animal welfare, fracking, public procurement
https://twitter.com/tradasro/status/10089732421267...
You give the impression that the U.K. govt once powers are back from EU would start to allow eating and cats and dogs to destroy the countryside with fracking /or open cast mining which happens in so many places
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff