Scottish Politics / Independence - Vol 11
Discussion
Evercross said:
biggbn said:
Sturgeon holds power and keeps being re-elected. Because she is a good politician...ie a good liar, cheat and bully....sadly traits needed to control a party these days. She is not a good administrator, planner or person...just good at the machievellian twists and turns a politician needs to have. Nobody is saying she is a GOOD person or has been GOOD for Scotland but in my opinion she is, sadly , a good politician...
Apologies for the snip, but it was just to add to the above point. Sturgeon is not a good politician. She is a relatively accomplished one who happened to be in the right place at the right time with the benefit of being a high-ranking member of an immature party with a less than rigorous process for choosing leaders that preferred a rite of succession rather than a contest, and is carried by a populist cause that permits her to perform very much below par compared to her peers. I sincerely doubt that she would have made the same impression had she been in one of the bigger parties.She is also a contemptible person. Many many years ago I followed the blog of George Laird, a disillusioned former SNP activist who had worked on the campaign trail with many of the Nationalist leading lights. He said of Alex Salmond that while he had an ego he still had time for the little people in the party and was a genuine leader, and that John Swinney was as affable off-camera as he comes across on-camera, and had similar to say about other SNP figures such as Jim Sillars et al.
His reason for leaving the party was... Nicola Sturgeon. He described her as sneering and condescending, cliquish, and only interested in interacting with certain factions of the party. Laird's opinions very much shaped my own of Sturgeon, and it is interesting to see many years later the character traits he described coming to the fore as her sense of untouchable arrogance makes her believe she doesn't have to hide them in public any more.
Check out this particular piece of condescension towards the BBC's John Kay on national TV.
Point to note - it is irrelevant that Kay had read Sturgeon's document because the document deliberately contains no detail because it exists to obfuscate the process of achieving a 'legal' referendum.
Edited by biggbn on Thursday 30th June 08:31
biggbn said:
Right place at right time...and stayed there.
Apologies once again for the snip, but I don't think this is as great an achievement as it appears. Sturgeon is a big fish in a very wee pond (no pun intended, her surname is just unfortunate), and her longevity comes down to a general malaise with Scottish politics, caused in part by a ill-thought-out devolution settlement that lacked checks and balances and is structurally fundamentally flawed, and in part by a society where a tribalistic nature pervades.The Salmond enquiry and how it was handled should have ended Sturgeon's career and would have had it been conducted in a more mature and developed (and democratic) political setting. The same basic dysfunction that permitted Sturgeon to control her judges then (by having the Lord Advocate as a member of the government - something that is akin to how a dictator would operate) is the one she now seeks to exploit to circumvent the ultra-vires nature of her plans for October next year.
Lord Advocate told to give statement over independence 'unanswered questions'
The Herald said:
The First Minister said that “some weeks ago”, she asked the Lord Advocate “to consider exercising her power under paragraph 34 of schedule 6 to the Scotland Act 1998 to refer to the Supreme Court the question whether the provisions in the bill relate to reserved matters”.
She said: “That power is exercisable by the Lord Advocate alone, not by the Scottish ministers collectively. Accordingly, whether she exercises it is a matter solely for her.”
Speaking yesterday, Ms Sturgeon added: “The Lord Advocate has agreed to refer the provision in the bill to the Supreme Court.
Who appointed the Lord Advocate? She said: “That power is exercisable by the Lord Advocate alone, not by the Scottish ministers collectively. Accordingly, whether she exercises it is a matter solely for her.”
Speaking yesterday, Ms Sturgeon added: “The Lord Advocate has agreed to refer the provision in the bill to the Supreme Court.
How likely is the Lord Advocate to stay in post if they were to disagree to exercise these powers?Edited by Evercross on Thursday 30th June 09:07
contango said:
Sturgeon hardly operates on the "world stage", unless you count selfie opportunities?
This, precisely.Sturgeon is treated exactly as what she is when she goes abroad - a tier two leader of a devolved region (don't anyone go all pissy on on me about calling Scotland a region, because for the purposes of international legislation it operates technically at that level and is no different to Wallonia).
Nationally/Internationally Sturgeon is the equivalent of what people like Paddy Ashdown were - leader of the third-biggest political party.
Welshbeef said:
Just checking on the finances.
Currently UK govt is paying what £100b a year in debt interest so assume £10b would be scotlands debt interest.
Uk govt isn’t paying down the debt - but an Indy Scotland would have to pay down the UK debt over an agreed timescale. Let’s say 30 years?
Uk total debt is what £2.4 trillion and counting meaning £240billion is the debt that needs to be paid down - so if this was to be paid down linear over 30 years so £8billion a year
So far debt interest and then debt repayments £18billion a year.
What is the current Scottish budget - what is its latest GERS surplus or deficit.
Scotland would need to fund that difference off the bat and continue to do so until they raise tax or cut or grow.
What would scotlands Debt to GDP be on let’s call it £260b by the time they go their own way?
I can see in 2021 Scottish GDP was £205b so off the bat your looking at 127% debt to GDP plus they would have to fund any deficit for state pensions ongoing over spend to budgets.
Whereas the UK as an whole peaks at 83.1% - meaning just stripping Scotland out of that rUK would be notably lower too.
This needs to be discussed Currently UK govt is paying what £100b a year in debt interest so assume £10b would be scotlands debt interest.
Uk govt isn’t paying down the debt - but an Indy Scotland would have to pay down the UK debt over an agreed timescale. Let’s say 30 years?
Uk total debt is what £2.4 trillion and counting meaning £240billion is the debt that needs to be paid down - so if this was to be paid down linear over 30 years so £8billion a year
So far debt interest and then debt repayments £18billion a year.
What is the current Scottish budget - what is its latest GERS surplus or deficit.
Scotland would need to fund that difference off the bat and continue to do so until they raise tax or cut or grow.
What would scotlands Debt to GDP be on let’s call it £260b by the time they go their own way?
I can see in 2021 Scottish GDP was £205b so off the bat your looking at 127% debt to GDP plus they would have to fund any deficit for state pensions ongoing over spend to budgets.
Whereas the UK as an whole peaks at 83.1% - meaning just stripping Scotland out of that rUK would be notably lower too.
Welshbeef said:
Welshbeef said:
Just checking on the finances.
Currently UK govt is paying what £100b a year in debt interest so assume £10b would be scotlands debt interest.
Uk govt isn’t paying down the debt - but an Indy Scotland would have to pay down the UK debt over an agreed timescale. Let’s say 30 years?
Uk total debt is what £2.4 trillion and counting meaning £240billion is the debt that needs to be paid down - so if this was to be paid down linear over 30 years so £8billion a year
So far debt interest and then debt repayments £18billion a year.
What is the current Scottish budget - what is its latest GERS surplus or deficit.
Scotland would need to fund that difference off the bat and continue to do so until they raise tax or cut or grow.
What would scotlands Debt to GDP be on let’s call it £260b by the time they go their own way?
I can see in 2021 Scottish GDP was £205b so off the bat your looking at 127% debt to GDP plus they would have to fund any deficit for state pensions ongoing over spend to budgets.
Whereas the UK as an whole peaks at 83.1% - meaning just stripping Scotland out of that rUK would be notably lower too.
This needs to be discussed Currently UK govt is paying what £100b a year in debt interest so assume £10b would be scotlands debt interest.
Uk govt isn’t paying down the debt - but an Indy Scotland would have to pay down the UK debt over an agreed timescale. Let’s say 30 years?
Uk total debt is what £2.4 trillion and counting meaning £240billion is the debt that needs to be paid down - so if this was to be paid down linear over 30 years so £8billion a year
So far debt interest and then debt repayments £18billion a year.
What is the current Scottish budget - what is its latest GERS surplus or deficit.
Scotland would need to fund that difference off the bat and continue to do so until they raise tax or cut or grow.
What would scotlands Debt to GDP be on let’s call it £260b by the time they go their own way?
I can see in 2021 Scottish GDP was £205b so off the bat your looking at 127% debt to GDP plus they would have to fund any deficit for state pensions ongoing over spend to budgets.
Whereas the UK as an whole peaks at 83.1% - meaning just stripping Scotland out of that rUK would be notably lower too.
Mrr T said:
Why if the debt is based on historic borrowings then an IS is likely to have no or minimal debt. The rUK may even be in debt to IS.
I wot m8te?1703 to 2009 Scotland had zero ability to borrow it wax borrowed at the UK level for dependants.
Buckfest early doors doesn’t work.
McGee_22 said:
TheJimi said:
As much as I detest her, I think she's probably better than you give her credit for, although Boris is most people's direct comparison, so the bar is set fairly low in that regard.
Just as for biggbn I have to ask, what on earth are you objectively baseing this assertion on? She and her government have only failure after failure on their rap sheet - please name two or three successes of the Scottish Government since she became First Minister?Welshbeef said:
Mrr T said:
Why if the debt is based on historic borrowings then an IS is likely to have no or minimal debt. The rUK may even be in debt to IS.
I wot m8te?1703 to 2009 Scotland had zero ability to borrow it wax borrowed at the UK level for dependants.
Buckfest early doors doesn’t work.
Gecko1978 said:
Welshbeef said:
Mrr T said:
Why if the debt is based on historic borrowings then an IS is likely to have no or minimal debt. The rUK may even be in debt to IS.
I wot m8te?1703 to 2009 Scotland had zero ability to borrow it wax borrowed at the UK level for dependants.
Buckfest early doors doesn’t work.
Welshbeef said:
Welshbeef said:
Just checking on the finances.
Currently UK govt is paying what £100b a year in debt interest so assume £10b would be scotlands debt interest.
Uk govt isn’t paying down the debt - but an Indy Scotland would have to pay down the UK debt over an agreed timescale. Let’s say 30 years?
Uk total debt is what £2.4 trillion and counting meaning £240billion is the debt that needs to be paid down - so if this was to be paid down linear over 30 years so £8billion a year
So far debt interest and then debt repayments £18billion a year.
What is the current Scottish budget - what is its latest GERS surplus or deficit.
Scotland would need to fund that difference off the bat and continue to do so until they raise tax or cut or grow.
What would scotlands Debt to GDP be on let’s call it £260b by the time they go their own way?
I can see in 2021 Scottish GDP was £205b so off the bat your looking at 127% debt to GDP plus they would have to fund any deficit for state pensions ongoing over spend to budgets.
Whereas the UK as an whole peaks at 83.1% - meaning just stripping Scotland out of that rUK would be notably lower too.
This needs to be discussed Currently UK govt is paying what £100b a year in debt interest so assume £10b would be scotlands debt interest.
Uk govt isn’t paying down the debt - but an Indy Scotland would have to pay down the UK debt over an agreed timescale. Let’s say 30 years?
Uk total debt is what £2.4 trillion and counting meaning £240billion is the debt that needs to be paid down - so if this was to be paid down linear over 30 years so £8billion a year
So far debt interest and then debt repayments £18billion a year.
What is the current Scottish budget - what is its latest GERS surplus or deficit.
Scotland would need to fund that difference off the bat and continue to do so until they raise tax or cut or grow.
What would scotlands Debt to GDP be on let’s call it £260b by the time they go their own way?
I can see in 2021 Scottish GDP was £205b so off the bat your looking at 127% debt to GDP plus they would have to fund any deficit for state pensions ongoing over spend to budgets.
Whereas the UK as an whole peaks at 83.1% - meaning just stripping Scotland out of that rUK would be notably lower too.
biggbn said:
TheJimi said:
McGee_22 nails it - Sturgeon is an effective orator and tends to come across well in front of the cameras.
Think back to the daily covid briefings; while Sturgeon didn't do anything significantly different from Boris, many people here in Scotland believed that she handled it better and that perception was driven by her being a much more effective communicator than Boris. Well, that and being a more visible presence.
Isn't everything you describe being a politician? Hunter Thompson described politics as the art of controlling one's environment and that is, to a tee, what she has done. She has lied, manipulated and controlled her way to the top and stayed there. Is she a good, as in GOOD politician? Hell no, she isn't a good person in any way shape or form, but has she played the many and varied games of politics well? Undoubtedly though it sticks in my craw to say it. Think back to the daily covid briefings; while Sturgeon didn't do anything significantly different from Boris, many people here in Scotland believed that she handled it better and that perception was driven by her being a much more effective communicator than Boris. Well, that and being a more visible presence.
As for Rayner, once again, what McGee is alluding to is I have said she woukd be a better leader for the Labour party than Starmer. That is and was the extent of my comments. I believe she would have broader appeal and bring in more votes. I have openly called her divisive and fully agree that she, and others like her are part of a politics of division that seems to be practiced by all, and isn't my kinda politics, or lifestyle....none of which changes my opinion that she would bring more votes to the Labour Party than Mr Charisma.
I don't think any of that is hard to understand, is it? If it is, I humbly apologise and will withdraw from further debate on this topic because that is as clear as I can make things so further debate will not help.
Have a great day all, last day of work for me!! Peace, gbn x
Edit. I see McGee has asked another poster to name successes for the Scottish government. There are...none? Yet Sturgeon holds power and keeps being re-elected. Because she is a good politician...ie a good liar, cheat and bully....sadly traits needed to control a party these days. She is not a good administrator, planner or person...just good at the machievellian twists and turns a politician needs to have. Nobody is saying she is a GOOD person or has been GOOD for Scotland but in my opinion she is, sadly , a good politician...
Good post, George
Gecko1978 said:
I think Mrr T means Indy Scotland stard with a clean slate. Which is an option....but it might make relationships with your biggest trading partner a bit frosty. All your banks will have left most of your investment funds too. The DVLA and the Post office to name two may pull out. Defence might well be zero given the GDP v the cost of maintaining typhoon jets. Also part of Scotland would be annexed by the rUK (Faslane), and you can shout all you like but you won't have much of an army to do anything about it. Also your credit rating will be junk meaning it will be hard to borrow plus its likely no freedom of movement to rUK oh and small matter of not having a currency....but sure don't pay your debts
Spot on. This is what the indy fundamentalists don't seem to understand - refuse to take on your pro-rata share of the UK debt mountain, and iScot would be a pariah on the international money markets. No currency beyond whatever they can use on an unauthorised basis (the Panama solution), no control over the financial aspects of that currency (no leeevurrrzzz), a defaulted / junk rating for credit (see Greece for further details), no LOLR or Central Bank (the SNP joke Bank of Indy doesn't count), trade barriers with all present export markets (rUK, EU), no realistic prospect of admission to the EU for at least a decade, more likely two (The Republic of North Macedonia was declared a candidate country in December 2005), and no freedom of movement agreements with near neighbours. Oh yes, I'm sure it will be a veritable utopia of bountiful milk and peacocks.Sadly the indynuts will never believe any of the above, it's all just 'Project Fear', or 'Yoon propaganda'. These loonballs would happily drag all of Scotland into their deluded pipe dream, in the deeply mistaken belief that they will be a) free of the bastirt English, and b) endlessly wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice. In reality they would be a) a prisoner of an SNP dictatorship, and b) completely skint.
contango said:
This thread both entertains & amazes at times!
I am stunned at the adulation for sturgeon as a politician and comparison to Thatcher & Blair.
I know it's hard for many scots to accept reality as down trooden as they are, but sturgeon hardly operates on the "world stage", unless you count selfie opportinities?
As we move on to the next act and what may even be her swansong performance, scots need to actually consider how great their star politician will be in her next career, there doesn't seem to be much speculation it is leading the opressed to the sunny highland promised lands?
For clarity, I was not comparing her in any way to Thatcher or Blair, different leagues. I was making the point that someone whom I abhor (Blair) or someone whose politics you don't like (Thatcher) but can still praise their ability. I cannot abide Sturgeon or this iteration of the SNP and have been consistent in my views on this. But I think she has been good at politics, good at the machinations required to stay in power and continually dupe a country. I am stunned at the adulation for sturgeon as a politician and comparison to Thatcher & Blair.
I know it's hard for many scots to accept reality as down trooden as they are, but sturgeon hardly operates on the "world stage", unless you count selfie opportinities?
As we move on to the next act and what may even be her swansong performance, scots need to actually consider how great their star politician will be in her next career, there doesn't seem to be much speculation it is leading the opressed to the sunny highland promised lands?
Hope that clarifies things.
I am broadly pro independence but not passionately so, and many would consider me left wing, indeed I have been labelled a communist on these very pages, but I'd vote for a decent Tory candidate over this shower. I was very impressed with Ruth Davidson and liked the direction she was taking the Scottish tories in. Sadly, Scottish labour and the Scottish conservatives are an absolute joke and I feel many feel they have no alternative buy to vote for more $hit but plenty of it election after election.
TheJimi said:
biggbn said:
TheJimi said:
McGee_22 nails it - Sturgeon is an effective orator and tends to come across well in front of the cameras.
Think back to the daily covid briefings; while Sturgeon didn't do anything significantly different from Boris, many people here in Scotland believed that she handled it better and that perception was driven by her being a much more effective communicator than Boris. Well, that and being a more visible presence.
Isn't everything you describe being a politician? Hunter Thompson described politics as the art of controlling one's environment and that is, to a tee, what she has done. She has lied, manipulated and controlled her way to the top and stayed there. Is she a good, as in GOOD politician? Hell no, she isn't a good person in any way shape or form, but has she played the many and varied games of politics well? Undoubtedly though it sticks in my craw to say it. Think back to the daily covid briefings; while Sturgeon didn't do anything significantly different from Boris, many people here in Scotland believed that she handled it better and that perception was driven by her being a much more effective communicator than Boris. Well, that and being a more visible presence.
As for Rayner, once again, what McGee is alluding to is I have said she woukd be a better leader for the Labour party than Starmer. That is and was the extent of my comments. I believe she would have broader appeal and bring in more votes. I have openly called her divisive and fully agree that she, and others like her are part of a politics of division that seems to be practiced by all, and isn't my kinda politics, or lifestyle....none of which changes my opinion that she would bring more votes to the Labour Party than Mr Charisma.
I don't think any of that is hard to understand, is it? If it is, I humbly apologise and will withdraw from further debate on this topic because that is as clear as I can make things so further debate will not help.
Have a great day all, last day of work for me!! Peace, gbn x
Edit. I see McGee has asked another poster to name successes for the Scottish government. There are...none? Yet Sturgeon holds power and keeps being re-elected. Because she is a good politician...ie a good liar, cheat and bully....sadly traits needed to control a party these days. She is not a good administrator, planner or person...just good at the machievellian twists and turns a politician needs to have. Nobody is saying she is a GOOD person or has been GOOD for Scotland but in my opinion she is, sadly , a good politician...
Good post, George
She’s a good politician for being able to work her way into power by courting Salmond and sticking close by him.
To be turned into his successor.
She hasn’t done that herself, she’s firmly pulled that bridge up behind her and surrounded herself with political nobodies and yes people.
I could say her greatest achievement is to completely bully the Scottish media into submission, compare Boris and his covid brief questioning to hers. He got hauled over the coals daily, while she got asked if she had one or two weetabix in the morning.
Anyone in the media who dares to question her is attacked by the fanatics online and bullied back behind the line to make sure they won’t do it again.
The biggest failure of the opposition is letting this happen.
Even they are spineless and won’t stick the knife in when they have clear chances to do so.
Ruth got to her and it showed time and time again.
Ross doesn’t. He lacks that ability.
If the current state of Scotland is a vision for Indy then it’s not a good look.
Our once famous shipbuilding is reduced to a farce that can’t even build a ferry.
Our world renowned education system now fails 1 in 3 kids.
And somehow all of that is going to be turned around by a party that is dripping with sex pests, nonces and watermelons determined to milk the trough for all its worth.
To be turned into his successor.
She hasn’t done that herself, she’s firmly pulled that bridge up behind her and surrounded herself with political nobodies and yes people.
I could say her greatest achievement is to completely bully the Scottish media into submission, compare Boris and his covid brief questioning to hers. He got hauled over the coals daily, while she got asked if she had one or two weetabix in the morning.
Anyone in the media who dares to question her is attacked by the fanatics online and bullied back behind the line to make sure they won’t do it again.
The biggest failure of the opposition is letting this happen.
Even they are spineless and won’t stick the knife in when they have clear chances to do so.
Ruth got to her and it showed time and time again.
Ross doesn’t. He lacks that ability.
If the current state of Scotland is a vision for Indy then it’s not a good look.
Our once famous shipbuilding is reduced to a farce that can’t even build a ferry.
Our world renowned education system now fails 1 in 3 kids.
And somehow all of that is going to be turned around by a party that is dripping with sex pests, nonces and watermelons determined to milk the trough for all its worth.
Roderick Spode said:
No currency beyond whatever they can use on an unauthorised basis (the Panama solution), no control over the financial aspects of that currency (no leeevurrrzzz), a defaulted / junk rating for credit (see Greece for further details), no LOLR or Central Bank (the SNP joke Bank of Indy doesn't count), trade barriers with all present export markets (rUK, EU), no realistic prospect of admission to the EU for at least a decade, more likely two (The Republic of North Macedonia was declared a candidate country in December 2005), and no freedom of movement agreements with near neighbours. Oh yes, I'm sure it will be a veritable utopia of bountiful milk and peacocks.
Yup, good summation, but I would also add:1) Huge deficit and debt to GDP ratio, likely greater than rUK
2) NATO membership difficult, given we want to eject Trident from Faslane and many in the SNP want Scotland to be a signatory to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (incompatible with NATO membership)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff