Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[ｕｎｋｎｏｗｎｕｓｅｒ]

2 hours ago, Gerry1874 said:

I'm not the one advocating change. But it seems you still haven't thought of any. You want independence but you don't know why.

 

So? None of us know the whole financial picture and none of us are soothsayers.

 

You act like asking an unanswerable question is some sort of gotcha. It's just stupid, and you simply can't answer the reciprocal question for exactly the same reasons.

 

BUT, it's been a decade since the vote, when we were told No was the only way to stay in the EU. The economy's been battered by a succession of terrible governments after we were told we're Better Together. The only thing we have to go on is the track record and that's been brutal.

 

The truth is that Scotland's utterly irrelevant in this set up.

We get what England votes for.

 

It's you who advocates dependence and irrelevance while we can see with our own eyes it's been a shite decade in this union since we voted to stay.

 

We can see how shite remaining has been, so what's the economic case for remaining dependant and irrelevant?

 

And who do you think England will vote in next? Farage? Badenoch?maybe some other right wing nutter who could not GAF about Scotland?

 

It's not crazy talk, it's reality, and we can see that from the track record.

 

Scotland deserves better, the poor and disenfranchised deserve better than that, even if you're alright Jack.

[lost in space]

1 hour ago, ｕｎｋｎｏｗｎｕｓｅｒ said:

 

So? None of us know the whole financial picture and none of us are soothsayers.

 

You act like asking an unanswerable question is some sort of gotcha. It's just stupid, and you simply can't answer the reciprocal question for exactly the same reasons.

 

BUT, it's been a decade since the vote, when we were told No was the only way to stay in the EU. The economy's been battered by a succession of terrible governments after we were told we're Better Together. The only thing we have to go on is the track record and that's been brutal.

 

The truth is that Scotland's utterly irrelevant in this set up.

We get what England votes for.

 

It's you who advocates dependence and irrelevance while we can see with our own eyes it's been a shite decade in this union since we voted to stay.

 

We can see how shite remaining has been, so what's the economic case for remaining dependant and irrelevant?

 

And who do you think England will vote in next? Farage? Badenoch?maybe some other right wing nutter who could not GAF about Scotland?

 

It's not crazy talk, it's reality, and we can see that from the track record.

 

Scotland deserves better, the poor and disenfranchised deserve better than that, even if you're alright Jack.

You are correct in that we dont know the WHOLE financial picture - but surely a financial expert (not one of us) could give a reasonable picture based on what we know. Without that it would be financial suicide IMO to make the decision to vote for Indy. 

 

We all want the poor to have better but we have no way of knowing if Indy will give us that.

You say the last decade has been "shite" in the union - but there is no evidence to suggest we would have been better out of it.

 

I DO get your point that I (and others) cant prove that we are better in the union - but surely you must see that the majority will stick with every status quo - until there is enough proof that the alternative is better.

[Gerry1874]

3 hours ago, ｕｎｋｎｏｗｎｕｓｅｒ said:

 

So? None of us know the whole financial picture and none of us are soothsayers.

 

You act like asking an unanswerable question is some sort of gotcha. It's just stupid, and you simply can't answer the reciprocal question for exactly the same reasons.

 

BUT, it's been a decade since the vote, when we were told No was the only way to stay in the EU. The economy's been battered by a succession of terrible governments after we were told we're Better Together. The only thing we have to go on is the track record and that's been brutal.

 

The truth is that Scotland's utterly irrelevant in this set up.

We get what England votes for.

 

It's you who advocates dependence and irrelevance while we can see with our own eyes it's been a shite decade in this union since we voted to stay.

 

We can see how shite remaining has been, so what's the economic case for remaining dependant and irrelevant?

 

And who do you think England will vote in next? Farage? Badenoch?maybe some other right wing nutter who could not GAF about Scotland?

 

It's not crazy talk, it's reality, and we can see that from the track record.

 

Scotland deserves better, the poor and disenfranchised deserve better than that, even if you're alright Jack.

So you admit to wanting Scottish independence with no idea of the economic benefits would be?

 

You then go on some daft rant about England and Farage. I suspect your desire stems from anglaphobic bigotry.

[ｕｎｋｎｏｗｎｕｓｅｒ]

57 minutes ago, Gerry1874 said:

So you admit to wanting Scottish independence with no idea of the economic benefits would be?

 

You then go on some daft rant about England and Farage. I suspect your desire stems from anglaphobic bigotry.

 

So you admit to wanting to stay in the union with no idea of what the economic benefits would be?

 

Even though the economy has a proven track record of getting worse since we voted no?

 

Even while England lurches further and further right, and they decide our government?

 

Pretending there's Anglophobia at play is pretty pathetic and just emphasises the paucity of your argument.

[scott herbertson]

2 hours ago, lost in space said:

 

You say the last decade has been "shite" in the union - but there is no evidence to suggest we would have been better out of it.

 

 

 

The main factor we can be fairly sure about is that Scotland would have remained in the EU, and we know from the financial data that leaving the EU has been very costly. So that is one piece of evidence

 

There are other financial differences - just as a small example  we would not have renewed Trident( £21 billion+) or commissioned aircraft carriers (£6 billion HS2 (£100 billion to date). None of these are projects which would have been commissioned in an independent Scottish government in the last decade

 

As has been discussed there are many factors where it is impossible to really tell - eg the effect on imports and exports. With that, for example, would Scotland have continued to export through English ports or increase its own capacity?  And of course the 'setting up costs'. I'm pro-independence but I've always assumed we would be worse off for a period until those costs have been met).

 

It is no simple matter to judge the impact of independence and you certainly can't just extrapolate directly from current circumstances and assume that all service industries serving Scotland would continue to be based in London. Or that tourism would continue at the same level (could generate more income or less). Also how the huge UK National debt our governments have merrily built up - how would that be distributed in the event of independence).ul

 

Politically we wouldn't have suffered the dangerous elitism, corruption and incompetence of Johnson and Truss - that's nearly enough for me on its own!

[ｕｎｋｎｏｗｎｕｓｅｒ]

12 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

 

The main factor we can be fairly sure about is that Scotland would have remained in the EU, and we know from the financial data that leaving the EU has been very costly. So that is one piece of evidence

 

There are other financial differences - just as a small example  we would not have renewed Trident( £21 billion+) or commissioned aircraft carriers (£6 billion HS2 (£100 billion to date). None of these are projects which would have been commissioned in an independent Scottish government in the last decade

 

As has been discussed there are many factors where it is impossible to really tell - eg the effect on imports and exports. With that, for example, would Scotland have continued to export through English ports or increase its own capacity?  And of course the 'setting up costs'. I'm pro-independence but I've always assumed we would be worse off for a period until those costs have been met).

 

It is no simple matter to judge the impact of independence and you certainly can't just extrapolate directly from current circumstances and assume that all service industries serving Scotland would continue to be based in London. Or that tourism would continue at the same level (could generate more income or less). Also how the huge UK National debt our governments have merrily built up - how would that be distributed in the event of independence).ul

 

Politically we wouldn't have suffered the dangerous elitism, corruption and incompetence of Johnson and Truss - that's nearly enough for me on its own!

 

[pablo]

34 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

 

The main factor we can be fairly sure about is that Scotland would have remained in the EU, and we know from the financial data that leaving the EU has been very costly. So that is one piece of evidence

 

There are other financial differences - just as a small example  we would not have renewed Trident( £21 billion+) or commissioned aircraft carriers (£6 billion HS2 (£100 billion to date). None of these are projects which would have been commissioned in an independent Scottish government in the last decade

 

As has been discussed there are many factors where it is impossible to really tell - eg the effect on imports and exports. With that, for example, would Scotland have continued to export through English ports or increase its own capacity?  And of course the 'setting up costs'. I'm pro-independence but I've always assumed we would be worse off for a period until those costs have been met).

 

It is no simple matter to judge the impact of independence and you certainly can't just extrapolate directly from current circumstances and assume that all service industries serving Scotland would continue to be based in London. Or that tourism would continue at the same level (could generate more income or less). Also how the huge UK National debt our governments have merrily built up - how would that be distributed in the event of independence).ul

 

Politically we wouldn't have suffered the dangerous elitism, corruption and incompetence of Johnson and Truss - that's nearly enough for me on its own!

 

We wouldn't have stayed in the EU though. Scotland was never a member.

[scott herbertson]

Just now, pablo said:

 

We wouldn't have stayed in the EU though. Scotland was never a member.

 

An independent Scotland would be welcome in the EU and they would have fast tracked us in is my opinion. All the regulatory conformity would have been there and the EU would not want to lose a country - it would have been in their interest to have us in therefore I am sure it would have been managed through Article 48 (amendment of the constitution to allow it) . Post Brexit it is now harder of course and it would probably be through Article 49 - takes 4-5 years theoretically though I am sure they could speed it up with the incentive of 'encouraging' rUK to rejoin.

 

[lost in space]

26 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

 

The main factor we can be fairly sure about is that Scotland would have remained in the EU, and we know from the financial data that leaving the EU has been very costly. So that is one piece of evidence

 

There are other financial differences - just as a small example  we would not have renewed Trident( £21 billion+) or commissioned aircraft carriers (£6 billion HS2 (£100 billion to date). None of these are projects which would have been commissioned in an independent Scottish government in the last decade

 

As has been discussed there are many factors where it is impossible to really tell - eg the effect on imports and exports. With that, for example, would Scotland have continued to export through English ports or increase its own capacity?  And of course the 'setting up costs'. I'm pro-independence but I've always assumed we would be worse off for a period until those costs have been met).

 

It is no simple matter to judge the impact of independence and you certainly can't just extrapolate directly from current circumstances and assume that all service industries serving Scotland would continue to be based in London. Or that tourism would continue at the same level (could generate more income or less). Also how the huge UK National debt our governments have merrily built up - how would that be distributed in the event of independence).ul

 

Politically we wouldn't have suffered the dangerous elitism, corruption and incompetence of Johnson and Truss - that's nearly enough for me on its own!

Hi Scott

You make good points - although selective. 

 

Leaving the EU has been costly.  Probably not as costly as leaving our biggest customer though.

 

Trident/ Carriers - yes but presumably staying in NATO and giving up the same percentage of our GDP. Apart from that - are we going to have our own Scottish army/ Navy and Air Force? That wont be cheap.  Has the cost of that been calculated? Probably not.

 

Re overall financial impact - sorry but what you have assumed isnt really a strong case is it?

 

As you say "no simple matter to judge the impact" - so why not have a judgement that isnt simple?  Why have the Scottish government not paid for a neutral company based outside the UK to conduct a study and report.  It would cost a few million pounds but would give some evidence.

 

Re corruption - are you really serious?  The amount of corruption in the SNP is disgusting. The sums of money are not as high as in Westminster - only because we do not deal in such large amounts of money.   When you take in Salmond Court case (whether he was lying or all the others were) + Sturgeon + Murrell + the Treasurer + Matheson + the misuse of official cars by ministers ++ - I think you might find that there is a bigger percentage of Scottish politicians have been found to be wanting!!!  That will not decrease if these same people were dealing in billions instead of millions.

 

 

[pablo]

3 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

 

An independent Scotland would be welcome in the EU and they would have fast tracked us in is my opinion. All the regulatory conformity would have been there and the EU would not want to lose a country - it would have been in their interest to have us in therefore I am sure it would have been managed through Article 48 (amendment of the constitution to allow it) . Post Brexit it is now harder of course and it would probably be through Article 49 - takes 4-5 years theoretically though I am sure they could speed it up with the incentive of 'encouraging' rUK to rejoin.

 

 

It would have to be your own opinion, because as we later found out Salmond didn't actually seek any legal advice on EU membership and lied about doing so.

 

[lost in space]

11 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

 

An independent Scotland would be welcome in the EU and they would have fast tracked us in is my opinion. All the regulatory conformity would have been there and the EU would not want to lose a country - it would have been in their interest to have us in therefore I am sure it would have been managed through Article 48 (amendment of the constitution to allow it) . Post Brexit it is now harder of course and it would probably be through Article 49 - takes 4-5 years theoretically though I am sure they could speed it up with the incentive of 'encouraging' rUK to rejoin.

 

No point in discussing what might have happened - that has passed.

 

What could happen - "harder" - yes and might or might not be possible.  

Would we meet the economic requirements once our sales to UK is reduced significantly? We dont know.

Would Spain and France just overlook the Basque and Catalan independence movements?  France might.

How long would the entry take - "4-5 years theoretically". Lets face it - more like 10 years?

Would we have to take on the Euro? Probably - think only Denmark dont. Czech are preparing to take the Euro I think.

 

Again - we dont know.  This is what the Indy supporters want - for us to take a step into the unknown.   

Better the devil you know....................

 

 

[scott herbertson]

19 minutes ago, lost in space said:

Hi Scott

You make good points - although selective. 

 

Leaving the EU has been costly.  Probably not as costly as leaving our biggest customer though.

 

Trident/ Carriers - yes but presumably staying in NATO and giving up the same percentage of our GDP. Apart from that - are we going to have our own Scottish army/ Navy and Air Force? That wont be cheap.  Has the cost of that been calculated? Probably not.

 

Re overall financial impact - sorry but what you have assumed isnt really a strong case is it?

 

As you say "no simple matter to judge the impact" - so why not have a judgement that isnt simple?  Why have the Scottish government not paid for a neutral company based outside the UK to conduct a study and report.  It would cost a few million pounds but would give some evidence.

 

Re corruption - are you really serious?  The amount of corruption in the SNP is disgusting. The sums of money are not as high as in Westminster - only because we do not deal in such large amounts of money.   When you take in Salmond Court case (whether he was lying or all the others were) + Sturgeon + Murrell + the Treasurer + Matheson + the misuse of official cars by ministers ++ - I think you might find that there is a bigger percentage of Scottish politicians have been found to be wanting!!!  That will not decrease if these same people were dealing in billions instead of millions.

 

 

 

 

Haven't got the time today to answer you fully but re corruption I apologise I was trying to think of the word to describe Johnson's attempt to prorogue parliament which I thought was incredibly dangerous. Anti-democratic would describe my point better.

 

Not the various political individual scandals, scandalous though they are...

[scott herbertson]

1 minute ago, lost in space said:

No point in discussing what might have happened - that has passed.

 

What could happen - "harder" - yes and might or might not be possible.  

Would we meet the economic requirements once our sales to UK is reduced significantly? We dont know.

Would Spain and France just overlook the Basque and Catalan independence movements?  France might.

How long would the entry take - "4-5 years theoretically". Lets face it - more like 10 years?

Would we have to take on the Euro? Probably - think only Denmark dont. Czech are preparing to take the Euro I think.

 

Again - we dont know.  This is what the Indy supporters want - for us to take a step into the unknown.   

Better the devil you know....................

 

 

 

My answer was to your point about the last ten years (  "You say the last decade has been "shite" in the union - but there is no evidence to suggest we would have been better out of it" )  hence only about what 'might have happened'

[ｕｎｋｎｏｗｎｕｓｅｒ]

 

Straight from the Tory mouth

[Gerry1874]

20 hours ago, ｕｎｋｎｏｗｎｕｓｅｒ said:

 

Straight from the Tory mouth

It's been previously documented independence would be Brexit on steroids. If this was the damage caused by leaving our second biggest trading union can you tell me the benefits of leaving our largest?

[ｕｎｋｎｏｗｎｕｓｅｒ]

12 minutes ago, Gerry1874 said:

It's been previously documented independence would be Brexit on steroids. If this was the damage caused by leaving our second biggest trading union can you tell me the benefits of leaving our largest?

 

Has it aye?

[Gerry1874]

50 minutes ago, ｕｎｋｎｏｗｎｕｓｅｒ said:

 

Has it aye?

Then please explain why leaving our largest trading partner will be beneficial? 

[Gundermann]

1 hour ago, Gerry1874 said:

It's been previously documented independence would be Brexit on steroids. If this was the damage caused by leaving our second biggest trading union can you tell me the benefits of leaving our largest?

 

Documented? Really? By who? Where?

 

 

[Gerry1874]

2 minutes ago, Gundermann said:

 

Documented? Really? By who? Where?

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Gundermann said:

 

Documented? Really? By who? Where?

 

 

Some bright sparks at the LSE

 

 https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2021/02/04/indyref2-scottish-independence-would-be-2-3-times-more-costly-than-that-of-brexit-and-rejoining-the-eu-wouldnt-make-up-the-difference/

 

I look forward to hearing how leaving our largest trading partner would somehow benefit our economy?

 

 

[Gundermann]

6 minutes ago, Gerry1874 said:

 

Some bright sparks at the LSE

 

 https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2021/02/04/indyref2-scottish-independence-would-be-2-3-times-more-costly-than-that-of-brexit-and-rejoining-the-eu-wouldnt-make-up-the-difference/

 

I look forward to hearing how leaving our largest trading partner would somehow benefit our economy?

 

 

 

😄

 

Economists throwing figures around may as well be auld women reading tea leaves. The comments to your link debunk the article:

 

Quote

Within this report there are virtually no accurate variables. This means the outcomes derived have standard deviations that are so high as to make the results meaningless.

 

and this:

 

Quote

Also, in the small print at the end of the paper, the authors thank a certain Jim Gallagher for “useful discussions about the Scottish economy and Scottish data”. Gallagher was the main economic advisor to the Better Together Campaign in 2014 and is a noted opponent of independence.

 

[Gerry1874]

5 minutes ago, Gundermann said:

 

😄

 

Economists throwing figures around may as well be auld women reading tea leaves. The comments to your link debunk the article:

 

 

and this:

 

 

Can you please explain what you believe the economic benefits will be to Scotland leaving the UK?

[ｕｎｋｎｏｗｎｕｓｅｒ]

1 hour ago, Gerry1874 said:

Can you please explain what you believe the economic benefits will be to Scotland leaving the UK?

 

And you the economic benefits of remaining dependent, without a say in who forms our national government, in a union that could not GAF about us?

[Gerry1874]

5 minutes ago, ｕｎｋｎｏｗｎｕｓｅｒ said:

 

And you the economic benefits of remaining dependent, without a say in who forms our national government, in a union that could not GAF about us?

I asked first didn't I? I find it amazing anyone would advocate such drastic constitutional change without any idea of what benefits it may bring. 

 

The economic benefits for me of remaining. The fact I work for a london based company in a job I really like, my pension, the value of my home and all in the fact I like things as they are. 

[lost in space]

1 hour ago, ｕｎｋｎｏｗｎｕｓｅｒ said:

 

And you the economic benefits of remaining dependent, without a say in who forms our national government, in a union that could not GAF about us?

This is your "go to" phrase whenever there is a question on why Indy would benefit us.

 

Its like a football scout says to Critchley -" I have found a new forward for Hearts".  Critchley asks - "what benefits does he bring?" and the scout answers - "Well, how bad would we be without him?".

 

If you (or anybody) wants to bring in something new - it is surely up to that person to explain the benefits.

 

In this case the economic benefits to Scotland, outside of the UK + outside EU + outside EFTA. 

 

Why dont you just admit that you cant - and that nobody else can or has???

 

[Gundermann]

4 hours ago, Gerry1874 said:

Can you please explain what you believe the economic benefits will be to Scotland leaving the UK?

 

We rejoin the international family of nations and control our own finances. Why send our wealth to London in hope of getting some pocket money back?

 

Do you still live at home btw?

[Gerry1874]

2 minutes ago, Gundermann said:

 

We rejoin the international family of nations and control our own finances. Why send our wealth to London in hope of getting some pocket money back?

 

Do you still live at home btw?

We do more trade with our family of home nations than we ever did internationally. Sharing a currency, language and island ensures that. 

 

I like your unsubstantiated bit about the pocket money. A daft line straight out the alba play book.

[Gerry1874]

10 minutes ago, Gundermann said:

 

We rejoin the international family of nations and control our own finances. Why send our wealth to London in hope of getting some pocket money back?

 

Do you still live at home btw?

Oh forgot answer that last question I don't. 

[Gundermann]

4 minutes ago, Gerry1874 said:

We do more trade with our family of home nations than we ever did internationally. Sharing a currency, language and island ensures that. 

 

I like your unsubstantiated bit about the pocket money. A daft line straight out the alba play book.

 

The link you yourself posted stated that trade would continue between Scotland and England. Why wouldn't it?

 

Surely it's more economic and practical to cut out Westminster and have all decisions and finance based in Edinburgh. That said, there should be more devolution and autonomy in other parts of Scotland.

[ｕｎｋｎｏｗｎｕｓｅｒ]

4 hours ago, Gerry1874 said:

I asked first didn't I? I find it amazing anyone would advocate such drastic constitutional change without any idea of what benefits it may bring. 

 

The economic benefits for me of remaining. The fact I work for a london based company in a job I really like, my pension, the value of my home and all in the fact I like things as they are. 

 

Cool, you're alright jack, good for you.

The fact that in Holland I worked for a US based company, that RoI and the UK have reciprocal pension agreements, and the value of your home isn't guaranteed under any circumstances kind of negates your me-first concerns.

 

Meanwhile, Scotland has no say, in fact we can't even see the books, never mind the democratic deficit.

 

Out of interest, do you think we'd stop trading with the rest of the UK? Did RoI?

 

 

[lost in space]

2 hours ago, Gundermann said:

 

The link you yourself posted stated that trade would continue between Scotland and England. Why wouldn't it?

 

Surely it's more economic and practical to cut out Westminster and have all decisions and finance based in Edinburgh. That said, there should be more devolution and autonomy in other parts of Scotland.

Re trade between Scotland and UK. Some of course would continue - but how much would depend if there was to be free trade.

Is that confirmed?

NO Tariffs?

Will there be border controls?

Extra documents required?

Also - currency - Scotland are not going to continue with the UK Pound indefinitely are they?

Wee Eck said we would use the UK Pound - which of course meant that our finances would continue to be hugely affected by the UK economy.

Too many "don't knows" - as always.

[Australis]

Just seen Ash Regan has put her name forward to be leader of the Alba party.

 

She was elected in Edinburgh east as an SNP MSP.

 

Wonder if she will stand there again and if the SNP voters who put her in will stick with her.

 

An Alba leader standing as a candidate, that will be a first, if it ever happens.

 

Wonder if anyone else will throw their hat in the ring.

[XB52]

27 minutes ago, Australis said:

Just seen Ash Regan has put her name forward to be leader of the Alba party.

 

She was elected in Edinburgh east as an SNP MSP.

 

Wonder if she will stand there again and if the SNP voters who put her in will stick with her.

 

An Alba leader standing as a candidate, that will be a first, if it ever happens.

 

Wonder if anyone else will throw their hat in the ring.

Her total lack of dignity when getting trounced in the SNP leadership election was hilarious to watch. Ideally suited to Alba

[Australis]

4 minutes ago, XB52 said:

Her total lack of dignity when getting trounced in the SNP leadership election was hilarious to watch. Ideally suited to Alba

She said in the article that the experience of standing for the SNP leadership will be a benefit for her, compared to anyone who challenges her this time.

[XB52]

18 minutes ago, Australis said:

She said in the article that the experience of standing for the SNP leadership will be a benefit for her, compared to anyone who challenges her this time.

Well she knows how to lose so perfectly suited to lead Alba

[Hagar the Horrible]

Listening to honest John about the drug villas.  He thinks it will reduce deaths, some other exterts saying no it will only increase them as they will get easier access to drugs.  Now to be fair the Drug palaces are not selling them I am sure, but how long will it take before a member of staff gets caught selling?  that being the case it turns JS and the SNP into state dealers

 

I can see the benefits, but under the SNP it can only turn into excrement!!!! 

[Elljay]

On 04/01/2025 at 15:08, pablo said:

 

We wouldn't have stayed in the EU though. Scotland was never a member.

given how closely we were aligned with EU legislation and practice, we would have easily beaten the accession record of 2 years 9 months (Finland)

[BlueRiver]

16 minutes ago, Elljay said:

given how closely we were aligned with EU legislation and practice, we would have easily beaten the accession record of 2 years 9 months (Finland)

 

Pure speculation tbh. We may have. We may not have. 

 

 

[ｕｎｋｎｏｗｎｕｓｅｒ]

38 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

 

Pure speculation tbh. We may have. We may not have. 

 

Of course, good reason to think it's more likely than not though eh?

[BlueRiver]

1 hour ago, ｕｎｋｎｏｗｎｕｓｅｒ said:

 

Of course, good reason to think it's more likely than not though eh?

 

Doesn't really matter for much either way. 

[jack D and coke]

2 hours ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

Listening to honest John about the drug villas.  He thinks it will reduce deaths, some other exterts saying no it will only increase them as they will get easier access to drugs.  Now to be fair the Drug palaces are not selling them I am sure, but how long will it take before a member of staff gets caught selling?  that being the case it turns JS and the SNP into state dealers

 

I can see the benefits, but under the SNP it can only turn into excrement!!!! 

Jesus christ  

[lost in space]

2 hours ago, Elljay said:

given how closely we were aligned with EU legislation and practice, we would have easily beaten the accession record of 2 years 9 months (Finland)

There was a very good reason for the speed that allowed Finland to join - Russia!

No such speed for EU to allow an Independent Scotland entry - especially as Spain (and maybe France) not keen to have an independent area join (with Catalan and Basque regions).  Also our economics after leaving the UK may well prove a problem.

[That thing you do]

On 04/01/2025 at 05:18, lost in space said:

You are correct in that we dont know the WHOLE financial picture - but surely a financial expert (not one of us) could give a reasonable picture based on what we know. Without that it would be financial suicide IMO to make the decision to vote for Indy. 

 

We all want the poor to have better but we have no way of knowing if Indy will give us that.

You say the last decade has been "shite" in the union - but there is no evidence to suggest we would have been better out of it.

 

I DO get your point that I (and others) cant prove that we are better in the union - but surely you must see that the majority will stick with every status quo - until there is enough proof that the alternative is better.

 

The problem with asking for a guesstimate of the whole financial picture is that it can only be a very rough estimate.

 

Since we dont know what a newly elected government would offer post Indy as theres no post Indy election manifesto to base it on as theres no telling who the Govt would be or indeed what parties might fight it.

 

Nor do we know details of transition etc

 

So asking for clear numbers/proof is really not possible. 

 

The easiest way is to keep as much the same as it is now and change gradually.

 

But Ill try it like its a transfer window

 

In

Spending on innovation, technology and developing a robust and adaptable economy

 

Strategic reserves in Gold and Crypto

 

Rejoining EEA not EU for the time being

 

A sensible transition to renewables 

 

Development of Tax regime for independent Scotland as it relates to income tax, inheritance, capital gains tax, VAT, customs duties plus alternative to council tax. Moratorium on any other changes in first 36 months ie make incremental change keeping as is except where necessary.

 

Use of pound during 24 month transition period moving to Pound Scots after establishment of central bank and reserves.

 

Pegged to GBP for period then freely tradeable.

 

Scots Pound stablecoin

 

Development of Scottish Military for peacekeeping.

 

Transport/Infrastructure development plan.

 

Energy and Resources Act to charge export fees on excess oil, gas, electric and water 

 

Creation of a second legislative scrunising chamber thats elected.

 

Share embassies with partners (Scandinavians regularly pool and share in different countries)

 

Apply to NATO and Join UN

 

Review of Quangos and public sector structures

 

Smart Road Tax based on usage.

 

Visa system for work, residence and study.

 

 

 

Out

 

Bedroom Tax

Council Tax in current form

Paying for Trident

Share of Military Spending

TV license fee

Westminster and House of Lords

No Direct funding of the Monarcha

HS2 and similar shared funding except projects directly involving Scotland.

 

Ill leave you with this? What country that was independent has gone back to its original unified larger country having found indepedence not worth the bother?

 

None.

 

If Scotland in the UK was a best example of governance why is noone else joining up with neighbours?

 

The key point is Scotland would make Scotlands decisions. If you dont think it can do that better than someone else then you must not think Scots are talented enough to do it? 

 

Scotland invented the modern world ffs. It can run itself.

 

 

 

[Gerry1874]

1 hour ago, That thing you do said:

 

The problem with asking for a guesstimate of the whole financial picture is that it can only be a very rough estimate.

 

Since we dont know what a newly elected government would offer post Indy as theres no post Indy election manifesto to base it on as theres no telling who the Govt would be or indeed what parties might fight it.

 

Nor do we know details of transition etc

 

So asking for clear numbers/proof is really not possible. 

 

The easiest way is to keep as much the same as it is now and change gradually.

 

But Ill try it like its a transfer window

 

In

Spending on innovation, technology and developing a robust and adaptable economy

 

Strategic reserves in Gold and Crypto

 

Rejoining EEA not EU for the time being

 

A sensible transition to renewables 

 

Development of Tax regime for independent Scotland as it relates to income tax, inheritance, capital gains tax, VAT, customs duties plus alternative to council tax. Moratorium on any other changes in first 36 months ie make incremental change keeping as is except where necessary.

 

Use of pound during 24 month transition period moving to Pound Scots after establishment of central bank and reserves.

 

Pegged to GBP for period then freely tradeable.

 

Scots Pound stablecoin

 

Development of Scottish Military for peacekeeping.

 

Transport/Infrastructure development plan.

 

Energy and Resources Act to charge export fees on excess oil, gas, electric and water 

 

Creation of a second legislative scrunising chamber thats elected.

 

Share embassies with partners (Scandinavians regularly pool and share in different countries)

 

Apply to NATO and Join UN

 

Review of Quangos and public sector structures

 

Smart Road Tax based on usage.

 

Visa system for work, residence and study.

 

 

 

Out

 

Bedroom Tax

Council Tax in current form

Paying for Trident

Share of Military Spending

TV license fee

Westminster and House of Lords

No Direct funding of the Monarcha

HS2 and similar shared funding except projects directly involving Scotland.

 

Ill leave you with this? What country that was independent has gone back to its original unified larger country having found indepedence not worth the bother?

 

None.

 

If Scotland in the UK was a best example of governance why is noone else joining up with neighbours?

 

The key point is Scotland would make Scotlands decisions. If you dont think it can do that better than someone else then you must not think Scots are talented enough to do it? 

 

Scotland invented the modern world ffs. It can run itself.

 

 

 

Come with me and you'll be in a world of pure imagination 

 

 

[That thing you do]

15 minutes ago, Gerry1874 said:

Come with me and you'll be in a world of pure imagination 

 

 

Come with me if you believe its possible Scotland can do better and wont look back just like every country that went independent and alot like Ireland / Norway

[Gerry1874]

17 minutes ago, That thing you do said:

Come with me if you believe its possible Scotland can do better and wont look back just like every country that went independent and alot like Ireland / Norway

🤣🤣🤣

[lost in space]

16 hours ago, That thing you do said:

 

The problem with asking for a guesstimate of the whole financial picture is that it can only be a very rough estimate.

 

Since we dont know what a newly elected government would offer post Indy as theres no post Indy election manifesto to base it on as theres no telling who the Govt would be or indeed what parties might fight it.

 

Nor do we know details of transition etc

 

So asking for clear numbers/proof is really not possible. 

 

The easiest way is to keep as much the same as it is now and change gradually.

 

But Ill try it like its a transfer window

 

In

Spending on innovation, technology and developing a robust and adaptable economy

 

Strategic reserves in Gold and Crypto

 

Rejoining EEA not EU for the time being

 

A sensible transition to renewables 

 

Development of Tax regime for independent Scotland as it relates to income tax, inheritance, capital gains tax, VAT, customs duties plus alternative to council tax. Moratorium on any other changes in first 36 months ie make incremental change keeping as is except where necessary.

 

Use of pound during 24 month transition period moving to Pound Scots after establishment of central bank and reserves.

 

Pegged to GBP for period then freely tradeable.

 

Scots Pound stablecoin

 

Development of Scottish Military for peacekeeping.

 

Transport/Infrastructure development plan.

 

Energy and Resources Act to charge export fees on excess oil, gas, electric and water 

 

Creation of a second legislative scrunising chamber thats elected.

 

Share embassies with partners (Scandinavians regularly pool and share in different countries)

 

Apply to NATO and Join UN

 

Review of Quangos and public sector structures

 

Smart Road Tax based on usage.

 

Visa system for work, residence and study.

 

 

 

Out

 

Bedroom Tax

Council Tax in current form

Paying for Trident

Share of Military Spending

TV license fee

Westminster and House of Lords

No Direct funding of the Monarcha

HS2 and similar shared funding except projects directly involving Scotland.

 

Ill leave you with this? What country that was independent has gone back to its original unified larger country having found indepedence not worth the bother?

 

None.

 

If Scotland in the UK was a best example of governance why is noone else joining up with neighbours?

 

The key point is Scotland would make Scotlands decisions. If you dont think it can do that better than someone else then you must not think Scots are talented enough to do it? 

 

Scotland invented the modern world ffs. It can run itself.

 

 

 

What a very good post.  Thanks for listing the items that you have. Of course it isnt possible to cover all of the points to consider - would take a long time to cover everything - e.g. the legislation to uncouple from the UK.

Much of what you have listed is rather "blue sky thinking" - e.g. developing a robust and adaptable economy + you are looking for other organizations (EU etc)  UK (to share embassies) to play ball.

I like the transfer window analogy - showing that it would take many years to actually get where we want to get to - but some big priorities to start with.

 

I am not going to go over each of your points - I like a lot of them - as it would take too long - but I would like to make the following points -

 

"Why is no-one else joining with neighbours?" - they are - EU for trade and Finland (and Ukraine hopefully) joining EU and NATO for protection.

 

"What country that was independent has gone back" - well of course none; and Scotland wouldnt go back either.  Scotland would not all of a sudden become bankrupt and have people dying in the streets with starvation. We would just slowly decline (faster than the UK). UK is a co-operative - a bit like the EU. When Scotland had oil, we helped carry the economy - now London finances do.

 

"Scotland would make Scotlands decisions" - but the Nats want to join the EU!!!  So we would do what Brussels required.  I do laugh at the idea of "FREEDOM" when we would immediately try to join an organisation that tells us what to do..

 

Last point - "It (Scotland) can run itself" + thinking "Scots are not talented enough" - yes, many Scots in history helped to invent the modern world and I am proud of what Scots have achieved.  However, we have never needed as many as we would, to run a government successfully - including a second chamber. Take a look at the Scottish government cabinet - are you happy to have the massive decisions we would have to make, be made by people like Angela Constance and Neil Gray???? 

 

Thanks for writing your post - it helped to see a fraction of what we would have to do. A huge amount of work - with no evidence of any gain.

[John Findlay]

17 hours ago, That thing you do said:

 

The problem with asking for a guesstimate of the whole financial picture is that it can only be a very rough estimate.

 

Since we dont know what a newly elected government would offer post Indy as theres no post Indy election manifesto to base it on as theres no telling who the Govt would be or indeed what parties might fight it.

 

Nor do we know details of transition etc

 

So asking for clear numbers/proof is really not possible. 

 

The easiest way is to keep as much the same as it is now and change gradually.

 

But Ill try it like its a transfer window

 

In

Spending on innovation, technology and developing a robust and adaptable economy

 

Strategic reserves in Gold and Crypto

 

Rejoining EEA not EU for the time being

 

A sensible transition to renewables 

 

Development of Tax regime for independent Scotland as it relates to income tax, inheritance, capital gains tax, VAT, customs duties plus alternative to council tax. Moratorium on any other changes in first 36 months ie make incremental change keeping as is except where necessary.

 

Use of pound during 24 month transition period moving to Pound Scots after establishment of central bank and reserves.

 

Pegged to GBP for period then freely tradeable.

 

Scots Pound stablecoin

 

Development of Scottish Military for peacekeeping.

 

Transport/Infrastructure development plan.

 

Energy and Resources Act to charge export fees on excess oil, gas, electric and water 

 

Creation of a second legislative scrunising chamber thats elected.

 

Share embassies with partners (Scandinavians regularly pool and share in different countries)

 

Apply to NATO and Join UN

 

Review of Quangos and public sector structures

 

Smart Road Tax based on usage.

 

Visa system for work, residence and study.

 

 

 

Out

 

Bedroom Tax

Council Tax in current form

Paying for Trident

Share of Military Spending

TV license fee

Westminster and House of Lords

No Direct funding of the Monarcha

HS2 and similar shared funding except projects directly involving Scotland.

 

Ill leave you with this? What country that was independent has gone back to its original unified larger country having found indepedence not worth the bother?

 

None.

 

If Scotland in the UK was a best example of governance why is noone else joining up with neighbours?

 

The key point is Scotland would make Scotlands decisions. If you dont think it can do that better than someone else then you must not think Scots are talented enough to do it? 

 

Scotland invented the modern world ffs. It can run itself.

 

 

 

Technically East Germany went back to West Germany.

[luckydug]

45 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

Technically East Germany went back to West Germany.

Congratulations for the most stupid post in the thread

[John Findlay]

33 minutes ago, luckydug said:

Congratulations for the most stupid post in the thread

East Germany was a country on its own.

Actually beat West Germany one nil in the group stages of the 1974 World Cup.

When the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, and the USSR basically collapsed, East Germany decided to reunify with West Germany to create the current Germany.

So technically it went back to how it was in May 1945.

[ｕｎｋｎｏｗｎｕｓｅｒ]

34 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

East Germany was a country on its own.

Actually beat West Germany one nil in the group stages of the 1974 World Cup.

When the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, and the USSR basically collapsed, East Germany decided to reunify with West Germany to create the current Germany.

So technically it went back to how it was in May 1945.

 

It wasn't a country that sought and achieved independence then decided to return though. It's really not a good analogue in any meaningful way.