Latest SNP embarassment

[coconut doug]

They don't even want the powers as with power comes responsibility for financing their own expenditure which already has a ?15bm deficit (?2,900 for every man, woman and child in Scotland).

 

There isn't a shred of evidence that the SNP will or even know how to use these powers to the benefit of everyone in Scotland. The floundering of Sturgeon in the face of easily foreseeable questions from Andrew Neil illustrated serious and worrying shortcomings.

It's not he SNP's expenditure that has created this ?15billion shortfall. The Scottish government does not have borrowing powers. Not that long ago you were castigating them for salting it away in "war chests".

 

The powers offered are supposed to bring no detriment for Scotland. There is little or no evidence about the effective use of powers because they have not been enacted. What we do know is that one of the SNP's biggest critics on here thinks they are a "thoroughly competent government" a view shared by many. I think, especially when we think of the alternatives. The Tories have but one plan for the additional powers and that is Tax cuts for the rich. Nobody could accuse them of using the powers to the benefit of everyone on Scotland.

 

There is not shred of evidence that the current Tory government can balance the books. Despite huge cuts to services, tax cuts for the rich mean we still have a massive deficit.

[Nookie Bear]

Scots voted Yes.

No Scot would ever vote against Scotland.

British, would.

 

Does that not just tell you that a large number of Scottish residents - the ones who live here and pay taxes etc etc - are quite happy to be part of a United Kingdom, for all it's faults, and perhaps did not see tangible benefits in Independence beyond the emotional argument?

 

Is that such a bad thing?

[Boris]

It's not he SNP's expenditure that has created this ?15billion shortfall. The Scottish government does not have borrowing powers. Not that long ago you were castigating them for salting it away in "war chests".

 

The powers offered are supposed to bring no detriment for Scotland. There is little or no evidence about the effective use of powers because they have not been enacted. What we do know is that one of the SNP's biggest critics on here thinks they are a "thoroughly competent government" a view shared by many. I think, especially when we think of the alternatives. The Tories have but one plan for the additional powers and that is Tax cuts for the rich. Nobody could accuse them of using the powers to the benefit of everyone on Scotland.

 

There is not shred of evidence that the current Tory government can balance the books. Despite huge cuts to services, tax cuts for the rich mean we still have a massive deficit.

 

A good piece, imo, by Paul Mason in today's Guardian on Osborne and his economic shambles.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/14/george-osborne-recovery-danger-jeremy-corbyn-britain-cheap-imports-zero-hours-contracts-budget

[JamboX2]

What would be your preferred voting system?

STV for choice.

 

Party List for proportionality.

 

STV would be my favourite option though.

[JamboX2]

I agree, but it was the SNP that got all these new powers, not Labour, not Conservative, not Green, not LibDem it's because we voted SNP in huge numbers and we stood up to the Conservative Government and the SNP got this great deal for Scotland, all thanks to the SNP standing firm and standing up for Scotland.

 

If elected in May, lets see what the SNP do these new powers for the next 5 year's, but it's about time the SNP start governing otherwise they will loose my vote and others.

No it was the Smith Commission, comprised of all parties. Prior to that the Calman Commission of the opposition parties delivered more powers also.

 

Its not solely the SNP who have delivered. In fact they undermined the Smith Commission by stating throughout it that it was too little in their eyes, rather than engage with it.

 

However, I accept your last point. I suppose after the backtracking on a number of key policies in 2007 that got them into office my belief they were different faded totally.

[Boris]

STV for choice.

 

Party List for proportionality.

 

STV would be my favourite option though.

 

I'm all for some form of PR too.

 

Given the way the polls are, the SNP would still win a majority though.

 

Our system at Holyrood isn't perfect, but it's a damn sight better than the Westminster FPTP.

[JamboX2]

I'm all for some form of PR too.

 

Given the way the polls are, the SNP would still win a majority though.

 

Our system at Holyrood isn't perfect, but it's a damn sight better than the Westminster FPTP.

Your last point sums up the issues Scottish politics faces and doesn't move past.

[Boris]

Your last point sums up the issues Scottish politics faces and doesn't move past.

 

What, Holyrood isn't perfect but the electoral system is better than that used for Westminster?  I'm not sure how one can move past, unless Labour join with the Lib Dems demanding PR at Westminster.

[JamboX2]

It is hardly surprising that a unionist would want the STV system in Scotland.

 

I think that the system for Holyrood as pretty much given us the representation that the electorate voted for in all the elections so far. You can never get a prefect system until it is possible to elect fractions of an MSP.

Voted Yes pal.

 

But, aye I agree. No system is perfect. But the impact and changes that have came about since STV was introduced at council level and opening up representation in many councils has been a real democratic gain.

 

Any retention of FPTP is archaic. AMS holds that in play.

[JamboX2]

What, Holyrood isn't perfect but the electoral system is better than that used for Westminster? I'm not sure how one can move past, unless Labour join with the Lib Dems demanding PR at Westminster.

No the constant "oh but Westminster are doing this worse" line we hear a lot.

 

Holyrood and Holyrood politicians can, should and do have different priorities from those at Westminster and should exist and focus on their ambitions.

 

Yes Westminster needs far reaching reform. But Holyrood after 17 years has shown needs for democratic reform as well and what happens in London shouldn't detract from that.

[Boris]

No the constant "oh but Westminster are doing this worse" line we hear a lot.

 

Holyrood and Holyrood politicians can, should and do have different priorities from those at Westminster and should exist and focus on their ambitions.

 

Yes Westminster needs far reaching reform. But Holyrood after 17 years has shown needs for democratic reform as well and what happens in London shouldn't detract from that.

 

I wasn't saying that.  As electoral systems go, Holyrood's IS better than Westminster's, IMO.  It was simply a comparison.

 

I'd be tempted for the Party List system, as Mr Dundas has pointed out STV's flaws.

 

No harm in wanting reform of all aspects of our "democracy"!

[Boris]

The ASM system we have is pretty proportional, if you take out the 8% or so others, as they don't get enough votes individually to elect anyone except the odd independent, then the seats to vote distribution is pretty fair.

 

I think the current system is pretty good too.  Party list is ultimately fully proportional, but AMS gives that constituency link, which some seem to like.

 

Regardless of electoral system, the SNP look like they will get a majority.  The original [post referring to the electoral system seemed a bit sour grapes to me, but that may be doing the poster a diservice.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

They don't even want the powers as with power comes responsibility for financing their own expenditure which already has a ?15bm deficit (?2,900 for every man, woman and child in Scotland).

 

There isn't a shred of evidence that the SNP will or even know how to use these powers to the benefit of everyone in Scotland. The floundering of Sturgeon in the face of easily foreseeable questions from Andrew Neil illustrated serious and worrying shortcomings.

 

If the SNP were use some of the extra powers given to them such as to put up income tax by 1 penny for example to pay for extra/better services in Scotland, Cameron would be almost orgasmic with glee, because he would shout from the roof tops about how the Scots pay higher taxes with a SNP government than they do with an English Tory government.

 

The SNP, Labour or indeed any Scottish government will only use the extra tax powers if or when they have no other choice but to do so.

Raising your own taxes is and always was a booby-trap as the administration which used it would be hugely criticised by their rivals and would not be forgiven by the electorate either.

[HaymarketJambo]

No it was the Smith Commission, comprised of all parties. Prior to that the Calman Commission of the opposition parties delivered more powers also.

 

Its not solely the SNP who have delivered. In fact they undermined the Smith Commission by stating throughout it that it was too little in their eyes, rather than engage with it.

 

However, I accept your last point. I suppose after the backtracking on a number of key policies in 2007 that got them into office my belief they were different faded totally.

 

Yes and No,

 

John Swinney and Nicola Sturgeon got us the Smith Commission deal, as the Government tried to water it down to keep their MP's happy in the south, but the SNP stood their ground against the Conservative Government.    

 

The SNP wanted more from Smith because the of the 56 MP's that they got elected at the Westminster's Election. 

 

As for promises kept or not kept from 2007, the electorate of Scotland had a chance to vote on the SNP record at last years election and give the SNP a bloody nose, but they didn't and give the SNP a historical win in Scotland with 56 Westminster SNP MP's elected.

[Thunderstruck]

If the SNP were use some of the extra powers given to them such as to put up income tax by 1 penny for example to pay for extra/better services in Scotland, Cameron would be almost orgasmic with glee, because he would shout from the roof tops about how the Scots pay higher taxes with a SNP government than they do with an English Tory government.

 

The SNP, Labour or indeed any Scottish government will only use the extra tax powers if or when they have no other choice but to do so.

Raising your own taxes is and always was a booby-trap as the administration which used it would be hugely criticised by their rivals and would not be forgiven by the electorate either.

What, then, would they have had to do come Independence Day? Borrow to make up the missing billions?

[AlphonseCapone]

Funny how the unionists on this thread constantly reply to aussieh but ignore the numerous other Yes posters making good points, it's almost like they are scared of a real discussion about the issues.

[coconut doug]

A good piece, imo, by Paul Mason in today's Guardian on Osborne and his economic shambles.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/14/george-osborne-recovery-danger-jeremy-corbyn-britain-cheap-imports-zero-hours-contracts-budget

It is.

 

Eternal debt is good for bankers though. A Tory government full of zealots, as we have now, will make sure it stays that way. A country that does not plan for it's future will always be susceptible to the excesses of capitalism. That I fear is the plan, with banks that are too big to fail and must be rescued with public money. Bankers maintain their socially protected, astronomical salaries and bonuses  whilst the disabled have their benefits reduced. No chance anything much will change though, even if there is another crash, the poor will still have to pay. They've gone too far for Corbynism or anything else to change things, there is no way back for the U.K. IMO obviously.

[aussieh]

Does that not just tell you that a large number of Scottish residents - the ones who live here and pay taxes etc etc - are quite happy to be part of a United Kingdom, for all it's faults, and perhaps did not see tangible benefits in Independence beyond the emotional argument?

 

Is that such a bad thing?

I suppose so, nooks.

But I don't need to be happy about it.

[aussieh]

Funny how the unionists on this thread constantly reply to aussieh but ignore the numerous other Yes posters making good points, it's almost like they are scared of a real discussion about the issues.

Whit you trying to say, Al?.

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

What, then, would they have had to do come Independence Day? Borrow to make up the missing billions?

 

The UK government is still borrowing billions each and every month, and that's with Scotland still part of the UK.

If Scotland had gained Independence do you think the Westminster Government would have to borrow less each month or more each month?

[coconut doug]

What, then, would they have had to do come Independence Day? Borrow to make up the missing billions?

These are U.K. debts not Scotland's. On independence day we are a different entity and if we have no former U.K. assets then we accept no debt. We would not have to borrow to make up missing billions because we would not be doing things the same way. No Trident, no PFI, no costly wars, rising oil prices, more than 50% electricity from renewables, noTTIP, stronger relationships with other countries allowing us to develop trade and Tourism.

 

 What is the U.k. going to do after the next crash when a sizeable chunk of the city relocates to Frankfurt, Singapore and Shanghai? How are they going to protect their steel industry from dumping.? How are they going to maintain trade with the EU if they are not members? What will they do with the hundreds of thousands of ex pats that may return? How are they going to generate electricity at competitive rates if they cannot rely on the French to provide it? Will the lights go out? How are they going to maintain their oversized armed forces when around 10% of U.K. revenue stops?

[Thunderstruck]

These are U.K. debts not Scotland's. On independence day we are a different entity and if we have no former U.K. assets then we accept no debt. We would not have to borrow to make up missing billions because we would not be doing things the same way. No Trident, no PFI, no costly wars, rising oil prices, more than 50% electricity from renewables, noTTIP, stronger relationships with other countries allowing us to develop trade and Tourism.

 

What is the U.k. going to do after the next crash when a sizeable chunk of the city relocates to Frankfurt, Singapore and Shanghai? How are they going to protect their steel industry from dumping.? How are they going to maintain trade with the EU if they are not members? What will they do with the hundreds of thousands of ex pats that may return? How are they going to generate electricity at competitive rates if they cannot rely on the French to provide it? Will the lights go out? How are they going to maintain their oversized armed forces when around 10% of U.K. revenue stops?

I don't know if (again) you deliberately misinterpret what was said. No mention made of UK Debt but you snap at the opportunity to deflect.

 

The current Scottish deficit (I'm assuming you understand the distinction between debt and deficit) between revenue and expenditure is ?15bn. That can be addressed by increasing tax or reducing spending (aka Austerity).

 

Would you prefer that Scotland nanaged the deficit by borrowing?

[coconut doug]

I don't know if (again) you deliberately misinterpret what was said. No mention made of UK Debt but you snap at the opportunity to deflect.

 

The current Scottish deficit (I'm assuming you understand the distinction between debt and deficit) between revenue and expenditure is ?15bn. That can be addressed by increasing tax or reducing spending (aka Austerity).

 

Would you prefer that Scotland nanaged the deficit by borrowing?

Not snapping at anything the expenditure/revenue of the Scottish government is balanced and so there is no debt to pay off or deficit to address. As I understand it the ?15billion you speak of is not attributable to anybody other than the U.K. government. Scotland will not be the same as the U.K and so will not have the same deficit, proportional or otherwise if and when it becomes independent.  

 

Are you saying that this mechanism now exists within the scope of the new powers? Are you saying that we can avoid our share of U.K. debt by cutting expenditure and or raising taxes? Are you saying that we have a responsibility to pay off debts accrued in years before we got enhanced powers?

[Nookie Bear]

I suppose so, nooks.

But I don't need to be happy about it.

I'd be worried for you if you were.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Not snapping at anything the expenditure/revenue of the Scottish government is balanced and so there is no debt to pay off or deficit to address. As I understand it the ?15billion you speak of is not attributable to anybody other than the U.K. government. Scotland will not be the same as the U.K and so will not have the same deficit, proportional or otherwise if and when it becomes independent.

 

Are you saying that this mechanism now exists within the scope of the new powers? Are you saying that we can avoid our share of U.K. debt by cutting expenditure and or raising taxes? Are you saying that we have a responsibility to pay off debts accrued in years before we got enhanced powers?

Um, if Scotland was independent tomorrow it would have a ?15bn deficit. That's assuming proportionality from UK assets and public services (e.g. defence).

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Not snapping at anything the expenditure/revenue of the Scottish government is balanced and so there is no debt to pay off or deficit to address. As I understand it the ?15billion you speak of is not attributable to anybody other than the U.K. government. Scotland will not be the same as the U.K and so will not have the same deficit, proportional or otherwise if and when it becomes independent.

 

Are you saying that this mechanism now exists within the scope of the new powers? Are you saying that we can avoid our share of U.K. debt by cutting expenditure and or raising taxes? Are you saying that we have a responsibility to pay off debts accrued in years before we got enhanced powers?

Presumably then all the hospitals, schools and other things paid for by UK tax transfer south. Or Scotland pays to acquire everyone of them? If you're not taking any UK assets

[aussieh]

Um, if Scotland was independent tomorrow it would have a ?15bn deficit. That's assuming proportionality from UK assets and public services (e.g. defence).

I thought we weren't getting the pound. So how do we have a ?15b deficit.

[aussieh]

Presumably then all the hospitals, schools and other things paid for by UK tax transfer south. Or Scotland pays to acquire everyone of them? If you're not taking any UK assets

Scottish government pays for these.

[IronJambo]

I thought we weren't getting the pound. So how do we have a ?15b deficit.

So Scotland would just default? Scotland wouldn't get a currency union, and they wouldn't be debt free. The British tax payer won't accept responsibility for Scotland if they're independent. It would be sink or swim.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I thought we weren't getting the pound. So how do we have a ?15b deficit.

If you change the currency to zibzabs you'll still have a deficit!

[Trapper John McIntyre]

Funny how the unionists on this thread constantly reply to aussieh but ignore the numerous other Yes posters making good points, it's almost like they are scared of a real discussion about the issues.

 

 Enjoy being constantly wrong, do you?

[aussieh]

If you change the currency to zibzabs you'll still have a deficit!

Maybe or maybe not.

[coconut doug]

Presumably then all the hospitals, schools and other things paid for by UK tax transfer south. Or Scotland pays to acquire everyone of them? If you're not taking any UK assets

Has to be negotiated. Assets and debt. Recent bunch of hospitals and schools mostly PFI contracts and not public money. Onerous contracts a lot of them - would we want them? Huge amounts of inappropriate expenditure on aircraft carriers, Trident, Hs2, Crossrail etc. Can Scotland be held liable for these?

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Scottish government pays for these.

Did it pay to build them?

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Has to be negotiated. Assets and debt. Recent bunch of hospitals and schools mostly PFI contracts and not public money. Onerous contracts a lot of them - would we want them? Huge amounts of inappropriate expenditure on aircraft carriers, Trident, Hs2, Crossrail etc. Can Scotland be held liable for these?

You said you were taking no debt. But you want to negotiate some assets?

[coconut doug]

You said you were taking no debt. But you want to negotiate some assets?

When and where did I say this?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Maybe or maybe not.

If expenditure > revenue then deficit

[AlphonseCapone]

Whit you trying to say, Al?.

 

Just that your posts are more succinct

[AlphonseCapone]

Enjoy being constantly wrong, do you?

I'll let you know if it ever happens.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

When and where did I say this?

You said none of the debt was attributable because it belongs to the UK and Scotland would be a separate entity.

[JamboX2]

So you say, but you didn't want independence then and you don't want it now.

 

STV would be the favoured option of any Lab/Lib/Con voter at the moment. I personally like the current system, even with the element of FPTP, like I said it has produced a pretty fair reflection of the wishes of the electorate so far.

I'm not really bothered about the constitutional position of what Scotland is. At the end of the referendum campaign in 2014, why not? I think since then and with all that has happened the Union is the best bet for now. I'm not a fundamentalist on the nationhood of Scotland.

 

I've been in favour of electoral reform for some time. Results haven't dampened my view of that. It's based on a belief that every vote should count. Last year Scotland returned MPs 90% of whom were of one party on 50% of the vote. That's not a fair result. Yes AMS is a fairer system, however, I think if you want a more democratic and representative political class then a better system which produces that is needed.

 

STV or a national list produces that. I just think politics and politicians work better for the people when people see a representative parliament reflecting their different views and opinions as accurately as possible. It keeps government on its toes and makes parliament work better. A homogenous parliament of makes government relaxed, arrogant and uninspired. Looked to Westminster for that.

 

This goes beyond my preferences of party.

[JamboX2]

I wasn't saying that. As electoral systems go, Holyrood's IS better than Westminster's, IMO. It was simply a comparison.

 

I'd be tempted for the Party List system, as Mr Dundas has pointed out STV's flaws.

 

No harm in wanting reform of all aspects of our "democracy"!

I think the list lacks the plurality of choice, regardless of its plurality of outcome. After all we all have preferences and all like policies of others. An ability for your vote to be based on preferences and to be spread and those all count is key to the change I'd prefer.

 

But it goes further than that, I think constituencies as they are drag on local democracies. Local MSPs and MPs bound to an area like Edinburgh West or Aberdeen North, become the focus of local politics rather than their local councillors, who should be the focus at a local level.

 

In effect, my belief is a more proportional politics, with the erosion of traditional seats forces national politicians (MSPs and MPs) to become focused on the national legislation and issues and forces people to engage with councillors and democracy more and more. That can only be good. Why should MSPs be overly concerned with bin collections?

 

Politics isn't working for people because the people's representatives stray into each other's spheres of influence. From MSPs petitioning councils on issues councillors should petition on to Swonney demanding councils spend money and set taxes as he sees fit.

[coconut doug]

You said none of the debt was attributable because it belongs to the UK and Scotland would be a separate entity.

O.K. That statement relates to the current ?15billion figure. That figure is a part of the U.K. deficit and not directly attributable to Scotland. In most previous years the amount of deficit attributable to Scotland using the same measure has been proportionately less than that of the U.K. Scotland would be responsible for a proportion of U.K. debt if it became independent but cannot be held responsible for the bad years only.

 The ?15billion is a nominal figure only, as far as Scotland is concerned. Presently debt obligations rest with the U.K. treasury. In the event of independence Scotland would have a debt obligation proportional to it's size in the U.K. and a deficit commensurate with the conditions prevailing at the time of independence. Presumably there would be some time to prepare and adjustments could be made. 

 

I made my comments in response to Thunderstruck saying this  of the ?15billion figure "That can be addressed by increasing tax or reducing spending (aka Austerity)." I don't believe it can. There is no mechanism or ability for Scotland to pay back  such a huge sum calculated in a less than circumspect manner. Neither is there any obligation to do so. It is only a strawman argument designed once again to belittle Scotland's capabilities.

 

 At no time did I say what you accuse me of saying  "You said you were taking no debt. But you want to negotiate some assets?"

         

I did of course say that the debt was attributable to the U.K. Scotland is part of the U.K. All independence supporters want is a fair and amicable agreement based on truthful and accurate information..

[Hasselhoff]

Has to be negotiated. Assets and debt. Recent bunch of hospitals and schools mostly PFI contracts and not public money. Onerous contracts a lot of them - would we want them? Huge amounts of inappropriate expenditure on aircraft carriers, Trident, Hs2, Crossrail etc. Can Scotland be held liable for these?

Have a read of this. We pay hardly any money at all for those infrastructure projects in Scotland

 

https://whytepaper.wordpress.com/2015/09/13/meme-busting-wings-over-scotland-infrastructure-spending/

[JamboX2]

Yes and No,

 

John Swinney and Nicola Sturgeon got us the Smith Commission deal, as the Government tried to water it down to keep their MP's happy in the south, but the SNP stood their ground against the Conservative Government.

 

The SNP wanted more from Smith because the of the 56 MP's that they got elected at the Westminster's Election.

The first draft was always a draft. Not a set commitment. Parliamentary democracy doesn't work the way the SNP painted over that. Yes their pressure amended legislation, but so did the pressure from Labour who provided a bulk of whipped votes in favour of Scotland getting more powers. As did Liberal votes and pressure from Davidson. It was a joint effort.

 

As for promises kept or not kept from 2007, the electorate of Scotland had a chance to vote on the SNP record at last years election and give the SNP a bloody nose, but they didn't and give the SNP a historical win in Scotland with 56 Westminster SNP MP's elected.

Equally 2011. Don't get me wrong, your points are well taken. People are happy with the SNP enough to give them that support. But popularity isn't an answer to the failings of government.

 

I'd argue part of the SNP success is down to being strong on rhetoric and covering failings with blame. It's shifting perspective onto others for the failings and misses. It's not new and it's not just them to have deployed it. But that and an overt painting of their opponents as less Scottish has helped cover their position.

[systemx]

If aussie lived in America he'd be voting for Trump!

Ignorant Nationalism is the same everywhere(always look for someone else to blame For Trump foreigners women and anybody that doesnt vote the same as they do)For SNP The English and anybody who doesnt vote the way they do.

I,m probably going to get lynched for Talking Down Scotland

[Thunderstruck]

Have a read of this. We pay hardly any money at all for those infrastructure projects in Scotland

 

https://whytepaper.wordpress.com/2015/09/13/meme-busting-wings-over-scotland-infrastructure-spending/

This is also interesting, particularly for those who are interested to find out what replaced PPP/PFI. It's a bit like a "spot the difference" competition.

 

http://www.scottishfuturestrust.org.uk/files/publications/Standard_Project_Agreement_-_NPD_Model_-_Users_Guide.doc

[Thunderstruck]

I made my comments in response to Thunderstruck saying this of the ?15billion figure "That can be addressed by increasing tax or reducing spending (aka Austerity)." I don't believe it can. There is no mechanism or ability for Scotland to pay back such a huge sum calculated in a less than circumspect manner. Neither is there any obligation to do so. It is only a strawman argument designed once again to belittle Scotland's capabilities.

 

.

It is calculated on the basis of the Scottish Government's own income and expenditure figures. It is no fabrication.

 

In reality, the difference is made good by UK Government but that wasn't the point. The point was that next weekend we would have been having the Indy Ceremony and, all other things being equal, we would then be facing hard decisions about raising tax or cutting spending (or borrowing).

 

Debt is an entirely different question. It is circa ?1.5tn and, assuming the 8.5% apportionment ratio in regular use, Scotland would be getting ?128bn block of loans to service. It can probably be assumed that the ratio of ownership of the debt would be the same and that a proportion of the money lent to other countries would also transfer.

 

I assume it to be understood that all of the debt is not owed to a guy called Vinnie who calls regularly with his "enforcers" and that the vast majority of that debt is owed to internal lenders such as Bank of England, Pension Funds, UK Banks and individual savers and investors. The proportion of debt owed to overseas lenders (eg, the US) is almost matched by debt they owe to UK.

[JamboX2]

If only the Deputy First Minister was so bold: https://www.holyrood.com/articles/comment/speech-never-was-kenneth-gibson-msp-radical-reform-local-government-and-health

 

That's what Scotland's parliament should be doing. That's what Labour and the Liberals and Greens should be proposing. It's what the SNP should be concerning themselves with, not indyref2.

[John Findlay]

Christ. Is this thread still going. It's going round in more circles than Kenny Aird.