Even More SNP Nonsense

[jack D and coke]

26 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

Sorry, but that will not do. You cannot go into such a vote without some sort of plan. If these things are unanswerable, no one should contemplate a leap in the dark. 

 

The voters never fell for it in 2014 and Brexit shows us what happened when people get gulled into voting for spurious notions. 

Really? I just think it shows the English to have some balls whereas we’re a bunch of shitebags. 

[Boris]

37 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

Sorry, but that will not do. You cannot go into such a vote without some sort of plan. If these things are unanswerable, no one should contemplate a leap in the dark. 

 

The voters never fell for it in 2014 and Brexit shows us what happened when people get gulled into voting for spurious notions. 

Spurious if the promise is a land of milk and honey. Not so if folk go in with their eyes open. 

 

Independence and hard times. Stay in post Brexit UK, with Johnson as pm and what? Good Times? Not for me thanks. 

[Unknown user]

34 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

Sorry, but that will not do. You cannot go into such a vote without some sort of plan. If these things are unanswerable, no one should contemplate a leap in the dark. 

 

The voters never fell for it in 2014 and Brexit shows us what happened when people get gulled into voting for spurious notions. 

No need to apologise, it's only a friendly debate online

There have been quite a lot of small countries split from larger arrangements in Europe in the last 25 years, how many of them do you reckon had the level of plan you're demanding?

The problem here isn't that no one will answer your questions, it's that you're asking questions no one can answer then acting as if that's unreasonable and a deal breaker

[jack D and coke]

45 minutes ago, Boris said:

Spurious if the promise is a land of milk and honey. Not so if folk go in with their eyes open. 

 

Independence and hard times. Stay in post Brexit UK, with Johnson as pm and what? Good Times? Not for me thanks. 

Maybe even Davidson?

Can you imagine how much of a kicking she’d have to give us to curry favour with English voters?

[Scnorthedinburgh]

2 hours ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

Exactly!

 

Isn't it strange that some can see all the faults in Brexit but none of the faults for “Scotexit” (or vice versa). Both are pointless and will change life for the better for only a very few. More likely, the dislocation will negatively impact on the majority for a significant period of time. 

 

Anyhow, it’s a moot point. Brexit will be so watered down as to be worthless and another Indyref is becoming less likely by the day. 

 

 

Personally I think the way they solve the Irish border issue in Brexit will drive if there is an Indy 2.

 

Any solution giving NI and advantage dealing with the EU, the fall back proposal. Breaks the devolution act, and that will trigger Indy 2 as Westminster just shafts Scotland to get what rich Torries want.

 

Either way the NI issue will screw Brexit, and it's no deal.

[Pans Jambo]

OK. I will stay in the union if Scotland gets control of all of these:

 

[Thunderstruck]

3 hours ago, Smithee said:

No need to apologise, it's only a friendly debate online

There have been quite a lot of small countries split from larger arrangements in Europe in the last 25 years, how many of them do you reckon had the level of plan you're demanding?

The problem here isn't that no one will answer your questions, it's that you're asking questions no one can answer then acting as if that's unreasonable and a deal breaker

 

I was posing a hypothetical situation where there would be a generation-long period of austerity to test if there is anywhere on a spectrum that our pro-independence posters might reach a point that would make them think that their dream would carry too great a cost. 

 

To date, not one sensible response. I can only surmise that, for many, there is no cost too great. 

 

As for Europe and the breaking of larger arrangements,  “quite a lot” - perhaps but let’s consider the more obvious (maybe you could oblige with details of the others):-

 

Yugoslavia - perhaps not the ideal model to follow. 

 

Czechoslovakia - Often cited as a model

of a peaceful split but we hear less of Meciar and his authoritarian rule of Slovakia in the years following the split. 

 

The Post-Soviet states - again, not really the ideal role model given that they were effectively under Soviet military occupation for many decades.   

 

So what else do we have? Germany which was split and then reunified. A case of split = bad, unity = good, very good indeed.  

 

 

[Boris]

4 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

I was posing a hypothetical situation where there would be a generation-long period of austerity to test if there is anywhere on a spectrum that our pro-independence posters might reach a point that would make them think that their dream would carry too great a cost. 

 

To date, not one sensible response. I can only surmise that, for many, there is no cost too great. 

 

As for Europe and the breaking of larger arrangements,  “quite a lot” - perhaps but let’s consider the more obvious (maybe you could oblige with details of the others):-

 

Yugoslavia - perhaps not the ideal model to follow. 

 

Czechoslovakia - Often cited as a model

of a peaceful split but we hear less of Meciar and his authoritarian rule of Slovakia in the years following the split. 

 

The Post-Soviet states - again, not really the ideal role model given that they were effectively under Soviet military occupation for many decades.   

 

So what else do we have? Germany which was split and then reunified. A case of split = bad, unity = good, very good indeed.  

 

 

All of your examples are based on post soviet style regimes, so not really the best examples to use, however interesting you use Slovakia, but not the Czech Republic.

 

 

Or you could go a wee bit further back. Norway in the early 1900's for example, then Ireland. Or Finland.

 

Scotland would survive and eventually thrive. No one knows how quickly, which is the crux of your point, and I get that.  But at this point in time, with its anachronistic political system, the U.K. Is in serious decline.

[Thunderstruck]

4 hours ago, Boris said:

Spurious if the promise is a land of milk and honey. Not so if folk go in with their eyes open. 

 

Independence and hard times. Stay in post Brexit UK, with Johnson as pm and what? Good Times? Not for me thanks. 

 

What will be opening up those eyes?

 

Independence on top of Brexit - what could possibly go wrong. 

[Thunderstruck]

5 minutes ago, Boris said:

All of your examples are based on post soviet style regimes, so not really the best examples to use, however interesting you use Slovakia, but not the Czech Republic.

 

 

Or you could go a wee bit further back. Norway in the early 1900's for example, then Ireland. Or Finland.

 

Scotland would survive and eventually thrive. No one knows how quickly, which is the crux of your point, and I get that.  But at this point in time, with its anachronistic political system, the U.K. Is in serious decline.

 

The post to which I was responding referred to the past 25 years. 

 

I dont think Ireland is a glowing reference for independence with many decades of relative poverty preceding the “economic miracle” that is based on its Corporation Tax Haven.  The “Troubles” shouldn’t need to be mentioned. 

 

I have made mention before of the rise and fall of the nation state which, in a European context, is a relatively recent successor to Princely and City States. The Economic State is the coming evolution - it is the only way that small countries can survive alongside mega-states such as the US and China. The EU is the best example of this which makes Brexit all the more idiotic. 

 

On a local scale being part of the U.K. makes more sense than sitting alone particularly as much (the huge majority) of our trade and infrastructure is inextricably linked with the rest of the U.K.

 

Yes, Scotland could be independent within the EU but what is the point of recovering powers from London just to hand them to Brussels and to have Greater Glasgow replace London as the economic and political focus. Do the good folks of the capital really want to dance to the Weegie tune?

 

Now watching the Horizon Guide to AI - let’s see if Skynet will render all these discussions moot. 

 

 

 

[Scnorthedinburgh]

11 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

The post to which I was responding referred to the past 25 years. 

 

I dont think Ireland is a glowing reference for independence with many decades of relative poverty preceding the “economic miracle” that is based on its Corporation Tax Haven.  The “Troubles” shouldn’t need to be mentioned. 

 

I have made mention before of the rise and fall of the nation state which, in a European context, is a relatively recent successor to Princely and City States. The Economic State is the coming evolution - it is the only way that small countries can survive alongside mega-states such as the US and China. The EU is the best example of this which makes Brexit all the more idiotic. 

 

On a local scale being part of the U.K. makes more sense than sitting alone particularly as much (the huge majority) of our trade and infrastructure is inextricably linked with the rest of the U.K.

 

Yes, Scotland could be independent within the EU but what is the point of recovering powers from London just to hand them to Brussels and to have Greater Glasgow replace London as the economic and political focus. Do the good folks of the capital really want to dance to the Weegie tune?

 

Now watching the Horizon Guide to AI - let’s see if Skynet will render all these discussions moot. 

 

 

 

I will bite.

 

Check the largest financial trading areas after London and Paris and then edit your Glasgow bit.

[manaliveits105]

Male suicide rates in Scotland 50% higher than rest of UK under SNP watch 

Krankie a bit late in putting cash into mental. health  noo 

[Thunderstruck]

1 hour ago, Scnorthedinburgh said:

I will bite.

 

Check the largest financial trading areas after London and Paris and then edit your Glasgow bit.

 

Check that there is more to the economy than Banking and Finance. 

 

Check where half of the Scottish population (and thereby the political clout) lives. 

 

Then edit your response.

 

Thanks. 

[ri Alban]

7 hours ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

The post to which I was responding referred to the past 25 years. 

 

I dont think Ireland is a glowing reference for independence with many decades of relative poverty preceding the “economic miracle” that is based on its Corporation Tax Haven.  The “Troubles” shouldn’t need to be mentioned. 

 

I have made mention before of the rise and fall of the nation state which, in a European context, is a relatively recent successor to Princely and City States. The Economic State is the coming evolution - it is the only way that small countries can survive alongside mega-states such as the US and China. The EU is the best example of this which makes Brexit all the more idiotic. 

 

On a local scale being part of the U.K. makes more sense than sitting alone particularly as much (the huge majority) of our trade and infrastructure is inextricably linked with the rest of the U.K.

 

Yes, Scotland could be independent within the EU but what is the point of recovering powers from London just to hand them to Brussels and to have Greater Glasgow replace London as the economic and political focus. Do the good folks of the capital really want to dance to the Weegie tune?

 

Now watching the Horizon Guide to AI - let’s see if Skynet will render all these discussions moot. 

 

 

 

Bitcoin might. 

[Ron Burgundy]

9 hours ago, manaliveits105 said:

Male suicide rates in Scotland 50% higher than rest of UK under SNP watch 

Krankie a bit late in putting cash into mental. health  noo 

Failing children with mental health issues as well (figures in todays Metro).

 

 

[Pans Jambo]

10 hours ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

What will be opening up those eyes?

 

Independence on top of Brexit - what could possibly go wrong. 

Correct. We cant be independent because it would be too hard...& we would would miss our mummy in Westminster. Brexit however will be absolutely fine. Thanks tories. 

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

On 04/09/2018 at 00:01, Thunderstruck said:

 

The inconvenient truth is that it was agreed by BOTH sides that the result would stand even if the result was 50% + 1 vote. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/17/scottish-independence-referendum-yes-no-agree-once-in-lifetime-vote

 

Of course it was not in the legislative underpinnings; SIRA 2013 dealt with the electoral process. It was, however, contained in a Scottish Government publication. Granted it is now filed under “Fiction” but see para 557 of the White Paper. 

 

 

 

 

Maybe you think that Sturgeon and Salmond never said it was “Once in a Generation/Lifetime”. 

 

 

I am not sure of the relevance of your distinction between SNP politicians and the Yes Movement. The important point is that another referendum is being pushed by the Scottish Government which now led by the author of the White Paper noted above. 

 

As for the “Vows” - are you suggesting that none of those have been delivered?

The ts and Cs say the current government. There's been an election since then. I don't see what stops Scotland having another referendum. 

[jack D and coke]

1 hour ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

The ts and Cs say the current government. There's been an election since then. I don't see what stops Scotland having another referendum. 

Nothing stops us. They don’t get to tell us what time it is. 

Obviously nobody wants constant uncertainty but if we want another referendum and enough people vote for it then we have one. End of. 

If they do then we have the right to dissolve the union. 

[coconut doug]

11 hours ago, manaliveits105 said:

Male suicide rates in Scotland 50% higher than rest of UK under SNP watch 

Krankie a bit late in putting cash into mental. health  noo 

Here's a quote from the report - Scotland had its lowest suicide rate in 2017 since 1981 and, in recent years, it has seen one of the largest decreases in the male suicide rate

 

Here's a graph to show what has happened over the years. https://www.scotpho.org.uk/health-wellbeing-and-disease/suicide/data/scottish-trends/

 

Do you think the trends in the graph are related to the amount of cash spent on mental health?

 

Almost every performance indicator is showing absolute or relative improvement under the SNP despite austerity. Surely it would then be reasonable to expect further improvements as a result of the recently announced increase in spending in this area.  

[jack D and coke]

See that Richard Leonard is he a wind up?

Is there anybody, anywhere who looks at him and thinks yeah that’s who we need running things up here?

Who gave him the job? I thought Jim Murphy was a tube  

[Seymour M Hersh]

15 hours ago, Pans Jambo said:

OK. I will stay in the union if Scotland gets control of all of these:

 

 

You'll be voting for Brexit then as the EU control the majority of that list.

[Unknown user]

15 hours ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

I was posing a hypothetical situation where there would be a generation-long period of austerity to test if there is anywhere on a spectrum that our pro-independence posters might reach a point that would make them think that their dream would carry too great a cost. 

 

To date, not one sensible response. I can only surmise that, for many, there is no cost too great. 

 

As for Europe and the breaking of larger arrangements,  “quite a lot” - perhaps but let’s consider the more obvious (maybe you could oblige with details of the others):-

 

Yugoslavia - perhaps not the ideal model to follow. 

 

Czechoslovakia - Often cited as a model

of a peaceful split but we hear less of Meciar and his authoritarian rule of Slovakia in the years following the split. 

 

The Post-Soviet states - again, not really the ideal role model given that they were effectively under Soviet military occupation for many decades.   

 

So what else do we have? Germany which was split and then reunified. A case of split = bad, unity = good, very good indeed.  

 

 

You miss the point though, I'm not judging what they did with their independence, what I'm saying is that I can't think of a single independence movement that's had to, or been able to, answer the questions you and other unionists ask of the future in order to justify itself. There's a lot of unknowns, obviously, but that stands for the UK too. No one can read the future and all economic predictions can be poo pooed very easily, but that doesn't mean anything in real terms. After independence a government would be formed and different parties would have different ideas of how to do things, we'd then vote accordingly. It just isn't a case of "the SNP can't answer XYZ therefore independence is a stupid idea"

 

I'm sure I'm not alone in that I would probably never vote for the SNP again after independence so their vision isn't particularly relevant in my opinon, it simply comes down to my belief that Scotland could do a better job of running itself than the westminster and that we'd work it out, like every other country in the world. I've yet to see a convincing argument why we wouldn't be able to run ourselves better than westminster.

[Boris]

7 minutes ago, Smithee said:

You miss the point though, I'm not judging what they did with their independence, what I'm saying is that I can't think of a single independence movement that's had to, or been able to, answer the questions you and other unionists ask of the future in order to justify itself. There's a lot of unknowns, obviously, but that stands for the UK too. No one can read the future and all economic predictions can be poo pooed very easily, but that doesn't mean anything in real terms. After independence a government would be formed and different parties would have different ideas of how to do things, we'd then vote accordingly. It just isn't a case of "the SNP can't answer XYZ therefore independence is a stupid idea"

 

I'm sure I'm not alone in that I would probably never vote for the SNP again after independence so their vision isn't particularly relevant in my opinon, it simply comes down to my belief that Scotland could do a better job of running itself than the westminster and that we'd work it out, like every other country in the world. I've yet to see a convincing argument why we wouldn't be able to run ourselves better than westminster.

 

Great post.

[jack D and coke]

15 minutes ago, Smithee said:

You miss the point though, I'm not judging what they did with their independence, what I'm saying is that I can't think of a single independence movement that's had to, or been able to, answer the questions you and other unionists ask of the future in order to justify itself. There's a lot of unknowns, obviously, but that stands for the UK too. No one can read the future and all economic predictions can be poo pooed very easily, but that doesn't mean anything in real terms. After independence a government would be formed and different parties would have different ideas of how to do things, we'd then vote accordingly. It just isn't a case of "the SNP can't answer XYZ therefore independence is a stupid idea"

 

I'm sure I'm not alone in that I would probably never vote for the SNP again after independence so their vision isn't particularly relevant in my opinon, it simply comes down to my belief that Scotland could do a better job of running itself than the westminster and that we'd work it out, like every other country in the world. I've yet to see a convincing argument why we wouldn't be able to run ourselves better than westminster.

But, but, but what currency would we use  

Kidding mate, good post. 

[Thunderstruck]

6 minutes ago, Smithee said:

You miss the point though, I'm not judging what they did with their independence, what I'm saying is that I can't think of a single independence movement that's had to, or been able to, answer the questions you and other unionists ask of the future in order to justify itself. There's a lot of unknowns, obviously, but that stands for the UK too. No one can read the future and all economic predictions can be poo pooed very easily, but that doesn't mean anything in real terms. After independence a government would be formed and different parties would have different ideas of how to do things, we'd then vote accordingly. It just isn't a case of "the SNP can't answer XYZ therefore independence is a stupid idea"

 

I'm sure I'm not alone in that I would probably never vote for the SNP again after independence so their vision isn't particularly relevant in my opinon, it simply comes down to my belief that Scotland could do a better job of running itself than the westminster and that we'd work it out, like every other country in the world. I've yet to see a convincing argument why we wouldn't be able to run ourselves better than westminster.

 

So, there appears not to be “quite a lot of small countries that have split from larger arrangements in the past 25 years” that meet your definition of an unplanned separation. In fact, there really aren’t that many splits outside the liberation of Post-Soviet States and the FRY schism. 

 

It, therefore, isn’t a surprise that you have trouble recalling planning or lack of it in similar circumstances to that proposed for Scotland.  

 

The rest of your post is idealistic but ideals don’t keep people in jobs, keep a lid on taxes, maintain public spending/services, work out trade arrangements or manage the myriad variables that affect an economy. 

 

I suppose the beauty of not having a plan is that nobody can tear it to shreds but, absent a plan and turning to the hypothetical example, is there any set of circumstances which would make you say “no thanks” to independence?

 

Good luck selling your unplanned independence to the voters. 

 

 

 

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

3 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

Nothing stops us. They don’t get to tell us what time it is. 

Obviously nobody wants constant uncertainty but if we want another referendum and enough people vote for it then we have one. End of. 

If they do then we have the right to dissolve the union. 

Correct. Westminster is powerless to stop Scotland having a referendum whenever they want. 

 

Scotland has held its side of the bargain. 

[Unknown user]

44 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

So, there appears not to be “quite a lot of small countries that have split from larger arrangements in the past 25 years” that meet your definition of an unplanned separation. In fact, there really aren’t that many splits outside the liberation of Post-Soviet States and the FRY schism. 

 

It, therefore, isn’t a surprise that you have trouble recalling planning or lack of it in similar circumstances to that proposed for Scotland.  

 

The rest of your post is idealistic but ideals don’t keep people in jobs, keep a lid on taxes, maintain public spending/services, work out trade arrangements or manage the myriad variables that affect an economy. 

 

I suppose the beauty of not having a plan is that nobody can tear it to shreds but, absent a plan and turning to the hypothetical example, is there any set of circumstances which would make you say “no thanks” to independence?

 

Good luck selling your unplanned independence to the voters. 

 

 

 

That's some fairly flawed logic, you certainly haven't shown a single example which would have met the expectations you have of the snp.

 

But it's all a dance to move away from the main point anyway, the single premise that scots could run Scotland better than an anglo centric Westminster.

 

Re your question, it's an irrelevant one - no one can possibly know for sure what will happen on any level after independence. Experts, politicians, everyone guesses, but the markets do what they do and you have to react to situations. So there's no way anyone could 100% say "this disastrous effect will definitely happen as a result of independence, will that stop you?" 

It's another unanswerable question set up as if it's a show stopper. 

[The Real Maroonblood]

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

You miss the point though, I'm not judging what they did with their independence, what I'm saying is that I can't think of a single independence movement that's had to, or been able to, answer the questions you and other unionists ask of the future in order to justify itself. There's a lot of unknowns, obviously, but that stands for the UK too. No one can read the future and all economic predictions can be poo pooed very easily, but that doesn't mean anything in real terms. After independence a government would be formed and different parties would have different ideas of how to do things, we'd then vote accordingly. It just isn't a case of "the SNP can't answer XYZ therefore independence is a stupid idea"

 

I'm sure I'm not alone in that I would probably never vote for the SNP again after independence so their vision isn't particularly relevant in my opinon, it simply comes down to my belief that Scotland could do a better job of running itself than the westminster and that we'd work it out, like every other country in the world. I've yet to see a convincing argument why we wouldn't be able to run ourselves better than westminster.

Very good post.

[Pans Jambo]

2 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

You'll be voting for Brexit then as the EU control the majority of that list.

Do they indeed?

 

Which ones?

[Thunderstruck]

13 minutes ago, Smithee said:

That's some fairly flawed logic, you certainly haven't shown a single example which would have met the expectations you have of the snp.

 

But it's all a dance to move away from the main point anyway, the single premise that scots could run Scotland better than an anglo centric Westminster.

 

Re your question, it's an irrelevant one - no one can possibly know for sure what will happen on any level after independence. Experts, politicians, everyone guesses, but the markets do what they do and you have to react to situations. So there's no way anyone could 100% say "this disastrous effect will definitely happen as a result of independence, will that stop you?" 

It's another unanswerable question set up as if it's a show stopper. 

 

If anything is flawed, it’s your original assertion. You made a sweeping statement which has, on examination, shown up one example which, if you do some reading, you will find to be a poor comparison. 

 

Lack of a proper plan - Catalonia, Scotland for 2014, Brexit. 

 

I am not asking you to predict the economic circumstances, I am merely asking if there might be circumstances which, if shown would follow independence, would make YOU say “no, that’s too high a cost”. 

 

The silence on this from the more ardent nationalists speaks volumes and, if it wasn’t so sad, would make their anti-Tory rhetoric all the more amusing. 

[Unknown user]

22 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

If anything is flawed, it’s your original assertion. You made a sweeping statement which has, on examination, shown up one example which, if you do some reading, you will find to be a poor comparison. 

 

Lack of a proper plan - Catalonia, Scotland for 2014, Brexit. 

 

I am not asking you to predict the economic circumstances, I am merely asking if there might be circumstances which, if shown would follow independence, would make YOU say “no, that’s too high a cost”. 

 

The silence on this from the more ardent nationalists speaks volumes and, if it wasn’t so sad, would make their anti-Tory rhetoric all the more amusing. 

What you've done is latch on to a throwaway comment and created doubt about it, when it was used for illustration purposes only. If you care to share what you've read re. the level of planning individual parties did before independence was even up for a vote in these countries I'll digest and get back to you on whether they meet your expectations of the SNP.

The fact remains that you (by which I mean the unionist cause really) ask impossible to answer questions, and the cause for independence isn't damaged by not being able to answer them.

 

Sure there are prices that would be too much to pay in my opinion, but as no one can tell the future it's a bit academic and pointless to get too into it. I return to my main stance - we could run this place better than Westminster. Why do you think we couldn't?

[jambo lodge]

SNP Government were well warned that by raising taxes in Scotland for the highest earners they ran the risk of people moving their tax jurisdiction elsewhere within the UK. The reality is that the Government are now short by £506m in tax take from the first year of operation. Either estimates were wrong or some people have chosen to relocate for tax purposes. 

[Seymour M Hersh]

2 hours ago, Pans Jambo said:

Do they indeed?

 

Which ones?

 

Google is your friend for this. Not me.

[Thunderstruck]

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

What you've done is latch on to a throwaway comment and created doubt about it, when it was used for illustration purposes only. If you care to share what you've read re. the level of planning individual parties did before independence was even up for a vote in these countries I'll digest and get back to you on whether they meet your expectations of the SNP.

The fact remains that you (by which I mean the unionist cause really) ask impossible to answer questions, and the cause for independence isn't damaged by not being able to answer them.

 

Sure there are prices that would be too much to pay in my opinion, but as no one can tell the future it's a bit academic and pointless to get too into it. I return to my main stance - we could run this place better than Westminster. Why do you think we couldn't?

 

It’s a remark that has been thrown away quite a few times in recent years but what, exactly, was the remark highlighting?

 

The Czechoslovak split is worth some of you time to see what actually happened. Suffice to say there was no referendum and 25 years later the majority of Czechs and Slovaks continue to think the split was a mistake. 

 

For the record, Scotland could run its own affairs but nobody has yet explained how that end could be achieved, the cost of the transition or the duration of the transition. In fact, the more these questions are asked, the greater the level of antipathy; it’s almost like it’s a raw nerve. 

 

The answer is not independence, it is a federal U.K. which retains the current economies of scale for such as defence, energy, transport and currency alongside local accountability and decision making. It is curious, perhaps ironic, that England is making good progress towards this while the centralising SNP Government steers a reciprocal course. 

 

 

[Pans Jambo]

46 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Google is your friend for this. Not me.

Aye OK. Clearly states “HM Govt Reserved Matters” NOT EU controlled matters. 

Social Security

Pensions

Electricity

Oil & Gas

Defence

Broadcasting

Child Support

Etc

Etc

Etc

Westminster NOT EU

 

[Seymour M Hersh]

27 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

Aye OK. Clearly states “HM Govt Reserved Matters” NOT EU controlled matters. 

Social Security

Pensions

Electricity

Oil & Gas

Defence

Broadcasting

Child Support

Etc

Etc

Etc

Westminster NOT EU

 

Does European Law Override National Law?

Yes it does.
Is this stated in the Lisbon Treaty? Yes
Is this anything new? No

[ri Alban]

6 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

You'll be voting for Brexit then as the EU control the majority of that list.

Name them? 

[ri Alban]

On 04/09/2018 at 17:19, jack D and coke said:

Really? I just think it shows the English to have some balls whereas we’re a bunch of shitebags. 

No we were out voted by foreign visitors and traitors. 

[Pans Jambo]

38 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

Does European Law Override National Law?

Yes it does.
Is this stated in the Lisbon Treaty? Yes
Is this anything new? No

In the instance on reserved matters, Scots have had their own legal system for centuries. 

Your point is well, pointless. 

[michael_bolton]

4 hours ago, jambo lodge said:

SNP Government were well warned that by raising taxes in Scotland for the highest earners they ran the risk of people moving their tax jurisdiction elsewhere within the UK. The reality is that the Government are now short by £506m in tax take from the first year of operation. Either estimates were wrong or some people have chosen to relocate for tax purposes. 

 

While an element of pragmatism is required, I think you should really save your criticism for those who are morally bankrupt enough to go out of their way to avoid contributing to society by paying appropriate levels of taxation, rather than for a government that is simply asking for a contribution from those who have most.

 

Worth considering that many of those high earners will have been privately educated. Did you know that private schools are considered 'charities' and therefore basically subsidised by the taxpayer at large? Interesting.

 

Many of these high earners will also choose to live in Scotland because it is a safe country with the rule of law, infrastructure and economy provided to allow people to become wealthy. You're welcome.

 

Despite being provided with these things, these high earners see fit to squirrel their money away dishonestly to avoid paying their due into the pot. They are, essentially, scum. To criticise the government rather than these thieves is poor form.

 

I wouldn't consider myself left wing, as a rule, but people who avoid paying their due in tax, and I include inheritance tax in this, are the lowest of the low.

Edited September 5, 2018 by michael_bolton

[Seymour M Hersh]

2 hours ago, Pans Jambo said:

In the instance on reserved matters, Scots have had their own legal system for centuries. 

Your point is well, pointless. 

 

And you clearly do not understand the all pervasive reach of the EU. 

[Pans Jambo]

Just now, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

And you clearly do not understand the all pervasive reach of the EU. 

I do but you suggested that the list I posted was the powers the EU have. I’m saying theyre Westminsters. 

So I ask again, what powers on that list would be transferred to the EU in the event of Scotland becoming independent? 

 

Ken what, dinny bother. Same auld shite. We can leave the EU but not May’s bosom. 

Wesminster Good. Scotland, an international irrelevance that will never amount to much without mummy & daddy south of the border. 

 

Thats about right eh?

[Unknown user]

5 hours ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

It’s a remark that has been thrown away quite a few times in recent years but what, exactly, was the remark highlighting?

 

The Czechoslovak split is worth some of you time to see what actually happened. Suffice to say there was no referendum and 25 years later the majority of Czechs and Slovaks continue to think the split was a mistake. 

 

For the record, Scotland could run its own affairs but nobody has yet explained how that end could be achieved, the cost of the transition or the duration of the transition. In fact, the more these questions are asked, the greater the level of antipathy; it’s almost like it’s a raw nerve. 

 

The answer is not independence, it is a federal U.K. which retains the current economies of scale for such as defence, energy, transport and currency alongside local accountability and decision making. It is curious, perhaps ironic, that England is making good progress towards this while the centralising SNP Government steers a reciprocal course. 

 

 

It really isn't, you're acting as if I said something else altogether. I wasn't talking about whether they made good moves or bad, whether this split worked and that one didn't, only that not one of them was able to answer the questions you ask honestly and accurately way before the decision was even made to split. My point was simply that no one was held to the standards you hold the Scottish independence movement to.

I'll say again, no one CAN accurately predict what would happen in a way that would satisfy you - that isn't a failure of the case for independence, it's the way it is when a democratic vote and market forces would be the deciding factors in what happens. 

I do find the federal argument interesting but I've yet to be fully convinced it moves us far enough away from the Westminster machine and gives us enough power.

 

By the way, I spent a fair few years working in international office environments in Amsterdam, call centres for multiple countries, euro headquarters for big conglomerates, that kind of thing. I've met quite a few Czechs, a couple are still good mates, and I even have a few distantly related on my dead Czech grandad's side - I've never heard a one say they thought the split was a mistake, in fact they're all very proud czechs.

 

Do you have a source for saying the majority reckon it was a mistake?

Edited September 5, 2018 by Smithee

[redjambo]

6 hours ago, Thunderstruck said:

The Czechoslovak split is worth some of you time to see what actually happened. Suffice to say there was no referendum and 25 years later the majority of Czechs and Slovaks continue to think the split was a mistake.

 

 

Oh really?

 

https://news.expats.cz/czech-culture/czech-slovak-relations/

 

If you have your own data to support your claim then please produce it.

[Thunderstruck]

26 minutes ago, Smithee said:

It really isn't, you're acting as if I said something else altogether. I wasn't talking about whether they made good moves or bad, whether this split worked and that one didn't, only that not one of them was able to answer the questions you ask honestly and accurately way before the decision was even made to split. My point was simply that no one was held to the standards you hold the Scottish independence movement to.

I'll say again, no one CAN accurately predict what would happen in a way that would satisfy you - that isn't a failure of the case for independence, it's the way it is when a democratic vote and market forces would be the deciding factors in what happens. 

I do find the federal argument interesting but I've yet to be fully convinced it moves us far enough away from the Westminster machine and gives us enough power.

 

By the way, I spent a fair few years working in international office environments in Amsterdam, call centres for multiple countries, euro headquarters for big conglomerates, that kind of thing. I've met quite a few Czechs, a couple are still good mates, and I even have a few distantly related on my dead Czech grandad's side - I've never heard a one say they thought the split was a mistake, in fact they're all very proud czechs.

 

Do you have a source for saying the majority reckon it was a mistake?

 

If we go back to your original comment, you suggested that quite a lot of countries split from larger arrangements in the past 25 years and none of them were asked to answer the sort of questions being asked of Scottish Nationalists prior to referendums. Clearly, a suggestion that there should be no need for such questions to be answered in Scotland. 

 

You are now suggesting that “not one of them was held to the standards you hold the Scottish independence movement to”.

 

Well, how could they have been since not a single country has been identified that split as the direct result of a single issue vote. 

 

Your are in a hole and keep on digging away at this. Step away, it’s pointless - you made a mistake, it happens. 

 

The Czech polls from last year -

http://www.praguemonitor.com/2017/12/05/poll-slovaks-czechs-divided-czechoslovakias-split

[Thunderstruck]

12 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Oh really?

 

https://news.expats.cz/czech-culture/czech-slovak-relations/

 

If you have your own data to support your claim then please produce it.

 

See my response above. 

 

[redjambo]

2 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

See my response above. 

 

 

Bloody hell, the stats in that article are all over the place.

 

"Some 42 percent of Czechs and 40 percent of Slovaks agree with Czechoslovakia's division on January 1, 1993"

 

"The 1993 establishment of the independent Czech Republic and Slovakia was given a positive rating by 53 percent of Czechs and 51 percent of Slovaks."

 

???

 

Also: "However, roughly two-thirds of both Czechs and Slovaks are of the view that the split without a referendum was wrong." - this appears to mean that 2/3 believe that it shouldn't have taken place, not that they are unhappy with the situation as it is at the moment. Or perhaps they thought that the split without a referendum was wrong, not necessarily that the split itself was wrong. Who knows? The translation into English has not done this topic any favours at all.

 

Given that you're knowledgeable on the subject, can you get your hands on the actual results of the polls referred to in the article (in the original languages preferably) so that we can try and make sense of them?

[Unknown user]

25 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

If we go back to your original comment, you suggested that quite a lot of countries split from larger arrangements in the past 25 years and none of them were asked to answer the sort of questions being asked of Scottish Nationalists prior to referendums. Clearly, a suggestion that there should be no need for such questions to be answered in Scotland. 

 

You are now suggesting that “not one of them was held to the standards you hold the Scottish independence movement to”.

 

Well, how could they have been since not a single country has been identified that split as the direct result of a single issue vote. 

 

Your are in a hole and keep on digging away at this. Step away, it’s pointless - you made a mistake, it happens. 

 

The Czech polls from last year -

http://www.praguemonitor.com/2017/12/05/poll-slovaks-czechs-divided-czechoslovakias-split

Honestly, I don't know what hole you think I'm digging, my only point was that you hold the Scottish nationalist movement to a standard that can't be met and has never been expected from anyone else.

As to your link, I'd be interested in the source if you have it as my personal experience is very different. I also note the article says a majority thought the split without a referendum was wrong, and that actually a small majority approve overall. No source for the figures is attributed though, which would be handy as that article's a bit of a mess.

 

[Seymour M Hersh]

8 hours ago, Pans Jambo said:

I do but you suggested that the list I posted was the powers the EU have. I’m saying theyre Westminsters. 

So I ask again, what powers on that list would be transferred to the EU in the event of Scotland becoming independent? 

 

Ken what, dinny bother. Same auld shite. We can leave the EU but not May’s bosom. 

Wesminster Good. Scotland, an international irrelevance that will never amount to much without mummy & daddy south of the border. 

 

Thats about right eh?

 

You're off your head.  But carry on looking up anti tory guff on the internet regardless of veracity and posting them on here as if they mean something. You're taking over from legions and niblick for conspiracies! 

[ri Alban]

15 hours ago, jambo lodge said:

SNP Government were well warned that by raising taxes in Scotland for the highest earners they ran the risk of people moving their tax jurisdiction elsewhere within the UK. The reality is that the Government are now short by £506m in tax take from the first year of operation. Either estimates were wrong or some people have chosen to relocate for tax purposes. 

 

 

These figure are from 2016/17, the new tax rate was introduced in April 2018.