Even More SNP Nonsense

[Roxy Hearts]

Fed up too with dumbed down Brexit. Get on with it uk gov! 

 

JX2 you're a well informed poster but it pains me to read your Labour misgivings and their pathetic attempts to be something nobody can understand despite the assistance of the media, especially the bbc! 

 

The SNP have their faults but they at least try to put Scotland first. IMO. 

 

I know we don't trust politicians, thanks to Westminster, but I wish people would think with their gut instead of their head if you know what I mean. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Space Mackerel]

On 14/04/2018 at 20:24, WeeChuck'sHeed said:

I don't think Scotland could make it as a country TBH.

 

We have no infrastructure for it.

How would we finance it? 

Oil rich countries with plenty or natural resources such as water, gas and wind often struggle. Not to mention the burden of the tourism, farming,  forestry and the  Gin/ Whiskey trade put on us. How can we cope?

Countries with such burdens are failing all the time and wanting to merge with their bigger Neighbours. Even country's that don't have these burdens  are always asking to come back.

 

I think every country that has left the "empire" has begged several times to re join, Ireland are well known to be banging at the door, The Czech's are just asking for another German Invasion and the Poles are spoilt for choice between becoming part of Russia or Germany- Spoilt they are. Russia is always getting begged back to take back it's former territories and Norway just want Sweden and Denmark to join them do they can become the United Kingdom of Scandavia then get told by Russia what to do.

 

Not only that, who wants a fair state pension in line with the rest of the developed world and free health care funded through a fair tax system, that shit just keeps the old and poor alive- Middle class and rich folk never use the NHS or council services. Waste of money. No middle class folk every get any Health issues. 

 

Much better to throw money away to Monarchs, political Bribes, tax breaks and bailing out private companies and banks and of course bombing other countries back to the 1800's. 

 

And the EU is for nancy's- who wants free movement , peace and a general ethos of working together, the 1900's - 1950's then the cold war was much more fun.  Don't get me started on holiday leave, maternity leave, discrimination acts, working hours regulations and all that stuff, it's for poncies- Who need human rights, again that just keeps the poor, old and disabled alive as well as these jumped up women in suits along with the Gays. Much better when Children worked at 9 years old, women couldn't work and miners and factory workers were dieing while working. The good ol' days If I remember correctly.

 

And the best part of all, who wants the folk of Scotland to decide the future of their own country, no matter what it is- we are far too stupid for that, it's much better being told what to do. Takes another hassle of our hands just like what to do with our resources and people, why think for yourself when you can simple be told what to do. It's the 

 

 

 

 

 

Brilliant! 

[Boris]

1 hour ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Indeed. But how do you agree a framework before a deal?

So the framework is dependent on the Brexit deal? That sounds fair! 

[Space Mackerel]

7 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

The Tories said that. Not all opposition parties. For some it didn't go far enough! 

 

Those changes were passed. But let's not argue the SNP are purveyors of all the good things in Scottish politics at present.

 

It's a very powerful body. To argue otherwise just doesn't stand up and belittles Scotland's democratic process. 

 

No need to jump off with that - I left the party fwiw. Go and read the Scotland Acts on legislation.gov.uk and the Scot Parliament website. First hand sources for the parliament. A powerful tool woefully used by people with little imagination. You don't see such negativity towards devolution in other nations - only here.

 

Left to join the Tory Party by all accounts like the rest of the Red Torys including all Blairites and Brownites? 

[JamboX2]

1 hour ago, Boris said:

So the framework is dependent on the Brexit deal? That sounds fair! 

 

Well how can it not? Until you know how you will trade and what EU rules remain in place you can't really legislate for how everything else will work.

 

It's extremely similar to what we were told about independence. You can't do much until you know the outcome of your separation.

[JamboX2]

31 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Left to join the Tory Party by all accounts like the rest of the Red Torys including all Blairites and Brownites? 

 

All accounts? Word on the street?

 

But nope. Not in any party these days. 

 

Thanks for playing.

[Space Mackerel]

1 minute ago, JamboX2 said:

 

All accounts? Word on the street?

 

But nope. Not in any party these days. 

 

Thanks for playing.

 

By all accounts, the left wing mask you painted on all your previous political posts over the last few years has slipped since JC got the leadership. 

 

Now you embrace full Tory Yoonship, like most of the rest of SLAB.

 

As David Lammy said recently.....”You lie down with dogs, you get fleas” 

[shaun.lawson]

3 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

By all accounts, the left wing mask you painted on all your previous political posts over the last few years has slipped since JC got the leadership. 

 

Now you embrace full Tory Yoonship, like most of the rest of SLAB.

 

As David Lammy said recently.....”You lie down with dogs, you get fleas” 

 

Utterly abject nonsense. JamboX2 is and has always been a pro-European, pro-union, outward looking centre-leftie. He's now among many many millions who feel as though no major party represents them. 

[JamboX2]

6 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Utterly abject nonsense. JamboX2 is and has always been a pro-European, pro-union, outward looking centre-leftie. He's now among many many millions who feel as though no major party represents them. 

 

Doesn't fit his narrative Shaun. You're with him or against him. 

 

But my reasons for leaving are I have little time to devote much time to it due to work. Not necessarily to do with a feeling I have a lack of representation.

[JamboX2]

 

Mods delete 

Edited April 25, 2018 by JamboX2

[Space Mackerel]

15 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Utterly abject nonsense. JamboX2 is and has always been a pro-European, pro-union, outward looking centre-leftie. He's now among many many millions who feel as though no major party represents them. 

 

A centre leftie doesn’t endorse Blairism. Here endeth the lesson. 

[shaun.lawson]

Just now, Space Mackerel said:

 

A centre leftie doesn’t endorse Blairism. Here endeth the lesson. 

 

A centre-leftie most certainly does endorse by far the best government of my lifetime, led by by far the best Prime Minister of my lifetime. And I know, I know, Iraq - as though one gigantic ******-up cancels out the huge amount of good which New Labour did. 

 

Well, it doesn't. And only congenital losers obsessed with ideological purity who couldn't give a damn about the hundreds of thousands helped beyond measure by Blair's government think otherwise. 

[Boris]

34 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Well how can it not? Until you know how you will trade and what EU rules remain in place you can't really legislate for how everything else will work.

 

It's extremely similar to what we were told about independence. You can't do much until you know the outcome of your separation.

Hmm...you could get a framework in place before E.g. Voting rights etc how desicions are arrived at, that sort of thing. Then you apply that to the brexit outcome.

[Space Mackerel]

3 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

A centre-leftie most certainly does endorse by far the best government of my lifetime, led by by far the best Prime Minister of my lifetime. And I know, I know, Iraq - as though one gigantic ******-up cancels out the huge amount of good which New Labour did. 

 

Well, it doesn't. And only congenital losers obsessed with ideological purity who couldn't give a damn about the hundreds of thousands helped beyond measure by Blair's government think otherwise. 

 

Tony Blair continued Thatcherism, argue all you want and you’d still be wrong. 

 

And you can chuck in all these PFI deals, failure to regulate banking  and financial services into your deflecting illegal wars and made up dossiers too. The man is ridiculed by all. 

 

 

[Boris]

6 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

A centre-leftie most certainly does endorse by far the best government of my lifetime, led by by far the best Prime Minister of my lifetime. And I know, I know, Iraq - as though one gigantic ******-up cancels out the huge amount of good which New Labour did. 

 

Well, it doesn't. And only congenital losers obsessed with ideological purity who couldn't give a damn about the hundreds of thousands helped beyond measure by Blair's government think otherwise. 

 

Ha!  It's not exactly hard to choose that as the best of a bad bunch since 1979!

 

Explain your centre leftie position on neoliberal economic policy and how good that was under Blair? 

 

Emperors new clothes.

[Space Mackerel]

1 minute ago, Boris said:

 

Ha!  It's not exactly hard to choose that as the best of a bad bunch since 1979!

 

Explain your centre leftie position on neoliberal economic policy and how good that was under Blair? 

 

Emperors new clothes.

 

Boris knows ?

[SpruceBringsteen]

36 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Utterly abject nonsense. JamboX2 is and has always been a pro-European, pro-union, outward looking centre-leftie. He's now among many many millions who feel as though no major party represents them. 

 

Time for big Davie Owen to make a comeback.

 

[shaun.lawson]

18 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Tony Blair continued Thatcherism, argue all you want and you’d still be wrong. 

 

And you can chuck in all these PFI deals, failure to regulate banking  and financial services into your deflecting illegal wars and made up dossiers too. The man is ridiculed by all. 

 

 

 

I'd love to know what 'Thatcherism' had to do with:

 

- Peace in Northern Ireland

 

- Successful interventions in Kosovo and Sierra Leone

 

- Minimum wage

 

- Maternity and paternity leave

 

- Tax credits

 

- 800,000 children lifted out of poverty 

 

- Massive investment in hospitals and schools

 

- Sure Start

 

- The longest period of sustained growth in peacetime history

 

- Paid holidays

 

- The Human Rights Act and the Disability Discrimination Act

 

- Even the London Olympics, given Blair made the difference singlehandedly

 

Could you enlighten me please?

 

In 2010, when I was out of work, the welfare state, which was still very much in place under Labour, protected me. Nowadays, it's far less likely it would - because it's been destroyed by the Tories, who put every possible hurdle in place for someone in need. 

 

Not only that - but the other week, I was talking with someone who works for the UN in Uruguay, and focuses on teenage pregnancies. Guess what the globally recommended framework in her field is? British policy, 2000-2010. 

 

Those who focus only on the limitations of New Labour, never on its many many successes, do my head in. 120,000 people have died in Britain because of Tory policy. The number of people sleeping rough is up 134% since 2010. The UN has condemned the Tory government for its treatment of the disabled.

 

"They're just the same as each other"? Offensive bollocks. New Labour was a good government which did mostly good things. It is the height of arrogance and decadence to suggest otherwise.

Edited April 25, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[shaun.lawson]

14 minutes ago, Boris said:

Explain your centre leftie position on neoliberal economic policy and how good that was under Blair? 

 

You mean when we had constant growth between 1997 and 2008? And when it was starting again in Q2 2010 - but the British public, in their infinite wisdom, voted out by far the most able leader anywhere in the world during the financial crisis for the crime of being an awkward-looking gruff Scot?

[Space Mackerel]

1 minute ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

I'd love to know what 'Thatcherism' had to do with:

 

- Peace in Northern Ireland

 

- Successful interventions in Kosovo and Sierra Leone

 

- Minimum wage

 

- Maternity and paternity leave

 

- Tax credits

 

- 800,000 children lifted out of poverty 

 

- Massive investment in hospitals and schools

 

- Paid holidays

 

- The Human Rights Act and the Disability Discrimination Act

 

Could you enlighten me please?

 

In 2010, when I was out of work, the welfare state, which was still very much in place under Labour, protected me. Nowadays, it's far less likely it would - because it's been destroyed by the Tories, who put every possible hurdle in place for someone in need. 

 

Not only that - but the other week, I was talking with someone who works for the UN in Uruguay, and focuses on teenage pregnancies. Guess what the recommended framework in her field is? British policy, 2000-2010. 

 

Those who focus only on the limitations of New Labour, never on its many many successes, do my head in. 120,000 people have died in Britain under the Tories. The number of people sleeping rough is up 134% since 2010. New Labour was a good government which did mostly good things. It is the height of arrogance and decadence to suggest otherwise.

 

 

 

New Labour was old Tory at the time, dinnae dress it up as some game changer for the working class.

The whole charade was built up on an availability of cheap credit, issued by the banks who actually control monetary policy, funnily enough, deregulated to them under Tony Blair. 

 

Then came 2008 and the party was over. 

 

Youre smart shaun but politically a wee bit naive. 

[shaun.lawson]

6 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

Then came 2008 and the party was over. 

 

In the second quarter of 2010 - when according to the Tories, we'd "run out of money  ", Britain grew more quickly than at any point since 2001. Then the coalition implemented austerity, and we've never grown in a proper way since. 

[Space Mackerel]

8 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

In the second quarter of 2010 - when according to the Tories, we'd "run out of money  ", Britain grew more quickly than at any point since 2001. Then the coalition implemented austerity, and we've never grown in a proper way since. 

 

Ive utterly no idea what point you’re making and how it relates to global financial capital system we operate in now. 

[shaun.lawson]

Just now, Space Mackerel said:

 

Ive utterly no idea what point you’re making and how it relates to global financial capital system we operate in now. 

 

The point I'm making is that austerity - at least in the disgraceful form it was implemented in - wasn't necessary. Austerity is the number 1 reason why our politics are now so fractured; why Scottish independence remains popular with about 45% of Scots; and above all, why Leave won the referendum.

 

Your whole viewpoint is based on the idea that capitalism's complete failure of recent years was inevitable. It wasn't. Some sort of correction was, yes - but our approach since has been disgusting, and not something New Labour would ever have done.

[Space Mackerel]

19 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

The point I'm making is that austerity - at least in the disgraceful form it was implemented in - wasn't necessary. Austerity is the number 1 reason why our politics are now so fractured; why Scottish independence remains popular with about 45% of Scots; and above all, why Leave won the referendum.

 

Your whole viewpoint is based on the idea that capitalism's complete failure of recent years was inevitable. It wasn't. Some sort of correction was, yes - but our approach since has been disgusting, and not something New Labour would ever have done.

 

I think you’ll find there’s plenty evidence out there that capitalism comes through in 7 waves of peaks and troughs followed by an alimight crash like we have just seen in 2008. George Soros goes by this. He’s a bit of an expert so I’ve read. 

 

Paul Mason (a proper leftie) agrees somewhat. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/aug/03/postcapitalism-guide-to-future-paul-mason-review-engagingly-written-confused

 

And this:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondratiev_wave

Edited April 25, 2018 by Space Mackerel

[JamboX2]

45 minutes ago, Boris said:

Hmm...you could get a framework in place before E.g. Voting rights etc how desicions are arrived at, that sort of thing. Then you apply that to the brexit outcome.

 

I think parts of that are true. But the frameworks will ultimately be governed by the outcome of Brexit talks - this is because we do not yet know what is being repatriated and what isn't as part of the deal. 

 

Here's a cabinet office summary of what's likely to come back and require devolving in some shape or form:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/frameworks-analysis

 

This summary from the Institute for Government gives a great overview as to why the above will be hard to deal with, the options open and background:

 

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/brexit-devolution-and-common-frameworks

 

At present Sturgeon doesn't like Clause 11 of the EU Withdrawal Bill which potentially means Holyrood couldn't exercise powers (ones they've never till now been able to) till Brexit is in place. That is set to be amended. Seems odd that whilst the Scottish Government accepts that progress they want to see has been made that there's still an issue here given there's still time to make changes. 

 

Ultimately, both sides are in principal right. But for the sake of all of us the SNP might need to have a think about what matters more; making the best of a bad hand or prevaricating on a bit of a dud issue. 

[Space Mackerel]

7 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

I think parts of that are true. But the frameworks will ultimately be governed by the outcome of Brexit talks - this is because we do not yet know what is being repatriated and what isn't as part of the deal. 

 

Here's a cabinet office summary of what's likely to come back and require devolving in some shape or form:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/frameworks-analysis

 

This summary from the Institute for Government gives a great overview as to why the above will be hard to deal with, the options open and background:

 

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/brexit-devolution-and-common-frameworks

 

At present Sturgeon doesn't like Clause 11 of the EU Withdrawal Bill which potentially means Holyrood couldn't exercise powers (ones they've never till now been able to) till Brexit is in place. That is set to be amended. Seems odd that whilst the Scottish Government accepts that progress they want to see has been made that there's still an issue here given there's still time to make changes. 

 

Ultimately, both sides are in principal right. But for the sake of all of us the SNP might need to have a think about what matters more; making the best of a bad hand or prevaricating on a bit of a dud issue. 

 

Guess where this is from?

 

 

[Thunderstruck]

25 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

The point I'm making is that austerity - at least in the disgraceful form it was implemented in - wasn't necessary. Austerity is the number 1 reason why our politics are now so fractured; why Scottish independence remains popular with about 45% of Scots; and above all, why Leave won the referendum.

 

Your whole viewpoint is based on the idea that capitalism's complete failure of recent years was inevitable. It wasn't. Some sort of correction was, yes - but our approach since has been disgusting, and not something New Labour would ever have done.

 

No matter how it is analysed or measured (by disinterested observers), it’s between 35 and 37% of Scots.

 

It was before the referendum, after the referendum, after Brexit and as recently as last week. 

 

 

 

[Space Mackerel]

Looks like Jambo x2 needs to Google up on The Sewel Convention after his self imposed political break. 

[JamboX2]

1 minute ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Guess where this is from?

 

 

 

EU withdrawal Bill, Clause 11. Here's the full clause:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-amendments-to-clause-11-of-the-eu-withdrawal-bill

 

Mike Russell told MSPs he's looking to amend it. Let's see where he gets to on that before we go further with the strong language. 

 

[Space Mackerel]

Just now, Thunderstruck said:

 

No matter how it is analysed or measured (by disinterested observers), it’s between 35 and 37% of Scots.

 

It was before the referendum, after the referendum, after Brexit and as recently as last week. 

 

 

 

 

Weird likes, I spoke to 2 Perthshire solid OAP Naws before Indy Ref 1 and they’re right up for a Yes now. I think you’re talking pish. 

[JamboX2]

3 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

Looks like Jambo x2 needs to Google up on The Sewel Convention after his self imposed political break. 

 

Fully aware of it: no Act of a UK Parliament in devolved competencies without the consent of the devolved parliament.

Edited April 25, 2018 by JamboX2

[shaun.lawson]

3 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

No matter how it is analysed or measured (by disinterested observers), it’s between 35 and 37% of Scots.

 

It was before the referendum, after the referendum, after Brexit and as recently as last week. 

 

 

 

 

I take your point. My figure is of likely voters, of course. But in any case: independence has never been on offer to the Scottish people at any point - least of all from the SNP. 

[Space Mackerel]

8 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

No matter how it is analysed or measured (by disinterested observers), it’s between 35 and 37% of Scots.

 

It was before the referendum, after the referendum, after Brexit and as recently as last week. 

 

 

 

 

Have you missed out THE referendum?  

 

Polls eh? Mind Cameron greeting on TV the day before too in front of his bussed up audience in Aberdeen. What a riddy. Tears n snotters everywhere. 

[Thunderstruck]

1 minute ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Have you missed out THE referendum?  

 

Polls eh? Mind Cameron greeting on TV the day before too in front of his bussed up audience in Aberdeen. What a riddy. Tears n snotters everywhere. 

 

Nope.

 

Could you remind us of the proportion of the Scottish electorate that voted “Yes”. 

 

 

[Space Mackerel]

3 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

Nope.

 

Could you remind us of the proportion of the Scottish electorate that voted “Yes”. 

 

 

 

45%

 

Are you stocked up with nappies and hankies for the next one?  

 

What youre going to be living through the next 5 to 10 years is the full break up of the English Empire. It’s gonna be a blast. 

[Thunderstruck]

2 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

45%

 

Are you stocked up with nappies and hankies for the next one?  

 

What youre going to be living through the next 5 to 10 years is the full break up of the English Empire. It’s gonna be a blast. 

 

OK, we’ll try it again.

 

What is 44.7 (the percentage of votes cast for “Yes”) multiplied by 84.6% (the turnout). 

 

Please use a calculator if you need to. 

 

I doubt that that you will see this as valid but, that being the case, you are only deluding yourself. 

 

 

[Space Mackerel]

14 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

OK, we’ll try it again.

 

What is 44.7 (the percentage of votes cast for “Yes”) multiplied by 84.6% (the turnout). 

 

Please use a calculator if you need to. 

 

I doubt that that you will see this as valid but, that being the case, you are only deluding yourself. 

 

 

 

It's going to be marvellous, come and join us and enjoy the ride. 

[shaun.lawson]

6 hours ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

45%

 

Are you stocked up with nappies and hankies for the next one?  

 

What youre going to be living through the next 5 to 10 years is the full break up of the English Empire. It’s gonna be a blast. 

 

Perfectly possible. If there's a second referendum, will independence actually be on offer this time? Cos it wasn't in 2014.

[jack D and coke]

11 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Then Brian Taylor summed it up wrong.

 

Wales voted to leave the EU, so there's no problem. Scotland convincingly voted to stay in the EU - and had gone through an entire independence referendum campaign in which the 'No' side repeatedly said: "Vote No to stay in the EU!"

 

Scotland now being forced to leave the EU constitutes a huge democratic deficit. Scotland being forced to leave the EU while Northern Ireland are granted special arrangements, in which it stays in a customs union, would represent an absurd, unsustainable constitutional nonsense.

 

The Scottish government is absolutely right to reserve its position. If the BBC is incapable of understanding why, that's its problem - not that that surprises me, givn its pathetic, dumbed down coverage of everything to do with Brexit. The licence fee should be done away with. The BBC serves nobody except the UK government any longer. 

Can’t disagree with any of that Shaun even though I voted Leave. 

[deesidejambo]

1 hour ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Perfectly possible. If there's a second referendum, will independence actually be on offer this time? Cos it wasn't in 2014.

Possible but unlikely.     Polls still showing the usual 55/45 split that has been solid for years.

 

This after all the mess of Brexit which Sturgeon mistakenly thought was a game-changer hence she got all squiffy and went. “game-on” for Indy 2 after the vote.

 

This shows her political naivety as she is now stuck with Indy2 to deliver or backtrack.

[Boris]

2 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Perfectly possible. If there's a second referendum, will independence actually be on offer this time? Cos it wasn't in 2014.

 

Stop  it.  Of course it was.

[shaun.lawson]

23 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Stop  it.  Of course it was.

 

Of course it was not. I could be facetious here and say it's no surprise to me that a Communist like you apparently has no grasp of monetary matters  - but I'll content myself with this instead. 4 years on, none of the below has been resolved.

 

Devil’s Advocate: So Scotland wants to be independent. What do you actually mean by that?

Yes campaign: A separate country with distinct national borders, thus allowing a clear national identity.

DA: But you’ve got that already.

Yes: And a separate government so we can decide what’s best for our country.

DA: But you’ve got that already.

Yes: OK, what we really want is complete freedom over all decision-making and how we spend any oil revenue and other revenue to which we are entitled.

DA: So you don’t think your interests are being upheld by the current structure, where you have representation but not complete control over all these aspects: in particular, spending and fiscal policy?

Yes: Exactly. 

DA: So you want, by definition, to put Scottish interests before British interests?

Yes: Well, prioritise Scottish interests because we feel they’re being de-prioritised at the moment.

DA: Debatable, but let’s accept it. Since public spending and fiscal policy are at the heart of what you mean by independence, what’s the plan?

Yes: Well, we like the idea of our own currency but that would be too expensive and risky, and hamper any trading with our nearest neighbours. Joining the euro is a possibility later, but isn’t exactly a vote winner as it would potentially restrict our public spending/fiscal independence even further. Er... could we keep sterling?

DA: Of course, nobody’s saying you can’t. But what about your independence?

Yes: Well, we want to use sterling as a currency of convenience, while still deciding ourselves about tax rates and public spending. And it would be great if the UK continued to be the lender of last resort and if the Bank of England could still keep us in mind when making decisions. 

DA: So you want to put Scottish interests before British ones, but still want the rest of Britain to look after your own interests? If you want to use sterling, you’ll have to agree to some sort of political union and fiscal control mechanism, so there's a mutual interest for all parties. Which is, er, what you have already, is it not, with both the Bank of England and political representation? 

Yes: Yes, well. We don’t feel well enough represented in the current mechanism. We want currency union but to have complete control over both spending and taxes. 

DA: But can’t have currency union without agreements regarding share of national debt and formalised fiscal and monetary constraints. No central bank and government in their right mind would allow that, as they wouldn’t be able to control all the elements of the currency necessary to do their job. 

Yes: Well, various people have said we can’t share sterling in a currency union anyway. If we can’t agree currency union, we’ll refuse to take on our share of national debt.

DA: I’ll ignore the petty threat. If you accept there needs to be this effective, constrained currency union with a share of national debt, surely, in general terms, spending and taxes would need to be aligned? The whole idea of currency union is to get ever closer alignment (including inevitable political alignment) and decision-making in the interests of all those within it, working for the benefit of all and accepting some sacrifices for the greater good.

 

It seems the proposal is for Scotland to break away from what is already the ultimate in currency union and create a currency union with no constraints on spending and taxes, which therefore magically benefits Scotland to the detriment of the others in the union. That’s not a currency union. Thus the government (democratically elected representatives from Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and everywhere in England – i.e. not “Westminster”) is saying “no”.

Yes: We’ve never said that we wouldn’t accept fiscal constraints and a share of national debt.

DA: Well, it’s not exactly been put on the table. Surely all the promises of riches from oil revenue and reduced taxes must all come from an assumption that Scotland would not have to operate under any currency and fiscal constraints?

Yes: It’ll all work out somehow. The No side is just using scare tactics.

DA: Are you avoiding the question?

Yes: OK. We accept that currency union is the only way (we’ve been told that by the expert advice we commissioned), and that we'd have to negotiate and agree some minor constraints and assume a small portion of the national debt.

DA: Why should the UK give favourable terms to Scotland to the detriment of others in the union? Surely the elected representatives of the other members of the union have a responsibility to defend the interests of all?

Yes: But it’s our oil. We want to spend the revenue for ourselves. It’s not fair.

DA: An endearing attitude. Good luck to any future bid to join another union - like the EU, for example - with that sort of small-mindedness. Even better luck when the oil revenues dip.

Yes: We’ll just use sterling anyway. You can’t stop us.

DA: But what’s the detail of this proposal? Unless you wanted financial chaos, surely you'd have to manage your economy in a parallel way to the UK anyway? You wouldn’t be able to print money without any currency union. How would you control supply? Would you set up your own central bank and issue sterling denominated national debt? Would you refuse to pay your way out of existing national debt (not sure how your national credit rating would fare if you did)? Where’s the analysis? Where’s the detail?

Yes: The important thing is we get a Yes vote. We’ll sort the detail out later.

DA: So you think the most likely scenario if the Yes vote succeeds is a protracted negotiation of a currency union?

Yes: Yes, probably. The rUK would have no choice.

DA: But what if that currency union ended up with you being unable to meet your promises, and having the same fiscal and monetary constraints without the benefit of any direct representation among UK policymakers or the Bank of England?

Yes: But we’d be independent.

DA: You would? Or would you be going from a significant partner in the UK to a satellite state?

 

You could, incidentally, now put the EU in the Devil's Advocate role, and the UK in the Yes campaign's role, and it'd largely be the same. The same magical pie-in-the-sky thinking; the same appeal to belief in unicorns; the same "it'll be alright on the night" too.

Edited April 26, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[The Mighty Thor]

13 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Then Brian Taylor summed it up wrong.

 

Wales voted to leave the EU, so there's no problem. Scotland convincingly voted to stay in the EU - and had gone through an entire independence referendum campaign in which the 'No' side repeatedly said: "Vote No to stay in the EU!"

 

Scotland now being forced to leave the EU constitutes a huge democratic deficit. Scotland being forced to leave the EU while Northern Ireland are granted special arrangements, in which it stays in a customs union, would represent an absurd, unsustainable constitutional nonsense.

 

The Scottish government is absolutely right to reserve its position. If the BBC is incapable of understanding why, that's its problem - not that that surprises me, givn its pathetic, dumbed down coverage of everything to do with Brexit. The licence fee should be done away with. The BBC serves nobody except the UK government any longer. 

The Welsh assembly was always going to roll over on the withdrawal bill. It's what the Welsh do.

I'm delighted that our FM and parliament  (along with the upper house) are trying to hold the Maybot and her coterie of liars and chances to account. There's no plan A or B or any other plan for that matter and the clock is ticking.

The fact that the BBC can't report that news or any other news (unless it's the miracle that is the delivery of another aristocratic parasite) is a wider issue and the whole relevance of the BBC is fading quicker than a ginger's suntan.

[Boris]

7 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Of course it was not. I could be facetious here and say it's no surprise to me that a Communist like you apparently has no grasp of monetary matters  - but I'll content myself with this instead. 4 years on, none of the below has been resolved.

 

Devil’s Advocate: So Scotland wants to be independent. What do you actually mean by that?

Yes campaign: A separate country with distinct national borders, thus allowing a clear national identity.

DA: But you’ve got that already.

Yes: And a separate government so we can decide what’s best for our country.

DA: But you’ve got that already.

Yes: OK, what we really want is complete freedom over all decision-making and how we spend any oil revenue and other revenue to which we are entitled.

DA: So you don’t think your interests are being upheld by the current structure, where you have representation but not complete control over all these aspects: in particular, spending and fiscal policy?

Yes: Exactly. 

DA: So you want, by definition, to put Scottish interests before British interests?

Yes: Well, prioritise Scottish interests because we feel they’re being de-prioritised at the moment.

DA: Debatable, but let’s accept it. Since public spending and fiscal policy are at the heart of what you mean by independence, what’s the plan?

Yes: Well, we like the idea of our own currency but that would be too expensive and risky, and hamper any trading with our nearest neighbours. Joining the euro is a possibility later, but isn’t exactly a vote winner as it would potentially restrict our public spending/fiscal independence even further. Er... could we keep sterling?

DA: Of course, nobody’s saying you can’t. But what about your independence?

Yes: Well, we want to use sterling as a currency of convenience, while still deciding ourselves about tax rates and public spending. And it would be great if the UK continued to be the lender of last resort and if the Bank of England could still keep us in mind when making decisions. 

DA: So you want to put Scottish interests before British ones, but still want the rest of Britain to look after your own interests? If you want to use sterling, you’ll have to agree to some sort of political union and fiscal control mechanism, so there's a mutual interest for all parties. Which is, er, what you have already, is it not, with both the Bank of England and political representation? 

Yes: Yes, well. We don’t feel well enough represented in the current mechanism. We want currency union but to have complete control over both spending and taxes. 

DA: But can’t have currency union without agreements regarding share of national debt and formalised fiscal and monetary constraints. No central bank and government in their right mind would allow that, as they wouldn’t be able to control all the elements of the currency necessary to do their job. 

Yes: Well, various people have said we can’t share sterling in a currency union anyway. If we can’t agree currency union, we’ll refuse to take on our share of national debt.

DA: I’ll ignore the petty threat. If you accept there needs to be this effective, constrained currency union with a share of national debt, surely, in general terms, spending and taxes would need to be aligned? The whole idea of currency union is to get ever closer alignment (including inevitable political alignment) and decision-making in the interests of all those within it, working for the benefit of all and accepting some sacrifices for the greater good.

 

It seems the proposal is for Scotland to break away from what is already the ultimate in currency union and create a currency union with no constraints on spending and taxes, which therefore magically benefits Scotland to the detriment of the others in the union. That’s not a currency union. Thus the government (democratically elected representatives from Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and everywhere in England – i.e. not “Westminster”) is saying “no”.

Yes: We’ve never said that we wouldn’t accept fiscal constraints and a share of national debt.

DA: Well, it’s not exactly been put on the table. Surely all the promises of riches from oil revenue and reduced taxes must all come from an assumption that Scotland would not have to operate under any currency and fiscal constraints?

Yes: It’ll all work out somehow. The No side is just using scare tactics.

DA: Are you avoiding the question?

Yes: OK. We accept that currency union is the only way (we’ve been told that by the expert advice we commissioned), and that we'd have to negotiate and agree some minor constraints and assume a small portion of the national debt.

DA: Why should the UK give favourable terms to Scotland to the detriment of others in the union? Surely the elected representatives of the other members of the union have a responsibility to defend the interests of all?

Yes: But it’s our oil. We want to spend the revenue for ourselves. It’s not fair.

DA: An endearing attitude. Good luck to any future bid to join another union - like the EU, for example - with that sort of small-mindedness. Even better luck when the oil revenues dip.

Yes: We’ll just use sterling anyway. You can’t stop us.

DA: But what’s the detail of this proposal? Unless you wanted financial chaos, surely you'd have to manage your economy in a parallel way to the UK anyway? You wouldn’t be able to print money without any currency union. How would you control supply? Would you set up your own central bank and issue sterling denominated national debt? Would you refuse to pay your way out of existing national debt (not sure how your national credit rating would fare if you did)? Where’s the analysis? Where’s the detail?

Yes: The important thing is we get a Yes vote. We’ll sort the detail out later.

DA: So you think the most likely scenario if the Yes vote succeeds is a protracted negotiation of a currency union?

Yes: Yes, probably. The rUK would have no choice.

DA: But what if that currency union ended up with you being unable to meet your promises, and having the same fiscal and monetary constraints without the benefit of any direct representation among UK policymakers or the Bank of England?

Yes: But we’d be independent.

DA: You would? Or would you be going from a significant partner in the UK to a satellite state?

 

You could, incidentally, now put the EU in the Devil's Advocate role, and the UK in the Yes campaign's role, and it'd largely be the same. The same magical pie-in-the-sky thinking; the same appeal to belief in unicorns; the same "it'll be alright on the night" too.

 

Taking the global capitalistic sentiment  that there is no such thing as an independent country and placing it to one side....

 

Had Yes won the referendum in 2014, Scotland would be a new member of the United Nations, would be a member of its own right in the EU etc etc etc Ergo, it is an independent state.

 

How that "new" country wants to conduct it's fiscal and economic policy is irrelevant.

[shaun.lawson]

3 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Taking the global capitalistic sentiment  that there is no such thing as an independent country and placing it to one side....

 

Had Yes won the referendum in 2014, Scotland would be a new member of the United Nations, would be a member of its own right in the EU etc etc etc Ergo, it is an independent state.

 

How that "new" country wants to conduct it's fiscal and economic policy is irrelevant.

 

 

Without control of its monetary supply, no country is independent. As part of a currency union with a much bigger neighbour, no country is able to control its fiscal or economic policy either. 

[Boris]

1 minute ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

 

Without control of its monetary supply, no country is independent. As part of a currency union with a much bigger neighbour, no country is able to control its fiscal or economic policy either. 

 

As I said, putting global capitalism to one side...

 

So in the Lawson scale, Greece, for example, is not an independent country?

 

Any country that uses the EUro as its currency, is not independent?

Edited April 26, 2018 by Boris

[shaun.lawson]

34 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

As I said, putting global capitalism to one side...

 

So in the Lawson scale, Greece, for example, is not an independent country?

 

Any country that uses the EUro as its currency, is not independent?

 

With the sole exception of Germany, that is correct, yes. With Greece the ultimate example. Greece is effectively an EU protectorate. 

[Boris]

8 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

With the sole exception of Germany, that is correct, yes. With Greece the ultimate example. Greece is effectively an EU protectorate. 

 

I await Greece's resignation from the United Nations, along with the other Euro currency nations.

 

Your argument may have credence in a subtle way, but that's not really the point, is it?  To say Scotland would not have been independent after a yes vote is a nonsense.  And well you know it!

[deesidejambo]

2 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

I await Greece's resignation from the United Nations, along with the other Euro currency nations.

 

Your argument may have credence in a subtle way, but that's not really the point, is it?  To say Scotland would not have been independent after a yes vote is a nonsense.  And well you know it!

Are you two not just differing on what your understanding of Independence is? 

[shaun.lawson]

3 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

I await Greece's resignation from the United Nations, along with the other Euro currency nations.

 

Your argument may have credence in a subtle way, but that's not really the point, is it?  To say Scotland would not have been independent after a yes vote is a nonsense.  And well you know it!

 

It would only be nonsense, Boris, if the SNP accepted the gross limitations of what they (continue to) offer. You can't have socialism in one state when you don't even control your money supply. What you'll get instead is austerity on stilts. 

 

Would the people voting for independence be voting for austerity on stilts? No. Just as the Greek people haven't voted for it either - but it's what they've been given, courtesy of Brussels.