Even More SNP Nonsense

[jack D and coke]

1 hour ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

Always find it laughable people in this country buying bottled water.

The odd bottle but some folk buy gallons of it.

Sad people.

Yeah I know people who wont drink our tap water

It’s incredible how they’ve managed to market this and even charge more than a can of beer for it in some cases. Scottish water best anywhere and we pay for water from France?!  

 

[ri Alban]

6 hours ago, jambo lodge said:

Poll was conducted on behalf of two organisations who would like a second Brexit referendum. Questions would be tailored to get the answers they were looking for.

Maybe you should read it. It had the reverse if the UK doesn't Brexit. Oh but that's right you only believe the Polls that suit you. From the fascist regime. 

[jambo lodge]

23 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Maybe you should read it. It had the reverse if the UK doesn't Brexit. Oh but that's right you only believe the Polls that suit you. From the fascist regime. 

There was a once in a lifetime referendum in September 2014 so get over it. Nicola was not sounding very confident on Scottish news tonight, no way is she bringing forward a request for a second referendum. Suggest you watch BBC at the moment and see how incompetent NHS Tayside is/was. Back to the day job please SNP.

[Boris]

See this once in a lifetime chat... Its nonsense. 

 

Happy to retract if it was actually in the Ts & Cs of the referendum. 

 

But if Salmond and Sturgeon (SNP politicians mind, were they speaking for the Yes campaign in those comments?) are to be held for those comments, equally shouldn't the no campaign be held on theirs? 

[Pans Jambo]

2 hours ago, jambo lodge said:

There was a once in a lifetime referendum in September 2014 so get over it. Nicola was not sounding very confident on Scottish news tonight, no way is she bringing forward a request for a second referendum. Suggest you watch BBC at the moment and see how incompetent NHS Tayside is/was. Back to the day job please SNP.

Yeah so Westminster gets to shit on us ad-infinitum & its sll good because we said no 4 years ago? Nothing of any consequence changed at all since that date?

One negative news story on the NHS (which has been on its knees and unable to cope with anything since its inception after WW2) changes nothing. 

The BBC in Scotland hate Scotland and anything Scottish. They have nothing positive to say.

A bit like some folk on here. 

 

[manaliveits105]

Keep clutching at those straws  it will be naw again and Eck and  Krankie are losing all credibility 

 

[Pans Jambo]

14 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

Keep clutching at those straws  it will be naw again and Eck and  Krankie are losing all credibility 

 

Are they really? As opposed to May, Mogg & Boris? Because they are ‘incredible’ like?

[Thunderstruck]

2 hours ago, Boris said:

See this once in a lifetime chat... Its nonsense. 

 

Happy to retract if it was actually in the Ts & Cs of the referendum. 

 

But if Salmond and Sturgeon (SNP politicians mind, were they speaking for the Yes campaign in those comments?) are to be held for those comments, equally shouldn't the no campaign be held on theirs? 

 

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. 

 

557. If Scotland votes No, will there be another referendum on independence at a later date?

The Edinburgh Agreement states that a referendum must be held by the end of 2014. There is no arrangement in place for another referendum on independence.

It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent.

 

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?

[ri Alban]

8 hours ago, jambo lodge said:

There was a once in a lifetime referendum in September 2014 so get over it. Nicola was not sounding very confident on Scottish news tonight, no way is she bringing forward a request for a second referendum. Suggest you watch BBC at the moment and see how incompetent NHS Tayside is/was. Back to the day job please SNP.

Once in a lifetime Says who, the stockholders. Did you never just agree with someone just so they'd stfu.

Is this a once in a generation vote Alex? 

Aye son!. (Aye nae bother ya bunch a rockets) 

 

 

There'd be an EUref2 quite soon if the Brexiteers had lost. The SNP and greens voted  thro an Indyref2 or does democracy only work for the British. 

 

 

 

Tick Tock!!!

Edited September 4, 2018 by ri Alban

[ri Alban]

8 hours ago, jambo lodge said:

There was a once in a lifetime referendum in September 2014 so get over it. Nicola was not sounding very confident on Scottish news tonight, no way is she bringing forward a request for a second referendum. Suggest you watch BBC at the moment and see how incompetent NHS Tayside is/was. Back to the day job please SNP.

Oh and I think you better have a wee look at the English NHS, education, housing etc... Before throwing stones.

BTW, The day job for the SNP is Independence, not devolution under chains and whips. 

 

Shaking it boss!!! The Great British tradition and culture. Stealing everyone else's shit and killing them. Then telling them how grateful they should be. 

 

Edited September 4, 2018 by ri Alban

[jambo lodge]

3 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Oh and I think you better have a wee look at the English NHS, education, housing etc... Before throwing stones.

BTW, The day job for the SNP is Independence, not devolution under chains and whips. 

 

Shaking it boss!!! The Great British tradition and culture. Stealing everyone else's shit and killing them. Then telling them how grateful they should be. 

 

What you have said is everything that is wrong with the present SNP Government. The " day job is independence", not devolution. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The SNP government were elected first and foremost to govern the devolved parliament ay Holyrood. 

[jack D and coke]

7 hours ago, 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?

What kind of freak edits these videos? Just one or two bits of dialogue repeated relentlessly over and over again with spooky music playing. All part of the make nationalists look mental and a bit unbalanced and unreasonable I’d wager.

Fwiw we can have as many indyrefs as we want. The act of union is ours to change also not just Westminster’s. I’d even suggest if Yes won and then there was enough pressure to vote again to re-join we could do that too. WM does not control Scotland as much as people like you would like it to. Some people would have Scotland neutered and silenced, parliament closed down etc to keep this status quo regardless. You definitely sound like one. 

 

[Boris]

16 minutes ago, jambo lodge said:

What you have said is everything that is wrong with the present SNP Government. The " day job is independence", not devolution. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The SNP government were elected first and foremost to govern the devolved parliament ay Holyrood. 

And through that governance can bring forward an independence referendum should Holyrood vote in its favour. 

[Boris]

8 hours ago, 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. 

Yeah, and the result has stood. Doesn't mean things can't change... 

Quote

 

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”. 

 

No one is denying they used these words. 

 

Quote

 

 

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?

 

Vote no only way to keep Scotland in the EU. How's that worked out? 

To me that's more of a con than any once in a lifetime rhetoric. 

Edited September 4, 2018 by Boris

[Pans Jambo]

8 hours ago, 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?

My point stands. 

Can Westminster treat Scotland in any way it likes since the referendum and that's OK with the No voters?

They wont even speak to the Scottish government directly. It all goes through the Scottish Office (or the Union office or whatever its called now since its re-brand).

The 'once in a lifetime' thing can be put down to a rally cry for folk to get off their arses and vote. Lets call it 'post-truth' shall we (bit like the £350 Million a week for the NHS your next PM promised us).

 

The TRUTH is if Westminster had accepted the vote and did what they said they were going to do (Be as close to federalism as possible, treat Scotland with respect and as an equal, stay in the EU etc.) then we probably would not be having this conversation but the fact is, the first thing that happened after the result was in was PM Cameron outside Number 10 telling the world that Scotland was back inside it's kennel and now they would be concentrating on English Votes For English Laws (EVEL) which roughly translates to 'get it right up yi'.

 

So many Scottish haters in Scotland nowadays. Wake up.

 

Edited September 4, 2018 by Pans Jambo

[jack D and coke]

1 hour ago, Pans Jambo said:

My point stands. 

Can Westminster treat Scotland in any way it likes since the referendum and that's OK with the No voters?

They wont even speak to the Scottish government directly. It all goes through the Scottish Office (or the Union office or whatever its called now since its re-brand).

The 'once in a lifetime' thing can be put down to a rally cry for folk to get off their arses and vote. Lets call it 'post-truth' shall we (bit like the £350 Million a week for the NHS your next PM promised us).

 

The TRUTH is if Westminster had accepted the vote and did what they said they were going to do (Be as close to federalism as possible, treat Scotland with respect and as an equal, stay in the EU etc.) then we probably would not be having this conversation but the fact is, the first thing that happened after the result was in was PM Cameron outside Number 10 telling the world that Scotland was back inside it's kennel and now they would be concentrating on English Votes For English Laws (EVEL) which roughly translates to 'get it right up yi'.

 

So many Scottish haters in Scotland nowadays. Wake up.

 

No mention of Rees Mogg coming up here and telling us we can have another referendum in 20 years or so  despite him having about as much chance as being elected in Scotland as a re-incarnated Maggie Thatcher. 

How anybody in Scotland can listen to that and not think who the **** are you?! Is utterly mind boggling. 

Scotland is England’s possession to these people. 

 

[jambo lodge]

3 hours ago, Boris said:

And through that governance can bring forward an independence referendum should Holyrood vote in its favour. 

We shall have to disagree, voting for a party to govern is completely different than voting for independence. The SNP would have to include a specific promise to hold a referendum by a certain date to have a legitimate claim that it is the will of the Scottish people. The SNP have always stopped short of doing that.   

[jambo lodge]

3 hours ago, Boris said:

Yeah, and the result has stood. Doesn't mean things can't change... 

 

No one is denying they used these words. 

 

 

Vote no only way to keep Scotland in the EU. How's that worked out? 

To me that's more of a con than any once in a lifetime rhetoric. 

At the time it was quite clear that if Scotland became independent then it would have to apply to the EU for membership so the statement was correct. 

[jack D and coke]

Imagine an SNP politician going down to England and telling them what’s what with regards another brexit vote or whatever  you can have another one in 20 years! 

Yet some of you gutless saps listen to Rees Mogg or that clown Davidson who only has one single policy and represent a party that’s won diddly squat up here since 1951!! We should listen to them though  

 

[Boris]

1 hour ago, jambo lodge said:

We shall have to disagree, voting for a party to govern is completely different than voting for independence. The SNP would have to include a specific promise to hold a referendum by a certain date to have a legitimate claim that it is the will of the Scottish people. The SNP have always stopped short of doing that.   

 

If they can get the legislation passed through Holyrood whilst in power, then that is their legitimate mandate.

[Boris]

1 hour ago, jambo lodge said:

At the time it was quite clear that if Scotland became independent then it would have to apply to the EU for membership so the statement was correct. 

 

Was it?

[Thunderstruck]

46 minutes ago, Boris said:

Yeah, and the result has stood. Doesn't mean things can't change... 

 

No one is denying they used these words. 

 

 

Vote no only way to keep Scotland in the EU. How's that worked out? 

To me that's more of a con than any once in a lifetime rhetoric. 

 

I’m sure you will recall that the clamour for a second referendum began immediately after 18 Sept 2014 and that the EU Referendum wasn’t called until nearly a year later.

 

“Brexit against our wishes” is simply another pretext. What might it have been if the U.K. voted remain. 

 

There is, of course, the irony of having Brexit as a pretext when those campaigning for independence have as much of a clue about the effect of independence as the Brexiteers have for the impact of their cause.

 

Both campaigns have those for whom the ends are “priceless” in that there is no price so dear as to deter them from their aim and disregard for anyone who losses a job, pays more tax or suffers poorer service.

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

1 hour ago, Hunky Dory said:

 

Says who?  What's changed since 2014?

 

In September 2014 the EU repeated that their position with regards to an independant Scotland had remained unchanged.

 

'European Commission spokeswoman Pia Ahrenkilde-Hansen refused to make any new comment on the Scottish referendum at the Commission’s daily press briefing on Monday, saying “it is for the Scottish people and for the British citizens to decide on the future of Scotland”.

 

She said the EU executive’s position on an independent Scotland had not changed.

 

She refused to spell out what that was, but in response to a request from Reuters, the Commission sent a letter from European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso to a member of Britain’s upper chamber of parliament in 2012. In the letter, Barroso sets out the Commission’s position on whether an independent Scotland would remain part of the 28-nation EU.

“If part of the territory of a member state would cease to be part of that state because it were to become a new independent state, the (EU) treaties would no longer apply to that territory,” Barroso said, meaning an independent Scotland would no longer be part of the EU.'

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-scotland-independence-eu/independent-scotland-would-have-to-reapply-to-eu-nato-officials-say-idUKKBN0H31FK20140908

 

I don't know if things have changed since then, but going by the above statement from the EU in 2014 it certainly seemed like an independant Scotland would have had to re-apply for membership of the EU.

 

 

Edited September 4, 2018 by Jambo-Jimbo

[Pans Jambo]

Just now, Thunderstruck said:

 

I’m sure you will recall that the clamour for a second referendum began immediately after 18 Sept 2014 and that the EU Referendum wasn’t called until nearly a year later.

 

“Brexit against our wishes” is simply another pretext. What might it have been if the U.K. voted remain. 

 

There is, of course, the irony of having Brexit as a pretext when those campaigning for independence have as much of a clue about the effect of independence as the Brexiteers have for the impact of their cause.

 

Both campaigns have those for whom the ends are “priceless” in that there is no price so dear as to deter them from their aim and disregard for anyone who losses a job, pays more tax or suffers poorer service.

 

Yeah because Scotland would stay EXACTLY the same as it is now after Independence. No change, just a big financial black hole.

[Boris]

1 minute ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

I’m sure you will recall that the clamour for a second referendum began immediately after 18 Sept 2014 and that the EU Referendum wasn’t called until nearly a year later.

 

What I recall was the SNP saying in their manifesto for Holyrood 2016 that that there would only be attempts at another indy ref if there was significant change to the UK.  Obviously in to pre-empt Brexit, but politic, given that it was on the horizon.

 

1 minute ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

“Brexit against our wishes” is simply another pretext. What might it have been if the U.K. voted remain. 

 

There would be no reason.  See the material change point above.

 

1 minute ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

There is, of course, the irony of having Brexit as a pretext when those campaigning for independence have as much of a clue about the effect of independence as the Brexiteers have for the impact of their cause.

 

Both campaigns have those for whom the ends are “priceless” in that there is no price so dear as to deter them from their aim and disregard for anyone who losses a job, pays more tax or suffers poorer service.

 

 

In that case let's not have an election of any sort ever again, because whether it is brexot or independence or a Tpry Government or a Labour government some people will be better off and others will be worse off.  That's the very nature of politics.

 

Personally, although independence would be tough for Scotland initially, I don't think it would be as bad as Brexit will be for the UK as a whole.

[Pans Jambo]

Just now, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

In September 2014 the EU repeated that their position with regards to an independant Scotland had remained unchanged.

 

'European Commission spokeswoman Pia Ahrenkilde-Hansen refused to make any new comment on the Scottish referendum at the Commission’s daily press briefing on Monday, saying “it is for the Scottish people and for the British citizens to decide on the future of Scotland”.

 

She said the EU executive’s position on an independent Scotland had not changed.

 

She refused to spell out what that was, but in response to a request from Reuters, the Commission sent a letter from European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso to a member of Britain’s upper chamber of parliament in 2012. In the letter, Barroso sets out the Commission’s position on whether an independent Scotland would remain part of the 28-nation EU.

“If part of the territory of a member state would cease to be part of that state because it were to become a new independent state, the (EU) treaties would no longer apply to that territory,” Barroso said, meaning an independent Scotland would no longer be part of the EU.'

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-scotland-independence-eu/independent-scotland-would-have-to-reapply-to-eu-nato-officials-say-idUKKBN0H31FK20140908

 

I don't know if things have changed since then, but going by the above statement from the EU in 2014 it certainly seemed like an independant Scotland would have had to re-apply for membership of the EU.

 

 

And? Are we Turkey?

[Jambo-Jimbo]

4 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

And? Are we Turkey?

 

What has Turkey got to do with an Independant Scotland being in the EU or not?

 

[Pans Jambo]

Just now, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

What has Turkey got to do with an Independant Scotland being in the EU or not?

 

Nowt but the Britnats who used continuing EU membership over the YES voters heads are now suggesting an Independent Scotland would (somehow) not be a member (or at least not for many many years ala Turkey).

 

Make your minds up lads eh!

[jambo lodge]

34 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

If they can get the legislation passed through Holyrood whilst in power, then that is their legitimate mandate.

Devolved power does not include self determination.

[Boris]

Just now, jambo lodge said:

Devolved power does not include self determination.

 

They can still pass the legislation for a referendum as per the original one.

 

Whether Westminster wishes to stymie the "will of the people" is up to them.

[jambo lodge]

36 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Was it?

UK was and is the member of the EU. Scotland is not. 

[jambo lodge]

2 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

They can still pass the legislation for a referendum as per the original one.

 

Whether Westminster wishes to stymie the "will of the people" is up to them.

Not sure even the Presiding Officer would rule such a vote as competent.

[Boris]

2 minutes ago, jambo lodge said:

Not sure even the Presiding Officer would rule such a vote as competent.

 

Despite the precedent?

[Jambo-Jimbo]

5 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

Nowt but the Britnats who used continuing EU membership over the YES voters heads are now suggesting an Independent Scotland would (somehow) not be a member (or at least not for many many years ala Turkey).

 

Make your minds up lads eh!

 

Well according to the article from 2014 which I posted, it would seem that it was the EU who were saying that an Independant Scotland would have to re-apply for EU membership as per EU rules, if Scotland had voted YES back in 2014.

 

Has the EU's position changed since then, tbh I don't know, but I suspect not.

 

[Pans Jambo]

2 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Well according to the article from 2014 which I posted, it would seem that it was the EU who were saying that an Independant Scotland would have to re-apply for EU membership as per EU rules, if Scotland had voted YES back in 2014.

 

Has the EU's position changed since then, tbh I don't know, but I suspect not.

 

So what if we do need to re-apply? Do you think they wouldn't let a prosperous first world country like Scotland in who already adhere to all their rules and regulations? (Assuming that's what Scotland even wants)?

Its just the same auld shite from you lot. Scare Scare Scare and hopefully, something will stick. Sick of it & most folk see right through it. Its BORING!

 

Just let me know how the Brexit negotiations are going and what the likely outcome for Scotland will be please.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

1 minute ago, Pans Jambo said:

So what if we do need to re-apply? Do you think they wouldn't let a prosperous first world country like Scotland in who already adhere to all their rules and regulations? (Assuming that's what Scotland even wants)?

Its just the same auld shite from you lot. Scare Scare Scare and hopefully, something will stick. Sick of it & most folk see right through it. Its BORING!

 

Just let me know how the Brexit negotiations are going and what the likely outcome for Scotland will be please.

 

Please define 'you lot'.

 

As for the 'Brexit negotiations', unless you can change whatever is agreed then the likes of you and me just have to get on with it, like we always have to do, and the outcome for Scotland is out of the EU.

 

But I ask again ' define you lot', please.

[Pans Jambo]

Just now, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Please define 'you lot'.

 

As for the 'Brexit negotiations', unless you can change whatever is agreed then the likes of you and me just have to get on with it, like we always have to do, and the outcome for Scotland is out of the EU.

 

But I ask again ' define you lot', please.

The nay sayers

[Jambo-Jimbo]

1 minute ago, Hunky Dory said:

 

If you're going by the word of Barroso alone then I'd recommend looking at his vested interests and the numerous meetings with Cameron before definitively stating that an iScotland would have been outwith the EU.

 

Guy Verhofstadt has recently stated that "it is a ‘simple fact’ there is no big obstacle to an independent Scotland rejoining the bloc after the UK’s departure."  There's no different between this stance and 2014.

 

I don't believe the word of any politician tbh, everyone of them has an agenda of sorts.

 

A question was asked about Scottish membership of the EU back in 2014 and I replied with an article, and if you notice I also made no comment either in support or rebutal of the article or indeed the original question.

[Thunderstruck]

1 hour ago, Boris said:

 

What I recall was the SNP saying in their manifesto for Holyrood 2016 that that there would only be attempts at another indy ref if there was significant change to the UK.  Obviously in to pre-empt Brexit, but politic, given that it was on the horizon.

 

 

There would be no reason.  See the material change point above.

 

 

In that case let's not have an election of any sort ever again, because whether it is brexot or independence or a Tpry Government or a Labour government some people will be better off and others will be worse off.  That's the very nature of politics.

 

Personally, although independence would be tough for Scotland initially, I don't think it would be as bad as Brexit will be for the UK as a whole.

 

Oh, come on, that is very selective recall. The Returning Officers had hardly got the booths back into storage before the calls started. The accusations of cheating, rigged votes, the use of pencils, the interference by MI5 or MFI -  the list is long. The truth is that the hardcore were never going to accept a loss and Brexit is just the latest pretext albeit one that is gaining little or no electoral traction. 

 

There is, as you well know, a significant difference between normal election and constitutional rifts. A poor government can be turfed out but a move like Brexit or Independence is a change which, if enacted, will have generational or life-long consequences. 

 

Would you vote for independence if (as now seems to be the case) there was no viable economic plan, if you were going to make it difficult to deal with your biggest (by a huge margin) trading partner and if “tough initially” meant loss of tens or hundreds of thousands of jobs and if “tough initially” meant higher taxes and poorer services (aka austerity). How long would “initially” last - 5, 10, 15, 25 years, a generation perhaps? How long would be too long?

 

 

 

 

[Thunderstruck]

2 hours ago, Pans Jambo said:

Yeah because Scotland would stay EXACTLY the same as it is now after Independence. No change, just a big financial black hole.

 

 

Then tell us the plan. Tell us how you will mitigate the loss of jobs. Tell us how you will fill even the current spending gap. Tell us how much taxes will rise. Tell us the depth of cuts to services. Tell us of the impact on pensions. Tell us of the plans for welfare. 

 

I’ll tell you what - don’t bother. I suspect you haven’t a clue but not that it matters as we are all well aware that you are one of the nationalists who wants independence at any cost and, therefore, no better than the Tories you so despise. 

 

You are only convincing yourself if you think an independent Scotland would not suffer from any rift. Even the SNP’s own economic think tank suggests austere times - a generation of it. 

 

 

[Thunderstruck]

2 hours ago, Boris said:

 

Despite the precedent?

 

Which was?

[Boris]

7 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

Which was?

Um, the first referendum? 

[Boris]

8 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

 

 

Even the SNP’s own economic think tank suggests austere times - a generation of it. 

 

 

So only a couple of years then? Braw! 

[Unknown user]

14 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

 

Then tell us the plan. Tell us how you will mitigate the loss of jobs. Tell us how you will fill even the current spending gap. Tell us how much taxes will rise. Tell us the depth of cuts to services. Tell us of the impact on pensions. Tell us of the plans for welfare. 

 

I’ll tell you what - don’t bother. I suspect you haven’t a clue but not that it matters as we are all well aware that you are one of the nationalists who wants independence at any cost and, therefore, no better than the Tories you so despise. 

 

You are only convincing yourself if you think an independent Scotland would not suffer from any rift. Even the SNP’s own economic think tank suggests austere times - a generation of it. 

 

 

It's a tough debate though, how can anyone actually tell you the plan? As we've seen with Brexit the terms of a split would be the result of long negotiations, and the detail and direction of the Scottish economy would be down to whichever party formed a government from a general election after these terms are known.

 

Seems to me many demand the unanswerable when it comes to this stuff, and ask questions of the SNP that they're happy to let go with everyone else - how are the uk bridging the funding gap? Would we even believe Westminster if it said "this is what will happen to taxes in the next five years"? Yet we expect details from the SNP?

 

I don't like a lot of things about the SNP but I do believe in independence for Scottish. Scotland is a small population in a relatively large, mountainous country, we face different infrastructure challenges, a completely different reality from the south east of England that Westminster really serves well. For me, we need a government that reflects Scotland's needs and priorities as they're different from what's good for the uk overall. 

I also think we can't possibly do worse than that shower of corrupt, incompetent, self serving wankers down there and I don't really understand how anyone can argue with that

[Scnorthedinburgh]

1 hour ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

Oh, come on, that is very selective recall. The Returning Officers had hardly got the booths back into storage before the calls started. The accusations of cheating, rigged votes, the use of pencils, the interference by MI5 or MFI -  the list is long. The truth is that the hardcore were never going to accept a loss and Brexit is just the latest pretext albeit one that is gaining little or no electoral traction. 

 

There is, as you well know, a significant difference between normal election and constitutional rifts. A poor government can be turfed out but a move like Brexit or Independence is a change which, if enacted, will have generational or life-long consequences. 

 

Would you vote for independence if (as now seems to be the case) there was no viable economic plan, if you were going to make it difficult to deal with your biggest (by a huge margin) trading partner and if “tough initially” meant loss of tens or hundreds of thousands of jobs and if “tough initially” meant higher taxes and poorer services (aka austerity). How long would “initially” last - 5, 10, 15, 25 years, a generation perhaps? How long would be too long?

 

 

 

 

Sounds like your describing Brexit

[Thunderstruck]

4 minutes ago, Boris said:

Um, the first referendum? 

 

1979 or 2014?

 

Neither of the referendums were instigated by a Scottish Government; there wasn’t a Scottish Govt in 1979 and the Scottish Govt had no such power for 2014.

 

2014 was enabled by an Order in Council agreed as part of the Edinburgh Agreement. That allowed provisions within the Scotland Act to produce the Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013.

 

It was SIRA2013 that gave powers to the Scottish Parliament and the local authorities in terms of the electoral process. It’s a gripping read. 

[Boris]

2 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

1979 or 2014?

 

Neither of the referendums were instigated by a Scottish Government; there wasn’t a Scottish Govt in 1979 and the Scottish Govt had no such power for 2014.

 

2014 was enabled by an Order in Council agreed as part of the Edinburgh Agreement. That allowed provisions within the Scotland Act to produce the Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013.

 

It was SIRA2013 that gave powers to the Scottish Parliament and the local authorities in terms of the electoral process. It’s a gripping read. 

As a result of the SNP having a majority. I get its Westminster that obliges, but they would be minded to pay attention. 

[Thunderstruck]

6 minutes ago, Scnorthedinburgh said:

Sounds like your describing Brexit

 

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. 

 

 

[Pans Jambo]

42 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

 

Then tell us the plan. Tell us how you will mitigate the loss of jobs. Tell us how you will fill even the current spending gap. Tell us how much taxes will rise. Tell us the depth of cuts to services. Tell us of the impact on pensions. Tell us of the plans for welfare. 

 

I’ll tell you what - don’t bother. I suspect you haven’t a clue but not that it matters as we are all well aware that you are one of the nationalists who wants independence at any cost and, therefore, no better than the Tories you so despise. 

 

You are only convincing yourself if you think an independent Scotland would not suffer from any rift. Even the SNP’s own economic think tank suggests austere times - a generation of it. 

 

 

SAME AULD PISH!

 

 

[Thunderstruck]

22 minutes ago, Smithee said:

It's a tough debate though, how can anyone actually tell you the plan? As we've seen with Brexit the terms of a split would be the result of long negotiations, and the detail and direction of the Scottish economy would be down to whichever party formed a government from a general election after these terms are known.

 

Seems to me many demand the unanswerable when it comes to this stuff, and ask questions of the SNP that they're happy to let go with everyone else - how are the uk bridging the funding gap? Would we even believe Westminster if it said "this is what will happen to taxes in the next five years"? Yet we expect details from the SNP?

 

I don't like a lot of things about the SNP but I do believe in independence for Scottish. Scotland is a small population in a relatively large, mountainous country, we face different infrastructure challenges, a completely different reality from the south east of England that Westminster really serves well. For me, we need a government that reflects Scotland's needs and priorities as they're different from what's good for the uk overall. 

I also think we can't possibly do worse than that shower of corrupt, incompetent, self serving wankers down there and I don't really understand how anyone can argue with that

 

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.