Even More SNP Nonsense

[Gorgiewave]

Non eu goods will be tariff free? Really? What if the USA wish to apply tariffs to imports from the uk? Wouldn't we respond in kind, similarly with every other country?

I don't believe that's likely.

 

Anyway, Scotland already operates within a tariffed-off area, the single market. There are no tariffs between Scotland and rUK and there haven't been since 1707. This is a Good Thing. Despite being in the EEC/EU for 43 years, despite the rEU having a population nine times that of rUK, its trade with rUK is worth four times that with rEU. This is due to a shared language, physical proximity, trust from being in the same country for 310 years, etc. It's a very good thing for Scotland and well worth keeping.

 

The Yes side also argues that EU immigration is necessary to attract immigrants and prevent depopulation.

 

In 1973 (year of entry into the EEC), the population of Scotland was 5.225 m at mid-year. In 2015, at mid-year, it was 5.373 m. A 2.9% increase in 42 years.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Scotland#Population_totals_for_Scotland_1600.E2.80.932011

 

If the population of Scotland must for some reason be higher, the EU is obviously not much of a solution. Promoting and incetivising marriage and childbirth may well do more.

[Gorgiewave]

Here's a handy graphic - provided by the Scottish Government - about Scotland's exports. It sets out three destinations for Scottish exports: rUK, the EU and the Rest of the World. Of these, the most important is rUK, accounting for 63% of Scottish exports. Second in importance is Rest of the World, with 21%. Last is the EU with 16%. Which of these trading relationships, can we infer, is most important?

 

http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Economy/Exports/ESSPublication

Edited February 14, 2017 by Gorgiewave

[Boris]

Here's a handy graphic - provided by the Scottish Government - about Scotland's exports. It sets out three destinations for Scottish exports: rUK, the EU and the Rest of the World. Of these, the most important is rUK, accounting for 63% of Scottish exports. Second in importance is Rest of the World, with 21%. Last is the EU with 16%. Which of these trading relationships, can we infer, is most important?

 

http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Economy/Exports/ESSPublication

 

And independence would jeopardise any of these how, precisely?  If we have products to sell, and a market for them, why, in the case of rUK, would there be any barriers if Scotland were independent?  Surely it is in the interests of both countries to keep trade continuing?

[Boris]

I don't believe that's likely.

 

Anyway, Scotland already operates within a tariffed-off area, the single market. There are no tariffs between Scotland and rUK and there haven't been since 1707. This is a Good Thing. Despite being in the EEC/EU for 43 years, despite the rEU having a population nine times that of rUK, its trade with rUK is worth four times that with rEU. This is due to a shared language, physical proximity, trust from being in the same country for 310 years, etc. It's a very good thing for Scotland and well worth keeping.

 

The Yes side also argues that EU immigration is necessary to attract immigrants and prevent depopulation.

 

In 1973 (year of entry into the EEC), the population of Scotland was 5.225 m at mid-year. In 2015, at mid-year, it was 5.373 m. A 2.9% increase in 42 years.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Scotland#Population_totals_for_Scotland_1600.E2.80.932011

 

If the population of Scotland must for some reason be higher, the EU is obviously not much of a solution. Promoting and incetivising marriage and childbirth may well do more.

 

What don't you think is likely?  USA import tariffs on UK goods?  So much for America First then...

 

A 2.9% increase in population since 1973.  Without immigration from the EU (as well as the RoW) Scotland's population would be decreasing so does this not show the importance of immigration in at least stabalising our population, and as such the economy etc?

[Gorgiewave]

 

And independence would jeopardise any of these how, precisely?  If we have products to sell, and a market for them, why, in the case of rUK, would there be any barriers if Scotland were independent?  Surely it is in the interests of both countries to keep trade continuing?

 

I could ask the same in response to your asking why the UK and the USA wouldn't have free trade. If they do, why not Scotland and rUK? One possible answer is that rUK and Scotland will then be competitors. Is Edinburgh going to out-compete the City of London? Will rUK, with lower taxes, attract more or less investment than higher-taxed Scotland. Retaining the UK prevents Scotland and rUK being competitors in capitalism. I trust that a good tovarich like you sees why cooperation is better than competition and a race to the bottom.

 

Also, as I explained above, there are tariffs on products entering and leaving the EU. If Scotland were in the EU, as the Scottish Government hopes, it would be subject to these very same tariffs with the rUK, whence it sends 63% of its exports, and with the Rest of the World, with which it does 21% of its trade.

[Gorgiewave]

 

What don't you think is likely?  USA import tariffs on UK goods?  So much for America First then...

 

A 2.9% increase in population since 1973.  Without immigration from the EU (as well as the RoW) Scotland's population would be decreasing so does this not show the importance of immigration in at least stabalising our population, and as such the economy etc?

 

I think Trump will be an aberration. Nobody knows, but I think so. His views are not mainstream among likely successors.

 

I think the numbers are small and relatively trivial. A higher birth rate, if people could withstand being off their phones for five minutes, would help much more.

[Boris]

   

I could ask the same in response to your asking why the UK and the USA wouldn't have free trade. If they do, why not Scotland and rUK? One possible answer is that rUK and Scotland will then be competitors. Is Edinburgh going to out-compete the City of London? Will rUK, with lower taxes, attract more or less investment than higher-taxed Scotland. Retaining the UK prevents Scotland and rUK being competitors in capitalism. I trust that a good tovarich like you sees why cooperation is better than competition and a race to the bottom.

 

Also, as I explained above, there are tariffs on products entering and leaving the EU. If Scotland were in the EU, as the Scottish Government hopes, it would be subject to these very same tariffs with the rUK, whence it sends 63% of its exports, and with the Rest of the World, with which it does 21% of its trade.

 

So you accept that the UK outwith the EU is going to turn into a race to the bottom type of capitalist economy.

 

OK, if Scotland had access to the single market, would that make it more or less attractive for investment than a rUK that didn't?

 

You talk of cooperation, but only with rUK, what about the rest of Europe? 

[Bazzas right boot]

http://www.thenational.scot/news/14903840.Treasury_mandarin_who_warned_against_currency_union_now_says_Scotland_leaving_UK_is_now__a_golden_opportunity_/

[Space Mackerel]

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Trapper John McIntyre]

[jambo lodge]

More anti English anti Tory nonsense from the usual suspects. I think Scotland voted for the Union in 2014. Packaged fruit and Veg are sold to the same strict food standards throughout the UK. Most food producers in Scotland recognise that the market in the wider UK is much greater than that of Scotland hence the sensible UK branding. What will they think of next to whinge about. 

[Space Mackerel]

A ken, daft statement

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[aussieh]

How very vague. The people of the south east of England matter just as much to me as my next door neighbour.

Good, Syrians need a foster home. There's an good fellow. Edited February 16, 2017 by aussieh

[aussieh]

You post a lot of nonsense but that's the biggest one of the lot. Nothing in 300 years? Really?!

Here have a union jack stap on. You obviously love taking it up the are from your overlord rulers.

 

 

Free Scotland

Death to Great Britain.

[aussieh]

Much like Yes supporters didn't need to "get over" their beliefs and workd view why will No voters need to do so if Yes wins?

 

Why are all supporters of yes progressive and by inference No voters aren't? Are Brian Soutter's views on certain things progressive?

 

And yes - the EU would like a modern, democratic nation to be in the club. Why wouldn't it? But there is likely to be polling data in favour of Norwegian and Icelandic entry. So what does that have to do with Scottish independence being progressive?

 

Independence in itself is not progressive. It is not anything other than a relocation of power. Call it what you want but it's nothing more than constitutional restructuring.

Do u remember George Sq, and that's what they're like win they win.

Oh the pain and violence when they lose.

 

Cannae fecking wait, this time it won't be we Lassie's they'll be up against. Oh its gonnae be good.

[Yoda]

Do u remember George Sq, and that's what they're like win they win.

Oh the pain and violence when they lose.

 

Cannae fecking wait, this time it won't be we Lassie's they'll be up against. Oh its gonnae be good.

You should like you've just finished watching Braveheart for the 200th time.

 

FreeeeeeDum !!!!

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Do u remember George Sq, and that's what they're like win they win.

Oh the pain and violence when they lose.

 

Cannae fecking wait, this time it won't be we Lassie's they'll be up against. Oh its gonnae be good.

 

Danny Dyer alert.

[Arnold Rothstein]

Good, Syrians need a foster home. There's an good fellow.

On the bevvy at 6.11?

[coconut doug]

More anti English anti Tory nonsense from the usual suspects. I think Scotland voted for the Union in 2014. Packaged fruit and Veg are sold to the same strict food standards throughout the UK. Most food producers in Scotland recognise that the market in the wider UK is much greater than that of Scotland hence the sensible UK branding. What will they think of next to whinge about. 

What is anti-English or anti- Tory about this?  Who are the usual suspects? England and G.B are not the same.

[Seymour M Hersh]

 

Well that's fairly embarrassing and get's shouty at the end just for good measure. 

[Stuart Lyon]

Ms Duffy right up there with the loony MSP banging on about W H Smiths not stocking Scottish spring water!

[Bazzas right boot]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/business/15101460.Major_investment_scrapped_at_Upper_Clyde_s_last_yards/

[Bazzas right boot]

https://www.facebook.com/theSNP/?fref=ts

[Bazzas right boot]

https://www.facebook.com/theSNP/photos/a.339647974077.151375.77249349077/10155126707239078/?type=3&theater

[Space Mackerel]

https://www.facebook.com/theSNP/photos/a.339647974077.151375.77249349077/10155126707239078/?type=3&theater

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[aussieh]

You should like you've just finished watching Braveheart for the 200th time.

 

FreeeeeeDum !!!!

What's Braveheart?

[aussieh]

Danny Dyer alert.

[aussieh]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/business/15101460.Major_investment_scrapped_at_Upper_Clyde_s_last_yards/

Tosh, I can't get your links open. (No Kenny Williams faces, please)

[JamboX2]

 

1. Why is there no going back? There's always a chance to go back. Britain may one day rejoin the EU. Nothing is written in stone. Why would they lose their nationality? They're born British citizens. It is their citizenship. They could be true internationalist Scots and opt for two citizenships and two passports.

 

Can you name a country that has given up it's independence? The EU is gone for the U.K. for the short and medium term at least. There is apparently a queue to get in and a requirement to use the Euro. We would be vetoed by the Serbs as they would not have forgiven us for bombing hundreds of civilian targets in their country. That's how it works isn't it?

2. You stated Yes supporters were progressive. Brian Soutter owns First. He is a major Yes supporter, big backer of the SNP and has repeatedly campaigned against abortion rights, equal rights for homosexuals and against sex education covering homosexuality at schools. Hardly the views of a progressive yet your claimed progressive movement takes his cash.

 

You are making it up. I didn't say this at all. I don't care about Brian Soutar and I don't believe one person defines a movement. He is entitled to his views and the SNP are entitled to take his money if he wants to give it to them. Are the SNP against abortion rights, equal rights for homosexuals and educating about homosexuality? Are you suggesting Soutar is buying policy, if so you are mixing them up with Labour (unions) and the Tories (business). In recent years there have been many Labour members and supporters convicted of paedophilia and many of their cabinet ministers supported the Paedophile Information Exchange. Should we characterise the Labour Party in that way now?

Equally, I voted Yes. I'm currently undecided in terms of a second vote. So please try not to label me and my views.

 

Of course you are undecided, you argue both sides of most discussions on here.

3. I would imagine there's some truth in that. Whether many ordinary people care as much about such things is open to debate. If Scotland joined the EU it would be a small state in a larger union and have an even greater democratic deficit than it does in the UK in terms of representation. Scots backed UK membership of the EU. That does not mean that if independent they would necessarily back Scottish entry into the EU. The terms would be different and we should not presume membership a given. The Scottish political class have made great play of referenda i think if independent we should get another say.

 

Another insurmountable deficit for Scotland. We are uniquely disadvantaged without England to represent us and speak for us.

 

4. It isn't more than anything other than relocating political power. You are simply removing Westminster and political union from the equation. Scotland may enact equally regressive legislation. It may cut corporation tax. Abolish APD. It could switch to insurance based healthcare. It's neither a guarantee that a NATO nation would avoid pressure to take part in military operations- some of them follies.

 

It can do whatever it thinks is appropriate for Scotland. As we can see with Brexit this is not always an option for us currently. Perhaps that's one thing I could agree with the unionists on. Being governed from Edinburgh and London are not the same thing. I think Edinburgh will be better, they think it will be worse, only you thinks it will be the same.

 

You need a change of attitude in politicians to see a neutral, permanently centre left nation. At present, I do not see that is what is actually on offer from those seeking to bring about independence. In fact, I see a rather different picture. One which based on social attitude surveys shows that Scots largely ahree with their wider British counterparts on major social, economic and political matters tgey just vote differently.

 

Of course you don't see it but around half of your party's voters of 5 years ago do. That is why they have left Labour and gone over to the SNP. The ones that don't like it are now Tories. Who is left? - the diehards and the bewildered. The social attitude surveys I see show Scotland to be different see Brexit vote or the proportion of Tory MPs. 

 

 

1. No idea what your first post is getting at with your Serb point, so I do not intend to proceed with that. There is certainly a queue of nations seeking to join, but we both know, and I hope accept, that the speed at which you are in the queue is indeterminate and the pace of entry from the queue (so to speak) is compatibility with meeting the entry requirements. Now based on the idea that an independent Scotland is not achieved until after the UK as a whole has Brexited, then Scotland joins the EU from outside the club. This is opposed to the Salmond proposal in the 2014 vote on joining in our own right from within (largely on the UK's terms). If starting from outside then we need to meet the accession criteria (the Copenhagen Criteria), many of them we already meet and many of our laws are already in line with EU law, however let's list them:

• Functional democratic governance including the use of secret ballots, right to establish political parties without state interference, fair and free press, free trade union organisations, freedom of personal opinion and executive power restricted by laws and an independent judiciary. We can agree that we have that and if independent we would have a constitution drawn up enshrining that.
• Rule of law meaning that government authority may only be exercised in accordance with documented laws. Again, this exists.
• A respect and adherence of Human Rights - ie those in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. Again at present that is fine via the Human Rights Act and I am sure an independent Scotland would do likewise.
• Respect for and protection of minorities Again I see no reason why this does not exist - maybe we can give Shetland home rule to confirm it.
• Economic criteria One includes a functioning market economy and that producers have the capability to cope with competition and market forces of the Single Market and European Union. Yes, we broadly have that.
• Economic Criteria Two (the Maastricht Criteria) - Euro Convergence criteria and European Exchange Rate Mechanism membership is required in order to join the Euro. So you need to join the mechanisms necessary to join the Euro. All new members are projected to join. Denmark has an opt-out and Sweden is dependent on referendum approval. This is also the area where the budget deficit cannot exceed 3% at the end of the preceding fiscal year and neither for any of the two subsequent years. This would mean considerable belt tightening for Scotland based on certain statistics. Failure to make appropriate adjustments can lead to the EIB reserving the right to stop lending and for the Commission to levy fines on the nation in question. Not saying that is a certainty, but it is a requirement of membership we need to meet to get in. Based on deficit figures for Scotland the belt tightening and tax situation in Scotland would become quite drastic to get in. That is a factor we need to consider.
• Government debt to GDP ration must not exceed 60%.
• Exchange rate sustainability - applicant nations cannot devalue their currency if pegged to the euro in the previous 2 years (you need to be pegged to the euro to join). 
• Government yields and long term interest rates cannot be 2% higher than the average of similar 10 year bonds in 3 EU states with the lowest inflation rates.
• Finally, all EU nations must enact legislation to meet EU law. Romania and Bulgaria had 31 Chapters of EU law to enact, Croatia, Turkey and Iceland 35 chapters. Scotland will almost certainly be further along the line to this and it shouldn't propose much of an issue. They call it the Acquis Communaitaire - all law found in the treaties and fundamental rights of the EU. This means all 31 Chapters, including the areas the UK has an opt-out in (i.e Schengen, the Euro, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the freedom, security and justice area). This is where Scotland may need to accept things it is not currently apart of, which may in turn affect it's relationship with the rest of the UK. 

So how it works? Well we need to meet the above criteria. Do I think we will? Yes. Do I think we will get the same terms of entry as we enjoy now? No. Do I think we will face hard choices with hard consequences and with independence and joining the EU which will make our relationship with UK harder and will also make our own domestic position harder? Yes. These are things which should be discussed maturely and the consequences considered fully.

 

2. You said in your post on 11/2/17, 7:45pm that "I think people see indy supporters as progressive, internationalist and representing the future."

 

I took that to mean you thought independence supporters were progressive and internationalist. I dare say some are. My point was that is not always the case. I don't think you can say that the Yes movement is predominantly progressive or seen as such. I've heard some thoroughly unprogressive views from Yes supporters (my Soutter point) and from some on here (aussieh has become somewhat an ethnic nationalist). 

 

There is an argument Soutter did buy SNP policy over re-regulating local bus routes which would have hurt his profits for First Group had it been implemented post-2007 - http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12766548.SNP_accused_of_dumping_bus_plan_to_please_millionaire_backer/. 

 

I think you are being vicariously personal in your emotions over the SNP. The Labour party is a party founded in part by the Trade Union movement. It should come as no surprise that their policies may attune to the trade union movement's views - especially given that the party conference (where policy is made official) includes union delegates as party members and affiliates. Should I be shocked if the SNP, a party formed by nationalists for independence, comes up with policies, slogans and manifestos which are pro-independence? On your Tory business point, again, should I be shocked if SNP officials accept large donations from businesses that there won't be a knock on effect in policy? I suppose the corporation tax cuts and the proposed oil tax cuts are just coincidences? 

 

Can you substantiate, or explain, your paedophile points? I think there is a lot of heat here and I would like it to be taken out. But would be interested in this point. I mean, if we want heated we could go to very tenuous links between the forerunner of the SNP and Nazism. But I see no purpose in bringing that into a debate on 21st century Scottish politics. But I would like you to explain your paedophile point and its relevance to policy issues.

 

3. Not my point. More a defence of democracy. I believe that if we are newly independent, and based on point 1, we are to enter the EU on new terms then I think it only right the Scottish people be given a chance to ratify these new terms themselves based on then new interests of a new independent nation. Who knows, it may not be in the interests of an independent Scotland to join the EU if the terms are not ( a ) good or ( b ) beneficial to her people. Nothing to do with being children of the English.

 

4. What is your proof it will be any better? I'd say we are getting much of a muchness in terms of boldness of government or in terms of combating cuts and austerity, in making life better for the next generation. Things aren't abysmal, but we are getting very similar governance as the rest of the UK. Uninspired. Insipid. Unimaginative. I do not disagree that this may change with time, but it is equally likely to change across the UK as well. We are living in a time of great change and of great need for change - but political not constitutional change.

 

5. I think the vote from over 5 years ago saw the need for change and bought the idea that independence was a panacea. Which you also seem to believe. That is fair enough. But it won't change much in the end. Political change - the desire for a better way of life, for a new way of governing, for responsible capitalism, for redistribution of wealth, for better public services and a international perspective to the worlds issues - is what is needed. Adopting and borrowing policies from other places (like the Finnish baby box) is part of it. But we need to build our own vision of a better UK or a better Scotland. Political relocation of power does not do that for me. It may be an instigator, but so might Brexit. The Depression and a World War created the Beveridge report. Perhaps independence will do likewise; but that is not the change it is a catalyst for political change.

 

You know fine well that is not the social attitude surveys I was talking about. But let us assess them both: 1,018,322 Scots voted leave. That's a significant proportion of the electorate of Scotland on a 67% turnout. 1.6 million voted to remain (a similar total to the Yes vote in 2014). Whilst Leave lost, they had a significant number of Scottish votes. So should we ignore 1 million voters who got the result they wanted in a UK wide referendum? Should their concerns be ignored? I don't think they should, but nor do I think we should be rushing here.

 

On Tory support: Holyrood operates a greater proportional system than the Westminster elections. In 2016 they got 22% of the seat vote and 23% in the list. If you take those numbers as a straight % return they should have got 16 Seats and 12/13 List Seats (28/29). They got 31. So they are over represented in Holyrood based on the system adjusting seat. In 2015, they got 1 seat on 17% of the vote. They should therefore, if the votes cast met the seats you would see a fairer 10 Scottish Tory MPs. So they are not truly represented fairly in Scottish politics at a UK level. More fairly so at Scottish level, more accurately anyway, and they now form the opposition. 

 

The attitude surveys I was discussing was ones like whilst (in 2014) 75% of English respondents wanted reduced immigration in Scotland the result was 58%. So based on that, both parts of the UK in question here want the same thing by a majority. http://www.ssa.natcen.ac.uk/?_ga=1.216230358.1761565556.1487462605 / http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/latest-report/british-social-attitudes-31/immigration/introduction.aspx

 

And bearing in mind the British survey includes Scottish views its not hard to see there are broad similarities in opinions. There is not yet a clear political divergence. 

 

On your - you argue two points of view. I know what I believe at the core, but things like independence to me are side issues. I can make my mind up on matters as and when I am required to. It is not always a bad thing not to have engraved your opinions in stone.

[Adam Murray]

Given some of the anti British bile posted on this forum in various threads over the previous few day's, I can't see this being any kind of problem with the card carrying Nationalists on here, as even high ranking members of their party seem to have a lot of sympathy with Irish Republican terrorists. 

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15102373.Revealed__picture_of_SNP_candidate_on_pro_IRA_march/?ref=mrb&lp=1#comments-anchor

[Trapper John McIntyre]

Very good points made here:

 

http://edinburghengineer.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/investor-perception-of-todays-scots.html

[jambo lodge]

Very good points made here:

 

http://edinburghengineer.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/investor-perception-of-todays-scots.html

 An excellent analysis of the Scottish Angry Party.   

[Mister T]

Do u remember George Sq, and that's what they're like win they win.

Oh the pain and violence when they lose.

 

Cannae fecking wait, this time it won't be we Lassie's they'll be up against. Oh its gonnae be good.

How? You turning up with your pals from the green brigade?

[coconut doug]

1. No idea what your first post is getting at with your Serb point, so I do not intend to proceed with that. There is certainly a queue of nations seeking to join, but we both know, and I hope accept, that the speed at which you are in the queue is indeterminate and the pace of entry from the queue (so to speak) is compatibility with meeting the entry requirements. Now based on the idea that an independent Scotland is not achieved until after the UK as a whole has Brexited, then Scotland joins the EU from outside the club. This is opposed to the Salmond proposal in the 2014 vote on joining in our own right from within (largely on the UK's terms). If starting from outside then we need to meet the accession criteria (the Copenhagen Criteria), many of them we already meet and many of our laws are already in line with EU law, however let's list them:

• Functional democratic governance including the use of secret ballots, right to establish political parties without state interference, fair and free press, free trade union organisations, freedom of personal opinion and executive power restricted by laws and an independent judiciary. We can agree that we have that and if independent we would have a constitution drawn up enshrining that.
• Rule of law meaning that government authority may only be exercised in accordance with documented laws. Again, this exists.
• A respect and adherence of Human Rights - ie those in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. Again at present that is fine via the Human Rights Act and I am sure an independent Scotland would do likewise.
• Respect for and protection of minorities Again I see no reason why this does not exist - maybe we can give Shetland home rule to confirm it.
• Economic criteria One includes a functioning market economy and that producers have the capability to cope with competition and market forces of the Single Market and European Union. Yes, we broadly have that.
• Economic Criteria Two (the Maastricht Criteria) - Euro Convergence criteria and European Exchange Rate Mechanism membership is required in order to join the Euro. So you need to join the mechanisms necessary to join the Euro. All new members are projected to join. Denmark has an opt-out and Sweden is dependent on referendum approval. This is also the area where the budget deficit cannot exceed 3% at the end of the preceding fiscal year and neither for any of the two subsequent years. This would mean considerable belt tightening for Scotland based on certain statistics. Failure to make appropriate adjustments can lead to the EIB reserving the right to stop lending and for the Commission to levy fines on the nation in question. Not saying that is a certainty, but it is a requirement of membership we need to meet to get in. Based on deficit figures for Scotland the belt tightening and tax situation in Scotland would become quite drastic to get in. That is a factor we need to consider.
• Government debt to GDP ration must not exceed 60%.
• Exchange rate sustainability - applicant nations cannot devalue their currency if pegged to the euro in the previous 2 years (you need to be pegged to the euro to join). 
• Government yields and long term interest rates cannot be 2% higher than the average of similar 10 year bonds in 3 EU states with the lowest inflation rates.
• Finally, all EU nations must enact legislation to meet EU law. Romania and Bulgaria had 31 Chapters of EU law to enact, Croatia, Turkey and Iceland 35 chapters. Scotland will almost certainly be further along the line to this and it shouldn't propose much of an issue. They call it the Acquis Communaitaire - all law found in the treaties and fundamental rights of the EU. This means all 31 Chapters, including the areas the UK has an opt-out in (i.e Schengen, the Euro, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the freedom, security and justice area). This is where Scotland may need to accept things it is not currently apart of, which may in turn affect it's relationship with the rest of the UK. 

So how it works? Well we need to meet the above criteria. Do I think we will? Yes. Do I think we will get the same terms of entry as we enjoy now? No. Do I think we will face hard choices with hard consequences and with independence and joining the EU which will make our relationship with UK harder and will also make our own domestic position harder? Yes. These are things which should be discussed maturely and the consequences considered fully.

 

2. You said in your post on 11/2/17, 7:45pm that "I think people see indy supporters as progressive, internationalist and representing the future."

 

I took that to mean you thought independence supporters were progressive and internationalist. I dare say some are. My point was that is not always the case. I don't think you can say that the Yes movement is predominantly progressive or seen as such. I've heard some thoroughly unprogressive views from Yes supporters (my Soutter point) and from some on here (aussieh has become somewhat an ethnic nationalist). 

 

There is an argument Soutter did buy SNP policy over re-regulating local bus routes which would have hurt his profits for First Group had it been implemented post-2007 - http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12766548.SNP_accused_of_dumping_bus_plan_to_please_millionaire_backer/. 

 

I think you are being vicariously personal in your emotions over the SNP. The Labour party is a party founded in part by the Trade Union movement. It should come as no surprise that their policies may attune to the trade union movement's views - especially given that the party conference (where policy is made official) includes union delegates as party members and affiliates. Should I be shocked if the SNP, a party formed by nationalists for independence, comes up with policies, slogans and manifestos which are pro-independence? On your Tory business point, again, should I be shocked if SNP officials accept large donations from businesses that there won't be a knock on effect in policy? I suppose the corporation tax cuts and the proposed oil tax cuts are just coincidences? 

 

Can you substantiate, or explain, your paedophile points? I think there is a lot of heat here and I would like it to be taken out. But would be interested in this point. I mean, if we want heated we could go to very tenuous links between the forerunner of the SNP and Nazism. But I see no purpose in bringing that into a debate on 21st century Scottish politics. But I would like you to explain your paedophile point and its relevance to policy issues.

 

3. Not my point. More a defence of democracy. I believe that if we are newly independent, and based on point 1, we are to enter the EU on new terms then I think it only right the Scottish people be given a chance to ratify these new terms themselves based on then new interests of a new independent nation. Who knows, it may not be in the interests of an independent Scotland to join the EU if the terms are not ( a ) good or ( b ) beneficial to her people. Nothing to do with being children of the English.

 

4. What is your proof it will be any better? I'd say we are getting much of a muchness in terms of boldness of government or in terms of combating cuts and austerity, in making life better for the next generation. Things aren't abysmal, but we are getting very similar governance as the rest of the UK. Uninspired. Insipid. Unimaginative. I do not disagree that this may change with time, but it is equally likely to change across the UK as well. We are living in a time of great change and of great need for change - but political not constitutional change.

 

5. I think the vote from over 5 years ago saw the need for change and bought the idea that independence was a panacea. Which you also seem to believe. That is fair enough. But it won't change much in the end. Political change - the desire for a better way of life, for a new way of governing, for responsible capitalism, for redistribution of wealth, for better public services and a international perspective to the worlds issues - is what is needed. Adopting and borrowing policies from other places (like the Finnish baby box) is part of it. But we need to build our own vision of a better UK or a better Scotland. Political relocation of power does not do that for me. It may be an instigator, but so might Brexit. The Depression and a World War created the Beveridge report. Perhaps independence will do likewise; but that is not the change it is a catalyst for political change.

 

You know fine well that is not the social attitude surveys I was talking about. But let us assess them both: 1,018,322 Scots voted leave. That's a significant proportion of the electorate of Scotland on a 67% turnout. 1.6 million voted to remain (a similar total to the Yes vote in 2014). Whilst Leave lost, they had a significant number of Scottish votes. So should we ignore 1 million voters who got the result they wanted in a UK wide referendum? Should their concerns be ignored? I don't think they should, but nor do I think we should be rushing here.

 

On Tory support: Holyrood operates a greater proportional system than the Westminster elections. In 2016 they got 22% of the seat vote and 23% in the list. If you take those numbers as a straight % return they should have got 16 Seats and 12/13 List Seats (28/29). They got 31. So they are over represented in Holyrood based on the system adjusting seat. In 2015, they got 1 seat on 17% of the vote. They should therefore, if the votes cast met the seats you would see a fairer 10 Scottish Tory MPs. So they are not truly represented fairly in Scottish politics at a UK level. More fairly so at Scottish level, more accurately anyway, and they now form the opposition. 

 

The attitude surveys I was discussing was ones like whilst (in 2014) 75% of English respondents wanted reduced immigration in Scotland the result was 58%. So based on that, both parts of the UK in question here want the same thing by a majority. http://www.ssa.natcen.ac.uk/?_ga=1.216230358.1761565556.1487462605 / http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/latest-report/british-social-attitudes-31/immigration/introduction.aspx

 

And bearing in mind the British survey includes Scottish views its not hard to see there are broad similarities in opinions. There is not yet a clear political divergence. 

 

On your - you argue two points of view. I know what I believe at the core, but things like independence to me are side issues. I can make my mind up on matters as and when I am required to. It is not always a bad thing not to have engraved your opinions in stone.

Interesting points on the E.U. I'm sorry but I have no interest in arguing these Labour v SNP points again. I don't know if you are aware of PIE but here is an apology from a Labour cabinet minister http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10666875/Patricia-Hewitt-called-for-age-of-consent-to-be-lowered-to-ten.html

[JamboX2]

Interesting points on the E.U. I'm sorry but I have no interest in arguing these Labour v SNP points again. I don't know if you are aware of PIE but here is an apology from a Labour cabinet minister http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10666875/Patricia-Hewitt-called-for-age-of-consent-to-be-lowered-to-ten.html

With the exception of point 2 the rest is largely a-political and a debate over the democratic, political and constitutional situation we face. I'd be interested to hear why you were so opposed to my suggestion an independent Scotland ratify its new membership terms by a popular vote. Surely whoever forms a government at that time cannot take support here for granted? Or that our political system unfairly represents the multitude of political views in our pluralistic society.

 

Like most of my posts I am trying to npt make this SNP v Labour. You asked and pushed on point 2. The rest I do not wish to be viewed in that light.

 

I'll happily read further into PIE but I can hardly accept from your link that the actions of the NCCL in the 1970s amount to Hariet Harman as a cabinet minister over 20 years later aiding and abetting paedophiles.

 

Nor have you substantiated this:

 

"In recent years there have been many Labour members and supporters convicted of paedophilia"

 

I don't think such things should be banded about lightly regardless of political party.

Edited February 21, 2017 by JamboX2

[DanishTam10]

The reason this thread is resonating is because the SNP talk nonsense, and they have messed us all up since 2007 with their actual policy nonsense. 

 

Even more SNP nonsense. 

 

 

[jambos are go!]

Do the SNP have the right to take all of Scotland except The Glasgow and Dundee areas out of the UK against its will?

Edited February 21, 2017 by jambos are go!

[AlphonseCapone]

Do the SNP have the right to take all of Scotland except The Glasgow and Dundee areas out of the UK against its will?

What a stupid question.

[reaths17]

Do the SNP have the right to take all of Scotland except The Glasgow and Dundee areas out of the UK against its will?

 

 

What a stupid question.

no...whats stupid is the fanatically delude SNP supporters who were beaten by the will of the people, yet still bang on and on and on about independence despite being told to doo one.

 

the results are in you lost, get over it. since then you've lost your main bargaining chip(black gold) so only stupidity would change the outcome of another referndum

[AlphonseCapone]

no...whats stupid is the fanatically delude SNP supporters who were beaten by the will of the people, yet still bang on and on and on about independence despite being told to doo one.

 

the results are in you lost, get over it. since then you've lost your main bargaining chip(black gold) so only stupidity would change the outcome of another referndum

It's ridiculous you can reference stupidity with the state of that post above. Learn some spelling and grammar ffs.

[JamboX2]

What a stupid question.

It's the same logic as Scotland staying in the EU given the Brexit vote.

[AlphonseCapone]

It's the same logic as Scotland staying in the EU given the Brexit vote.

No it's not. I've seen you use a similar argument before and tbh it's beneath you.

 

Stop acting like you can equate cities or council areas to a country like Scotland. Scotland is a country, has always been a country, at some points independent, and to use the argument used above is simply deflection or stupidity.

 

It's also stupid because where does it end, can I get independence from the whole place since I disagree with the direction of travel? Does that make me exempt from the law of the land if I do?

 

And finally, if any area or city actually wanted to secede from Scotland, there is nothing stopping them.

 

Seriously mate, it's a shite point, I get you love to play the man who voted Yes but loves to hate that choice but at least pick sensible points to argue.

[Adam Murray]

There was something along similar lines from Orkney and Shetland in the run up to the 2014 referendum, about being taken out the Union against their will, can't quite recall what it was all about. 

Anyway, it's a pretty lame argument, you go with the majority, simple, the sooner people accept that's how we work at the moment, the better.

[Thunderstruck]

It's ridiculous you can reference stupidity with the state of that post above. Learn some spelling and grammar ffs.

Tut, tut, playing the man and not the post.

[AlphonseCapone]

Tut, tut, playing the man and not the post.

When the man tries to generalise a group of people based on the fact they hold a different political opinion, it's fair game.

 

When that same man attempts to generalise about that group of people on the basis of something like intelligence while actually displaying little themselves, even more fair game.

 

Moral of the story, don't generalise about a wide group of people based on your own prejudices and you won't have some uncomfortable truths thrown your way.

[JamboX2]

No it's not. I've seen you use a similar argument before and tbh it's beneath you.

 

Stop acting like you can equate cities or council areas to a country like Scotland. Scotland is a country, has always been a country, at some points independent, and to use the argument used above is simply deflection or stupidity.

 

It's also stupid because where does it end, can I get independence from the whole place since I disagree with the direction of travel? Does that make me exempt from the law of the land if I do?

 

And finally, if any area or city actually wanted to secede from Scotland, there is nothing stopping them.

 

Seriously mate, it's a shite point, I get you love to play the man who voted Yes but loves to hate that choice but at least pick sensible points to argue.

What's so special about a country though? That's really the point. A country is just a larger grouping of people.

 

There's also an element of double standards here in that it's ok for Scotland to seek independence but the idea of greater autonomy for the islands (even as far as devolution for them) is not ok. Or that independence should be for all of Scotland not just the places which back it.

 

The same is applied with Brexit - special deal for London or Scotland or NI because of the vote. If you want to argue you such things then the logical conclusion results in arguing that if Edinburgh wanted to vote to become a city state outwith the UK or Scotland, it too is legitimate.

 

You cannot say the democratic will of the people of certain place is ignored (ie Scotland) and then argue one nation ideas in the reverse when parts of Scotland grumble.

 

Edit: on your last point - I may well vote yes again, who knows. I am trying to keep an open mind on it. My disagreement is not necessarily with Independence but with the means and tactics getting there. At present I think it's for a lot of the wrong reasons and political opportunism than anything else.

 

I'm slowly becoming Jim Sillars

Edited February 21, 2017 by JamboX2

[AlphonseCapone]

What's so special about a country though? That's really the point. A country is just a larger grouping of people.

 

There's also an element of double standards here in that it's ok for Scotland to seek independence but the idea of greater autonomy for the islands (even as far as devolution for them) is not ok. Or that independence should be for all of Scotland not just the places which back it.

 

The same is applied with Brexit - special deal for London or Scotland or NI because of the vote. If you want to argue you such things then the logical conclusion results in arguing that if Edinburgh wanted to vote to become a city state outwith the UK or Scotland, it too is legitimate.

 

You cannot say the democratic will of the people of certain place is ignored (ie Scotland) and then argue one nation ideas in the reverse when parts of Scotland grumble.

 

Edit: on your last point - I may well vote yes again, who knows. I am trying to keep an open mind on it. My disagreement is not necessarily with Independence but with the means and tactics getting there. At present I think it's for a lot of the wrong reasons and political opportunism than anything else.

 

I'm slowly becoming Jim Sillars

The only thing special about a country is that civilisation has deemed it special. It's the level of group that people choose to negotiate at, trade at, fight at etc. The UK is just fairly unique in that country here does not equal Statehood like it does in most countries.

 

I'm not sure who is against greater autonomy for islands tbh? Greater autonomy isn't independence so isn't really comparable.

 

Edinburgh becoming a city state would be unique compared to Scottish independence in several ways; it has no historical precedence, there is not a significant proportion of the population actively advocating it, it has almost none of the infrastructure to actually do it. That doesn't mean it couldn't argue it's point to do it from a philosophical point of view, but no one does in reality because the notion is ridiculous.

 

And to take your reductio ad absurdum logic to its conclusion, can I as an individual become completely independent from any level of governance?

 

Keeping an open mind is fine but I genuinely don't think I've ever seen you arguing the positive points of independence or backing up a pro independence poster, always seems to be the opposite. I may be completely wrong on that though.

[Sarah O]

.

[coconut doug]

With the exception of point 2 the rest is largely a-political and a debate over the democratic, political and constitutional situation we face. I'd be interested to hear why you were so opposed to my suggestion an independent Scotland ratify its new membership terms by a popular vote. Surely whoever forms a government at that time cannot take support here for granted? Or that our political system unfairly represents the multitude of political views in our pluralistic society.

 

Like most of my posts I am trying to npt make this SNP v Labour. You asked and pushed on point 2. The rest I do not wish to be viewed in that light.

 

I'll happily read further into PIE but I can hardly accept from your link that the actions of the NCCL in the 1970s amount to Hariet Harman as a cabinet minister over 20 years later aiding and abetting paedophiles.

 

Nor have you substantiated this:

 

"In recent years there have been many Labour members and supporters convicted of paedophilia"

 

I don't think such things should be banded about lightly regardless of political party.

I deliberately tried to avoid this. You tried to characterise the SNP with Soutar's views on a sexual matter. I said it wasn't fair comment and that it would be easy but wrong to associate all of the Labour Party with Paedophilia.

 

However the link I posted showed an apology from a former Labour minister for her support in trying to lower the age of consent to 10 and legalise incest. HH has not apologised but her signature  appears on the groups official documents as well.

 

There are hundreds of convictions against Labour members all you have to do is google it.

 

I'm not banding these things about, you are.  

[JamboX2]

I deliberately tried to avoid this. You tried to characterise the SNP with Soutar's views on a sexual matter. I said it wasn't fair comment and that it would be easy but wrong to associate all of the Labour Party with Paedophilia.

 

No. You said people in the EU view independence supporters as progressive. I questioned that with reference to Soutter. My point being you can't over generalise a movement.

 

However the link I posted showed an apology from a former Labour minister for her support in trying to lower the age of consent to 10 and legalise incest. HH has not apologised but her signature appears on the groups official documents as well.

Were they cabinet ministers at the time with the ability to do this? Again that was the thrust of your point that Labour ministers supported this. Again happy to read evidence of this when they were in government.

 

There are hundreds of convictions against Labour members all you have to do is google it.

 

I'm not banding these things about, you are.

Mo you banded about the allegation without backing it up in your post. I'm asking for you to provide evidence for it. Edited February 22, 2017 by JamboX2