How Would You Vote in IndyRef2?

[Trapper John McIntyre]

What do you mean it's fake?

 

Edited January 20, 2019 by Trapper John McIntyre

[Harry Potter]

8 hours ago, Roxy Hearts said:

I'm not asking about the SNP's vision. I want what's best for Scotland and I don't think that's best served under WM. I presume you think we can't govern ourselves as a hard fact? I believe we can be better than say, Ethiopia. 

Whats Ethiopia got to do with us going on our own, bit random at the very least,  no one is saying its brilliant 

under westminster, but theres one huge risk going on our own.

[frankblack]

7 hours ago, Roxy Hearts said:

Divorce bill! We own assets worth multi billions as % of the stinking UK. Why does WM want to keep us if we are not viable? Financial services is that it? UK has nowt without Scotland. Stop mentioning the SNP and think about us, the people and what we could achieve. 

 

May and Corbyn and their ilk. We can't do better than that? 

 

 

 

Don't think I can defend the shambles at Westminster but Holyrood is little different in reality.

 

The Divorce bill and currency are just two of the many issues.  You would need expensive infrastructure set up from scratch to replace that of the UK.  Would Scotland need a hard border with England, access to rUK market etc?

[Ricardo Shillyshally]

If we can learn one thing from the Brexit shambles, it's that the "don't worry, it'll  be fine, we'll sort it out" argument for change is very dangerous.

 

Until the independence movement can give a clear path and vision on how change will be better, then they won't convince me.

 

[frankblack]

52 minutes ago, Ricardo Shillyshally said:

If we can learn one thing from the Brexit shambles, it's that the "don't worry, it'll  be fine, we'll sort it out" argument for change is very dangerous.

 

Until the independence movement can give a clear path and vision on how change will be better, then they won't convince me.

 

 

They will never win an indy referendum until they convince the public their lives are going to be better or at the very least won't be worse off.

[jack D and coke]

On 19/01/2019 at 06:37, Brighton Jambo said:

But poll after poll has said the Scottish people don’t want another referendum on this.  Consistnestly for more than 4 years that has been the case.   Why not actually listen to the voters of Scotland? 

You believe polls do you? Who are the people they ask for these polls? I’ve never been asked in my life, on anything. 

Im not clamouring for another btw but anybody who claims things haven’t changed is at it.

Needing Westminster's permission is shite as well. **** them. We actually have the right to dissolve the union never mind ask their permission for a vote on it.  

[Roxy Hearts]

2 hours ago, Harry Potter said:

Whats Ethiopia got to do with us going on our own, bit random at the very least,  no one is saying its brilliant 

under westminster, but theres one huge risk going on our own.

I was using it as an extreme point of views as the nae sayers think we would become a third world country after independence. The Yes movement have a lot of convincing to do and it will be another struggle as no media to support their view and the constant propaganda against them.. I believe the majority of Scots would vote for it but a mixture of hard Unionists, old folk and I'm alright types would be against. 

[Cade]

1 hour ago, frankblack said:

 

They will never win an indy referendum until they convince the public their lives are going to be better or at the very least won't be worse off.

Brexit won theirs in the full knowledge we'll all be worse off!

[frankblack]

12 minutes ago, Cade said:

Brexit won theirs in the full knowledge we'll all be worse off!

 

And yet the MPs can't get a deal through parliament.

 

The current situation with Brexit dying on its arse is showing the problems Indy Ref 2 will have.

[JudyJudyJudy]

On 19/01/2019 at 12:55, Roxy Hearts said:

My support for the SNP is stronger than ever. They are the only party that stands up for Scotland especially in WM. Who else am I supposed to vote for? 

 

Some of the mud slinging is just about the dislike for them without foundation. They stand up well with their governance against all other parts of the UK. 

 

I would probably vote for a real Scottish Conservative party if we achieved independence not that lot with the moronic Davidson. 

Excellent post. Its a bigger Yes from me the next time 

[JudyJudyJudy]

25 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

I was using it as an extreme point of views as the nae sayers think we would become a third world country after independence. The Yes movement have a lot of convincing to do and it will be another struggle as no media to support their view and the constant propaganda against them.. I believe the majority of Scots would vote for it but a mixture of hard Unionists, old folk and I'm alright types would be against. 

Unionists, old folk and I'm alright types would be against   - exactly 

[Coolio]

On 19/01/2019 at 18:48, Thunderstruck said:

 

So, you really aren’t interested in healthy discourse, are you. Just another Nat with no answers, a keenness to indulge in whataboutery and a very one-sided view of the misdeeds in politics. 

 

If you think diving into another referendum without offering up some form of prospectus is the way to go, you crack on. The outcome will not be good from your point of view. 

 

The truth is that their isn’t a plan out there that makes good reading from a nationalist point of view. That much was demonstrated by the recent output by the SNP’s tame experts which pointed to at least 10 years of difficult or challenging economic times. Good luck selling that. 

 

The lesson of Brexit is that the Leave side appealed to nationalism and regaining control while offering no notion of how the withdrawal might be managed. If you missed that, you really haven’t been paying attention.  

 

I'm always interested in healthy discourse. 

I would like a 2nd Independence vote as I think that the Scottish voting public were ill informed and on several occasions lied to by Government officials and the mass media. As such, and in view of subsequent actions/results (some of which are listed below) I feel a further vote is justified.

 

IMHO a very big problem for the Westminster government/No campaigners is that with their long list of broken promises/false claims from the last time, the vast majority of which were couched in a scaremongering format, a significant number of people in Scotland won’t believe a word they say in any future referendum, even with the incessant massive media bias – which is one of the reasons more and more people are opening up to the opportunities of independence.

 

EVERYONE OTHER THAN T PLEASE FEEL FREE TO SKIP TO THE NEXT POST NOW if you wish

 

T - In answer to your whataboutery claim please feel free to comment on the following: 

 

BROKEN PROMISES / False Claims

The EU

The Promise

The Tory Westminster government and No campaign in 2014 stated that the way to protect Scotland’s place in Europe was to vote No.

During the referendum, the Better Together website said: “Scotland enjoys membership of the EU because of our membership of the UK and if we no longer are members of the UK then it follows that we are no longer are part of the EU.”

In a televised STV debate on 2 September 2014, Ruth Davidson said: “I think it is disingenuous of Patrick [Harvie] to say that No means out and Yes means in, when actually the opposite is true. No means we stay in, we are members of the European Union.”

The Reality

We now find ourselves being dragged out of the EU against our will.

 

“Extensive” new powers

The Promise

As part of “the Vow”, the then three Westminster party leaders promised “extensive new powers” for the Scottish Parliament.

David Cameron claimed that “A No vote would lead to faster, fairer, safer and better change and that draft legislation for new powers for Scotland would be in place by January, 2015”.

 

The Reality

Almost every concession for more powers in the watered down Smith Commission document had at least one Unionist party trying to block it. Scots now also know that the Westminster negotiators tried to use the Scotland Bill fiscal agreement talks to cut Scotland’s budget by £7bn over ten years.What they legislated for left decisions about 70 per cent of Scottish taxes and 85 per cent of current UK welfare spending in Scotland in the hands of the Westminster government.

The STUC and numerous third sector groups expressed disappointment at the limitations of what was finally legislated for.

The Scottish Parliament’s cross-party Devolution Committee said that the Scotland Bill “falls short” in “critical areas”.

A YouGov poll in September 2015 found only 9 per cent of people in Scotland believe that the promise of “extensive new powers” was delivered in full.

 

The POUND

The Claim

Scots were told they could not continue to use the pound after independence. Denying claims that it was a political manoeuvre, the No Camp claimed that a currency union was unworkable.

 

The Reality

During an interview on STV’s Scotland Tonight Sir Mervyn King who ran the Bank of England for a decade said: “It would have been totally feasible, there was no need for an independent currency.”

 

OIL

The Claim

Scots were told that they couldn’t have a sovereign oil fund as it wouldn’t be viable whilst running a deficit.

 

The Reality

Westminster subsequently announced that the North East of England could have a Fracking Fund to make sure the local communities benefit from their oil wealth.

 

Corporation Tax cuts

The Claim

Corporation Tax cuts were labelled unhealthy and a “race to the bottom” and Scotland was told the tax couldn’t be devolved to Holyrood

 

The Reality

Corporation Tax cuts were devolved to Northern Ireland and in the following budget the Chancellor George Osborne announced Corporation Tax cuts.

 

Job Losses

The Promise

The No camp claimed that the Scottish HMRC tax offices would close and many jobs would be lost as they also collect taxes for England.

Better Together teamed up with steel workers’ union Community to claim that a No vote would protect steel jobs

 

The Reality

Since the referendum it has been announced that 2,500 HMRC jobs in Scotland are to go.

270 ‘Scottish’ steel jobs have gone.

 

Barnett Formula

The Promise

“The Vow” clearly promised “the continuation of the Barnett allocation for resources”.

 

The Reality

In the aftermath of the Brexit vote, fresh suggestions are being raised by the Tory-right wing and others about cutting Scotland’s budget further.

Brexit campaigner Lord Owen called for a vote to Leave the EU to be used as an excuse to axe the Barnett Formula, while Tory MEP David Bannerman tweeted that a “new Brexit Government should suspend the Barnett formula for Scotland” – raising the spectre of cuts to Scotland’s budget.

Michael Gove continually raised the prospect of axing the Barnett Formula.

 

Shipbuilding

The Promise

Before the referendum, the No campaign said jobs in shipyards would be under threat if there was a Yes vote. One leaflet said “Separation Shuts Shipyards” and made the promise that “Govan and Scotstoun will get the order for 13 Type-26 frigates from the Royal Navy”.

Better Together tweeted that a No vote would “ensure the future of Scotland’s shipbuilding industry.”

By working together as a part of the UK we can ensure the future of Scotland’s shipbuilding industry. http://t.co/5spNAmqj7F #indyref

— Better Together (@UK_Together) June 14, 2013

 

The Reality

On 7 November 2015, the Scotsman reported that the programme could be slashed because funding was required to pay for Trident.

On 23 November 2015, the UK Government announced the number of frigates would be reduced from thirteen to eight.

 

Public sector jobs

The Promise

Before the referendum, the Scotland Office issued a press release boasting that the UK Government protects civil service jobs in Scotland, it was claimed that, within the UK, HMRC delivered a ‘jobs dividend’ in Scotland

 

The Reality

Information from the Scottish Parliament Information Centre shows that between 2011 and 2015, there has been a greater fall in UK Civil Service employment in Scotland than in any other UK nation – falling by 17.5 per cent in Scotland, compared to 12.4 per cent in England, 9.3 per cent in Wales and 16.1 per cent in Northern Ireland.

The UK Government has since announced closure of HMRC offices – risking over 2,000 Scottish jobs.

 

Social security

The Claim

Before the referendum, the No campaign stated that “we are better placed to support the most vulnerable in Scotland” with a No vote.

 

The Reality

As part of his July 2015 budget, George Osborne announced £12 billion cuts and changes to welfare and benefits. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO) said the budget was an attack on the poorest and most vulnerable people in communities and that the Chancellor was “demonstrating a cruel disregard for the impact this will have on hundreds of thousands of people’s lives”. The Child Poverty Action Group said the budget cuts damaged economic security of working families “with higher child poverty for millions and lower taxes for the better off”.

 

Renewables

The Promise

At PMQs David Cameron argued for a No vote on basis that “…when it comes to vital industries like green technology, the combination of a green investment bank sponsored by the United Kingdom Government and the many natural advantages that there are in Scotland can make this a great industry for people in Scotland—but we will do that only if we keep our country together”.  

On 7 April 2014 Energy and Climate Change Secretary Edward Davey said: “The broad shoulders of the United Kingdom is unlocking the power of Scotland to take its place as one of the world’s great energy hubs – generating energy and generating jobs”.  

 

The Reality

On 18 June 2015, after the referendum, the BBC reported: “Scotland could lose £3bn in investment because of a UK government decision to exclude new onshore wind farms from a subsidy scheme a year earlier than planned, an industry body has said.”

 

Carbon capture

The Promise

Before the referendum, the UK Government stated: “Scotland benefits from other competitions and grants provided by the UK Government and the wider UK consumer and tax base, such as a programme to support the commercialisation of carbon capture and storage”

 

This commitment to a £1billion investment in CCS was also set out in the Conservative’s 2015 manifesto.

 

The Reality

The UK Government cancelled this investment six months before it was due to be awarded. Peterhead power station was one of two projects bidding for the investment.

 

EVEL

The Promise

Before the referendum, Scotland was told that we were an equal part of the UK ‘family of nations’ and were urged to ‘lead not leave’ the UK.

 

The Reality

The morning after the referendum David Cameron announced English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) – creating the situation where Scottish MPs cannot properly consider the ‘Barnett consequentials’ on legislation deemed English only.

 

ALSO - effectively meaning no MP from a Scottish constituency can ever be prime minster of the UK and ipso facto can’t lead the UK.

 

PENSIONS

The Claim

Gordon Brown warned that independence came with a pensions time-bomb.

 

The Reality

UK Government policy since the referendum means that middle to high earners will be better off through their pensions but that low earners will bear the cost of pension reforms. A Scot earning around £15,000 with a working life of 30 years, could see their pension drop £1,800 per annum.

[Brighton Jambo]

56 minutes ago, Coolio said:

 

I'm always interested in healthy discourse. 

I would like a 2nd Independence vote as I think that the Scottish voting public were ill informed and on several occasions lied to by Government officials and the mass media. As such, and in view of subsequent actions/results (some of which are listed below) I feel a further vote is justified.

 

IMHO a very big problem for the Westminster government/No campaigners is that with their long list of broken promises/false claims from the last time, the vast majority of which were couched in a scaremongering format, a significant number of people in Scotland won’t believe a word they say in any future referendum, even with the incessant massive media bias – which is one of the reasons more and more people are opening up to the opportunities of independence.

 

EVERYONE OTHER THAN T PLEASE FEEL FREE TO SKIP TO THE NEXT POST NOW if you wish

 

T - In answer to your whataboutery claim please feel free to comment on the following: 

 

BROKEN PROMISES / False Claims

The EU

The Promise

The Tory Westminster government and No campaign in 2014 stated that the way to protect Scotland’s place in Europe was to vote No.

During the referendum, the Better Together website said: “Scotland enjoys membership of the EU because of our membership of the UK and if we no longer are members of the UK then it follows that we are no longer are part of the EU.”

In a televised STV debate on 2 September 2014, Ruth Davidson said: “I think it is disingenuous of Patrick [Harvie] to say that No means out and Yes means in, when actually the opposite is true. No means we stay in, we are members of the European Union.”

The Reality

We now find ourselves being dragged out of the EU against our will.

 

“Extensive” new powers

The Promise

As part of “the Vow”, the then three Westminster party leaders promised “extensive new powers” for the Scottish Parliament.

David Cameron claimed that “A No vote would lead to faster, fairer, safer and better change and that draft legislation for new powers for Scotland would be in place by January, 2015”.

 

The Reality

Almost every concession for more powers in the watered down Smith Commission document had at least one Unionist party trying to block it. Scots now also know that the Westminster negotiators tried to use the Scotland Bill fiscal agreement talks to cut Scotland’s budget by £7bn over ten years.What they legislated for left decisions about 70 per cent of Scottish taxes and 85 per cent of current UK welfare spending in Scotland in the hands of the Westminster government.

The STUC and numerous third sector groups expressed disappointment at the limitations of what was finally legislated for.

The Scottish Parliament’s cross-party Devolution Committee said that the Scotland Bill “falls short” in “critical areas”.

A YouGov poll in September 2015 found only 9 per cent of people in Scotland believe that the promise of “extensive new powers” was delivered in full.

 

The POUND

The Claim

Scots were told they could not continue to use the pound after independence. Denying claims that it was a political manoeuvre, the No Camp claimed that a currency union was unworkable.

 

The Reality

During an interview on STV’s Scotland Tonight Sir Mervyn King who ran the Bank of England for a decade said: “It would have been totally feasible, there was no need for an independent currency.”

 

OIL

The Claim

Scots were told that they couldn’t have a sovereign oil fund as it wouldn’t be viable whilst running a deficit.

 

The Reality

Westminster subsequently announced that the North East of England could have a Fracking Fund to make sure the local communities benefit from their oil wealth.

 

Corporation Tax cuts

The Claim

Corporation Tax cuts were labelled unhealthy and a “race to the bottom” and Scotland was told the tax couldn’t be devolved to Holyrood

 

The Reality

Corporation Tax cuts were devolved to Northern Ireland and in the following budget the Chancellor George Osborne announced Corporation Tax cuts.

 

Job Losses

The Promise

The No camp claimed that the Scottish HMRC tax offices would close and many jobs would be lost as they also collect taxes for England.

Better Together teamed up with steel workers’ union Community to claim that a No vote would protect steel jobs

 

The Reality

Since the referendum it has been announced that 2,500 HMRC jobs in Scotland are to go.

270 ‘Scottish’ steel jobs have gone.

 

Barnett Formula

The Promise

“The Vow” clearly promised “the continuation of the Barnett allocation for resources”.

 

The Reality

In the aftermath of the Brexit vote, fresh suggestions are being raised by the Tory-right wing and others about cutting Scotland’s budget further.

Brexit campaigner Lord Owen called for a vote to Leave the EU to be used as an excuse to axe the Barnett Formula, while Tory MEP David Bannerman tweeted that a “new Brexit Government should suspend the Barnett formula for Scotland” – raising the spectre of cuts to Scotland’s budget.

Michael Gove continually raised the prospect of axing the Barnett Formula.

 

Shipbuilding

The Promise

Before the referendum, the No campaign said jobs in shipyards would be under threat if there was a Yes vote. One leaflet said “Separation Shuts Shipyards” and made the promise that “Govan and Scotstoun will get the order for 13 Type-26 frigates from the Royal Navy”.

Better Together tweeted that a No vote would “ensure the future of Scotland’s shipbuilding industry.”

By working together as a part of the UK we can ensure the future of Scotland’s shipbuilding industry. http://t.co/5spNAmqj7F #indyref

— Better Together (@UK_Together) June 14, 2013

 

The Reality

On 7 November 2015, the Scotsman reported that the programme could be slashed because funding was required to pay for Trident.

On 23 November 2015, the UK Government announced the number of frigates would be reduced from thirteen to eight.

 

Public sector jobs

The Promise

Before the referendum, the Scotland Office issued a press release boasting that the UK Government protects civil service jobs in Scotland, it was claimed that, within the UK, HMRC delivered a ‘jobs dividend’ in Scotland

 

The Reality

Information from the Scottish Parliament Information Centre shows that between 2011 and 2015, there has been a greater fall in UK Civil Service employment in Scotland than in any other UK nation – falling by 17.5 per cent in Scotland, compared to 12.4 per cent in England, 9.3 per cent in Wales and 16.1 per cent in Northern Ireland.

The UK Government has since announced closure of HMRC offices – risking over 2,000 Scottish jobs.

 

Social security

The Claim

Before the referendum, the No campaign stated that “we are better placed to support the most vulnerable in Scotland” with a No vote.

 

The Reality

As part of his July 2015 budget, George Osborne announced £12 billion cuts and changes to welfare and benefits. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO) said the budget was an attack on the poorest and most vulnerable people in communities and that the Chancellor was “demonstrating a cruel disregard for the impact this will have on hundreds of thousands of people’s lives”. The Child Poverty Action Group said the budget cuts damaged economic security of working families “with higher child poverty for millions and lower taxes for the better off”.

 

Renewables

The Promise

At PMQs David Cameron argued for a No vote on basis that “…when it comes to vital industries like green technology, the combination of a green investment bank sponsored by the United Kingdom Government and the many natural advantages that there are in Scotland can make this a great industry for people in Scotland—but we will do that only if we keep our country together”.  

On 7 April 2014 Energy and Climate Change Secretary Edward Davey said: “The broad shoulders of the United Kingdom is unlocking the power of Scotland to take its place as one of the world’s great energy hubs – generating energy and generating jobs”.  

 

The Reality

On 18 June 2015, after the referendum, the BBC reported: “Scotland could lose £3bn in investment because of a UK government decision to exclude new onshore wind farms from a subsidy scheme a year earlier than planned, an industry body has said.”

 

Carbon capture

The Promise

Before the referendum, the UK Government stated: “Scotland benefits from other competitions and grants provided by the UK Government and the wider UK consumer and tax base, such as a programme to support the commercialisation of carbon capture and storage”

 

This commitment to a £1billion investment in CCS was also set out in the Conservative’s 2015 manifesto.

 

The Reality

The UK Government cancelled this investment six months before it was due to be awarded. Peterhead power station was one of two projects bidding for the investment.

 

EVEL

The Promise

Before the referendum, Scotland was told that we were an equal part of the UK ‘family of nations’ and were urged to ‘lead not leave’ the UK.

 

The Reality

The morning after the referendum David Cameron announced English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) – creating the situation where Scottish MPs cannot properly consider the ‘Barnett consequentials’ on legislation deemed English only.

 

ALSO - effectively meaning no MP from a Scottish constituency can ever be prime minster of the UK and ipso facto can’t lead the UK.

 

PENSIONS

The Claim

Gordon Brown warned that independence came with a pensions time-bomb.

 

The Reality

UK Government policy since the referendum means that middle to high earners will be better off through their pensions but that low earners will bear the cost of pension reforms. A Scot earning around £15,000 with a working life of 30 years, could see their pension drop £1,800 per annum.

I’m not well informed enough to challenge your assumptions except on Shipbuilding as I work in the industry and in the Clyde yards.  

 

The Clyde yards are full and are guaranteed to be for years to come at a time when other yards in England are closing (Appledore and potentially Cammel Laird).  Full with orders placed since the referendum by the way with real possibility of further work being won.  The MoD will not build complex warships outwith the UK, in the event Scotland was independent then that work would be moved to yards in England.  It would be inefficient and costly but that is what MoD would do.  The yards would essentially close as there is no export orders that could sustain that level of workforce and Scottish government would place minimal orders (maybe a couple of OPV’s).

 

I do believe that the vow hasn’t been fully honoured but when I read your disnegenous assessment of the situation in shipbuilding it does cast huge doubts on the credibility of the rest of your claims.  

 

 

[Phil Dunphy]

1 hour ago, Coolio said:

 

I'm always interested in healthy discourse. 

I would like a 2nd Independence vote as I think that the Scottish voting public were ill informed and on several occasions lied to by Government officials and the mass media. As such, and in view of subsequent actions/results (some of which are listed below) I feel a further vote is justified.

 

IMHO a very big problem for the Westminster government/No campaigners is that with their long list of broken promises/false claims from the last time, the vast majority of which were couched in a scaremongering format, a significant number of people in Scotland won’t believe a word they say in any future referendum, even with the incessant massive media bias – which is one of the reasons more and more people are opening up to the opportunities of independence.

 

EVERYONE OTHER THAN T PLEASE FEEL FREE TO SKIP TO THE NEXT POST NOW if you wish

 

T - In answer to your whataboutery claim please feel free to comment on the following: 

 

BROKEN PROMISES / False Claims

The EU

The Promise

The Tory Westminster government and No campaign in 2014 stated that the way to protect Scotland’s place in Europe was to vote No.

During the referendum, the Better Together website said: “Scotland enjoys membership of the EU because of our membership of the UK and if we no longer are members of the UK then it follows that we are no longer are part of the EU.”

In a televised STV debate on 2 September 2014, Ruth Davidson said: “I think it is disingenuous of Patrick [Harvie] to say that No means out and Yes means in, when actually the opposite is true. No means we stay in, we are members of the European Union.”

The Reality

We now find ourselves being dragged out of the EU against our will.

 

“Extensive” new powers

The Promise

As part of “the Vow”, the then three Westminster party leaders promised “extensive new powers” for the Scottish Parliament.

David Cameron claimed that “A No vote would lead to faster, fairer, safer and better change and that draft legislation for new powers for Scotland would be in place by January, 2015”.

 

The Reality

Almost every concession for more powers in the watered down Smith Commission document had at least one Unionist party trying to block it. Scots now also know that the Westminster negotiators tried to use the Scotland Bill fiscal agreement talks to cut Scotland’s budget by £7bn over ten years.What they legislated for left decisions about 70 per cent of Scottish taxes and 85 per cent of current UK welfare spending in Scotland in the hands of the Westminster government.

The STUC and numerous third sector groups expressed disappointment at the limitations of what was finally legislated for.

The Scottish Parliament’s cross-party Devolution Committee said that the Scotland Bill “falls short” in “critical areas”.

A YouGov poll in September 2015 found only 9 per cent of people in Scotland believe that the promise of “extensive new powers” was delivered in full.

 

The POUND

The Claim

Scots were told they could not continue to use the pound after independence. Denying claims that it was a political manoeuvre, the No Camp claimed that a currency union was unworkable.

 

The Reality

During an interview on STV’s Scotland Tonight Sir Mervyn King who ran the Bank of England for a decade said: “It would have been totally feasible, there was no need for an independent currency.”

 

OIL

The Claim

Scots were told that they couldn’t have a sovereign oil fund as it wouldn’t be viable whilst running a deficit.

 

The Reality

Westminster subsequently announced that the North East of England could have a Fracking Fund to make sure the local communities benefit from their oil wealth.

 

Corporation Tax cuts

The Claim

Corporation Tax cuts were labelled unhealthy and a “race to the bottom” and Scotland was told the tax couldn’t be devolved to Holyrood

 

The Reality

Corporation Tax cuts were devolved to Northern Ireland and in the following budget the Chancellor George Osborne announced Corporation Tax cuts.

 

Job Losses

The Promise

The No camp claimed that the Scottish HMRC tax offices would close and many jobs would be lost as they also collect taxes for England.

Better Together teamed up with steel workers’ union Community to claim that a No vote would protect steel jobs

 

The Reality

Since the referendum it has been announced that 2,500 HMRC jobs in Scotland are to go.

270 ‘Scottish’ steel jobs have gone.

 

Barnett Formula

The Promise

“The Vow” clearly promised “the continuation of the Barnett allocation for resources”.

 

The Reality

In the aftermath of the Brexit vote, fresh suggestions are being raised by the Tory-right wing and others about cutting Scotland’s budget further.

Brexit campaigner Lord Owen called for a vote to Leave the EU to be used as an excuse to axe the Barnett Formula, while Tory MEP David Bannerman tweeted that a “new Brexit Government should suspend the Barnett formula for Scotland” – raising the spectre of cuts to Scotland’s budget.

Michael Gove continually raised the prospect of axing the Barnett Formula.

 

Shipbuilding

The Promise

Before the referendum, the No campaign said jobs in shipyards would be under threat if there was a Yes vote. One leaflet said “Separation Shuts Shipyards” and made the promise that “Govan and Scotstoun will get the order for 13 Type-26 frigates from the Royal Navy”.

Better Together tweeted that a No vote would “ensure the future of Scotland’s shipbuilding industry.”

By working together as a part of the UK we can ensure the future of Scotland’s shipbuilding industry. http://t.co/5spNAmqj7F #indyref

— Better Together (@UK_Together) June 14, 2013

 

The Reality

On 7 November 2015, the Scotsman reported that the programme could be slashed because funding was required to pay for Trident.

On 23 November 2015, the UK Government announced the number of frigates would be reduced from thirteen to eight.

 

Public sector jobs

The Promise

Before the referendum, the Scotland Office issued a press release boasting that the UK Government protects civil service jobs in Scotland, it was claimed that, within the UK, HMRC delivered a ‘jobs dividend’ in Scotland

 

The Reality

Information from the Scottish Parliament Information Centre shows that between 2011 and 2015, there has been a greater fall in UK Civil Service employment in Scotland than in any other UK nation – falling by 17.5 per cent in Scotland, compared to 12.4 per cent in England, 9.3 per cent in Wales and 16.1 per cent in Northern Ireland.

The UK Government has since announced closure of HMRC offices – risking over 2,000 Scottish jobs.

 

Social security

The Claim

Before the referendum, the No campaign stated that “we are better placed to support the most vulnerable in Scotland” with a No vote.

 

The Reality

As part of his July 2015 budget, George Osborne announced £12 billion cuts and changes to welfare and benefits. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO) said the budget was an attack on the poorest and most vulnerable people in communities and that the Chancellor was “demonstrating a cruel disregard for the impact this will have on hundreds of thousands of people’s lives”. The Child Poverty Action Group said the budget cuts damaged economic security of working families “with higher child poverty for millions and lower taxes for the better off”.

 

Renewables

The Promise

At PMQs David Cameron argued for a No vote on basis that “…when it comes to vital industries like green technology, the combination of a green investment bank sponsored by the United Kingdom Government and the many natural advantages that there are in Scotland can make this a great industry for people in Scotland—but we will do that only if we keep our country together”.  

On 7 April 2014 Energy and Climate Change Secretary Edward Davey said: “The broad shoulders of the United Kingdom is unlocking the power of Scotland to take its place as one of the world’s great energy hubs – generating energy and generating jobs”.  

 

The Reality

On 18 June 2015, after the referendum, the BBC reported: “Scotland could lose £3bn in investment because of a UK government decision to exclude new onshore wind farms from a subsidy scheme a year earlier than planned, an industry body has said.”

 

Carbon capture

The Promise

Before the referendum, the UK Government stated: “Scotland benefits from other competitions and grants provided by the UK Government and the wider UK consumer and tax base, such as a programme to support the commercialisation of carbon capture and storage”

 

This commitment to a £1billion investment in CCS was also set out in the Conservative’s 2015 manifesto.

 

The Reality

The UK Government cancelled this investment six months before it was due to be awarded. Peterhead power station was one of two projects bidding for the investment.

 

EVEL

The Promise

Before the referendum, Scotland was told that we were an equal part of the UK ‘family of nations’ and were urged to ‘lead not leave’ the UK.

 

The Reality

The morning after the referendum David Cameron announced English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) – creating the situation where Scottish MPs cannot properly consider the ‘Barnett consequentials’ on legislation deemed English only.

 

ALSO - effectively meaning no MP from a Scottish constituency can ever be prime minster of the UK and ipso facto can’t lead the UK.

 

PENSIONS

The Claim

Gordon Brown warned that independence came with a pensions time-bomb.

 

The Reality

UK Government policy since the referendum means that middle to high earners will be better off through their pensions but that low earners will bear the cost of pension reforms. A Scot earning around £15,000 with a working life of 30 years, could see their pension drop £1,800 per annum.

 

The problem for the Yes camp, and always has been, has been the lack of a coherent plan of how an iScotland would look. It's their job to convince the detractors that an iScotland would work and what it would look like.

 

You can't expect people to blindly vote for the unknown without guarantees and a clear idea of whether it will directly benefit them. The status quo will always win in cases like this.

 

And, this isn't aimed at you btw, the petty name calling and bullying tactics from some people on the Yes side does more harm for their cause than anything else.

[Thunderstruck]

11 minutes ago, Brighton Jambo said:

I’m not well informed enough to challenge your assumptions except on Shipbuilding as I work in the industry and in the Clyde yards.  

 

The Clyde yards are full and are guaranteed to be for years to come at a time when other yards in England are closing (Appledore and potentially Cammel Laird).  Full with orders placed since the referendum by the way with real possibility of further work being won.  The MoD will not build complex warships outwith the UK, in the event Scotland was independent then that work would be moved to yards in England.  It would be inefficient and costly but that is what MoD would do.  The yards would essentially close as there is no export orders that could sustain that level of workforce and Scottish government would place minimal orders (maybe a couple of OPV’s).

 

I do believe that the vow hasn’t been fully honoured but when I read your disnegenous assessment of the situation in shipbuilding it does cast huge doubts on the credibility of the rest of your claims.  

 

 

 

Thanks for saving me the bother. 

 

However, they are not his/her claims, it is simply a cut and paste from on or other of the nationalist mouthpieces such as ‘Wings’. It does manage to look almost impressive although a simple weblink would have been sufficient. 

 

 

 

 

[Coolio]

2 hours ago, Brighton Jambo said:

I’m not well informed enough to challenge your assumptions except on Shipbuilding as I work in the industry and in the Clyde yards.  

 

The Clyde yards are full and are guaranteed to be for years to come at a time when other yards in England are closing (Appledore and potentially Cammel Laird).  Full with orders placed since the referendum by the way with real possibility of further work being won.  The MoD will not build complex warships outwith the UK, in the event Scotland was independent then that work would be moved to yards in England.  It would be inefficient and costly but that is what MoD would do.  The yards would essentially close as there is no export orders that could sustain that level of workforce and Scottish government would place minimal orders (maybe a couple of OPV’s).

 

I do believe that the vow hasn’t been fully honoured but when I read your disnegenous assessment of the situation in shipbuilding it does cast huge doubts on the credibility of the rest of your claims.  

 

 

 

Whilst I appreciate that you work in the Shipbuilding industry I'm not sure what "assumptions" you think I am making re said industry. I simply provided a few facts.

 

Therefore I am not sure how you can say that these 'facts' - "cast huge doubts on the credibility of the rest of your claims." The fact that they are facts adds credibility to my argument.

 

 

[sadj]

On 19/01/2019 at 10:45, Thunderstruck said:

 

These threads are starting to show tacit agreement by nationalists that the SNP isn't really much cop at the ‘day job’. 

 

More and more of them now argue that the SNP will not be in power on day 1 of independence and that, having delivered its aim, it will disband.

 

Clearly, even hardened nationalists are growing weary of trying to defend the indefensible in terms of that party’s competence. 

 

I’m not sure how the notion that the SNP will walk away is meant to reassure as it is adding a layer of doubt over political direction on top of a divorce that not a single one of them wants to plan for. 

 

Of course, we all know that the SNP will not go quietly into the night. Like all politicians they crave power and will do their utmost to keep it. 

 

Is that bit Iv highlighted serious?  I would say that it is more the other way around and it is used as a scaremongering technique by their opposing parties.

 

The SNP was a party who’s sole ideal was to deliver independence. Whilst maintaining that position it has evolved into a party not made up of Liberals , Tories and Labour members and voters who wish for independence but a party with its own identity and idealogy of how it should govern and act. Many peopel still believe they are doing a good job , others disagree. Independence is always focussed on as a way to beat them as they had no real direction outside of that and were a council party not a parliament party. However true under Andrew Welsh or others back in the day it is not now and people join due to the whole package they offer not just the investment in fighting for independence.

 

If independence was gained they would not disband simply change to lose that basic part of its manifesto and idealogy. Would you lose some people back to the Tory ,  Labour and Liberals? Of course you would but not even close to the numbers you would of seen prior to the Scottish Parliament being created. 

[Coolio]

1 hour ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

The problem for the Yes camp, and always has been, has been the lack of a coherent plan of how an iScotland would look. It's their job to convince the detractors that an iScotland would work and what it would look like.

 

You can't expect people to blindly vote for the unknown without guarantees and a clear idea of whether it will directly benefit them. The status quo will always win in cases like this.

 

And, this isn't aimed at you btw, the petty name calling and bullying tactics from some people on the Yes side does more harm for their cause than anything else.

 

I appreciate your views Phil and fully agree that there needs to be a coherent plan in place which gives the voting public an insight into  how an independent Scotland might look. That said however, IMO the Scotland's Future document produced by the SNP gave a comprehensive overview but it could be argued by some that it still wasn't enough.

 

There is, without doubt and understandably so, a fear of the unknown/new  but as an optimist at heart but having very carefully viewed both arguments I feel significantly more positive re the Yes side.

 

My point in raising the unfulfilled Promises/Claims was aimed at highlighting a number of things used to dupe the voting public and as such emphasise why, not that the goal posts have moved, but that the game was actually played at a different stadium.

 

If a 2nd vote happens and Scotland votes No again then I will be happy to accept the outcome as I feel the public are now far better informed than they were at the time of the 1st vote. 

[Roxy Hearts]

31 minutes ago, Coolio said:

 

Whilst I appreciate that you work in the Shipbuilding industry I'm not sure what "assumptions" you think I am making re said industry. I simply provided a few facts.

 

Therefore I am not sure how you can say that these 'facts' - "cast huge doubts on the credibility of the rest of your claims." The fact that they are facts adds credibility to my argument.

 

 

Unionists don't like facts as doesn't suit their cringe thinking outlook. 

[Coolio]

2 hours ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

Thanks for saving me the bother. 

 

However, they are not his/her claims, it is simply a cut and paste from on or other of the nationalist mouthpieces such as ‘Wings’. It does manage to look almost impressive although a simple weblink would have been sufficient. 

 

 

 

 

 

So this is the sum total of your healthy discourse after challenging me to provide substance to my views?

 

I will take your "almost impressive" as almost a compliment and ask you this:

 

Would you have preferred it if I had simply stated my opinion à la yourself.

 

I chose to provide facts, funnily enough 'sourced' from elsewhere as they are not my own, therefore obviously a cut and paste. I didn't claim them as my own and gave links etc., to clearly show this.

 

If you find the truth hurts then feel free to ignore it and me, I will not be hurt and will fully accept your stance.

[Coolio]

4 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

Unionists don't like facts as doesn't suit their cringe thinking outlook. 

 

Fully agree with you Roxy, but I would add the caveat that the Yes campaign is guilty of this also, but IMO to a significantly lesser extent.

[Coolio]

28 minutes ago, sadj said:

 

Is that bit Iv highlighted serious?  I would say that it is more the other way around and it is used as a scaremongering technique by their opposing parties.

 

The SNP was a party who’s sole ideal was to deliver independence. Whilst maintaining that position it has evolved into a party not made up of Liberals , Tories and Labour members and voters who wish for independence but a party with its own identity and idealogy of how it should govern and act. Many peopel still believe they are doing a good job , others disagree. Independence is always focussed on as a way to beat them as they had no real direction outside of that and were a council party not a parliament party. However true under Andrew Welsh or others back in the day it is not now and people join due to the whole package they offer not just the investment in fighting for independence.

 

If independence was gained they would not disband simply change to lose that basic part of its manifesto and idealogy. Would you lose some people back to the Tory ,  Labour and Liberals? Of course you would but not even close to the numbers you would of seen prior to the Scottish Parliament being created. 

 

Excellent post. 

[Coolio]

21 minutes ago, Coolio said:

 

 

Edited January 21, 2019 by Coolio

[ri Alban]

5 hours ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

The problem for the Yes camp, and always has been, has been the lack of a coherent plan of how an iScotland would look. It's their job to convince the detractors that an iScotland would work and what it would look like.

 

You can't expect people to blindly vote for the unknown without guarantees and a clear idea of whether it will directly benefit them. The status quo will always win in cases like this.

 

And, this isn't aimed at you btw, the petty name calling and bullying tactics from some people on the Yes side does more harm for their cause than anything else.

Brexit?

[Brighton Jambo]

6 hours ago, Coolio said:

 

Whilst I appreciate that you work in the Shipbuilding industry I'm not sure what "assumptions" you think I am making re said industry. I simply provided a few facts.

 

Therefore I am not sure how you can say that these 'facts' - "cast huge doubts on the credibility of the rest of your claims." The fact that they are facts adds credibility to my argument.

 

 

But your facts were wrong????  

 

You posted a link from 3 years ago to a story about funding being slashed to fund trident.  That hasn’t happened?!

 

let me be clearer.

 

since the referendum the MOD/UK government have given work to Scottish yards that guarantees work for years, with the opportunity for more - fact.

 

in the same period English based yards have closed (Appledore) or are on brink (Cammels) - fact.

 

MoD rules around the building of complex warships mean that these ships would not be built in Scottish yards post independence - fact.  

 

There are not enough export orders or work from Scottish Gov to sustain jobs in that scenario - fact.  

 

All facts and reality not links to articles that are years out of date.  

 

[Rupert Custard]

21 hours ago, Ricardo Shillyshally said:

Before I answer, can someone tell me what currency we will have?

The bawbee.

[frankblack]

6 hours ago, Coolio said:

 

So this is the sum total of your healthy discourse after challenging me to provide substance to my views?

 

I will take your "almost impressive" as almost a compliment and ask you this:

 

Would you have preferred it if I had simply stated my opinion à la yourself.

 

I chose to provide facts, funnily enough 'sourced' from elsewhere as they are not my own, therefore obviously a cut and paste. I didn't claim them as my own and gave links etc., to clearly show this.

 

If you find the truth hurts then feel free to ignore it and me, I will not be hurt and will fully accept your stance.

 

You provided selective copy and paste quotes from articles supporting your point of view.  Your "facts" might have been more credible with analysis of the promises made by the nationalists at the Indy Referendum.

 

The only facts here are that politicians from all parties will always tell the public what they want to hear then go off and do whatever they want once they have the power.

[Thunderstruck]

6 hours ago, sadj said:

 

Is that bit Iv highlighted serious?  I would say that it is more the other way around and it is used as a scaremongering technique by their opposing parties.

 

The SNP was a party who’s sole ideal was to deliver independence. Whilst maintaining that position it has evolved into a party not made up of Liberals , Tories and Labour members and voters who wish for independence but a party with its own identity and idealogy of how it should govern and act. Many peopel still believe they are doing a good job , others disagree. Independence is always focussed on as a way to beat them as they had no real direction outside of that and were a council party not a parliament party. However true under Andrew Welsh or others back in the day it is not now and people join due to the whole package they offer not just the investment in fighting for independence.

 

If independence was gained they would not disband simply change to lose that basic part of its manifesto and idealogy. Would you lose some people back to the Tory ,  Labour and Liberals? Of course you would but not even close to the numbers you would of seen prior to the Scottish Parliament being created. 

 

If I read your post correctly, you are suggesting that the SNP would iR should NOT disband and that the notion of them disbanding is being used as a scare tactic. 

 

It might come as a shock to you, but I agree that they would not disband (see the last paragraph).

 

If, however,  we consider the options we would have a Hobson’s Choice - have a power vacuum immediately after a huge constitutional change or the truly awful scenario where we would then be independent without a plan of action, outside the U.K., outside the EU and being managed by a group of individuals who have had nearly 12 years in power to hone their incompetence. 

 

Considering the first of these options - if they were going to disband - they might have the decency to hang about until the second (Peoples’ Vote) on the deal - assuming, of course, there is a deal to be had. 

 

If you had read what I said, you might have noticed that I said that others (nationalists and there are plenty of example in this forum) are telling us that the SNP are only here to deliver independence and will be gone immediately afterwards. That, in my view, is because more and more are starting to see the underperforming SNP as a risk to the pipe dream of independence. 

 

[Phil Dunphy]

4 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Brexit?

 

Another equally messy exit. 

 

Surely an an insight into how difficult a separation would be in the long run. 

[Roxy Hearts]

28 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

Another equally messy exit. 

 

Surely an an insight into how difficult a separation would be in the long run. 

Westminster is hopeless and would make it difficult when it doesn't have to be. That's the point, we need out if it. 

[ri Alban]

1 hour ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

Another equally messy exit. 

 

Surely an an insight into how difficult a separation would be in the long run. 

You said people vote on knowledge, brexit must have been the exception.

[Jim Weir]

33 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

You said people vote on knowledge, brexit must have been the exception.

The cluster**** that is Brexit would surely put a great many people off the notion of Independence? 

[Thommo414]

15 minutes ago, Jim Weir said:

The cluster**** that is Brexit would surely put a great many people off the notion of Independence? 

You'd think so, but naw. What we really need Jim, is a third divisive referendum in the space of just over half a decade (assuming this 'indyref2' wouldn't be for about a year yet). 

 

I'd argue also however that part of the issue is that the Tories need to deliver Brexit but they are split as to what they want. Some wanted to remain, some want a deal, some want no deal and managing to satisfy all of them before even getting members of other parties to agree is clearly virtually impossible. Im not sure divisions to that extent quite lie within the SNP when it comes to their vision of independence for Scotland. 

 

This whole thing has put me off politics, never mind independence. I'll be glad when it's done 

[frankblack]

4 hours ago, Roxy Hearts said:

Westminster is hopeless and would make it difficult when it doesn't have to be. That's the point, we need out if it. 

 

If you think negotiating the separation of us from the EU is complicated, remember we have only been a member for 40 years.  I would imagine separating a 300 year old union is a hell of a lot more complicated.

[sadj]

2 hours ago, Jim Weir said:

The cluster**** that is Brexit would surely put a great many people off the notion of Independence? 

Why would it put people off? Surely any people with intelligence would view the cluster**** of Brexit and think lets revisit this Independence dealio?

 

Within that a clear programme would need to be given but if it was then I think it would encourage peoples want for it. 

 

Anyone who is as stated above will be watching Westminster and fearing for themselves , family or businesses. With people’s livliehoods at risk the fear factor that was used as a scare tactic would lower. You have a country who as a majority wish to remain they are still waiting for promises they waivered and voted no in indyref to be delivered etc. So that will also lead to people who have an intelligence questioning if maybe independence would actually be the best way to escape the inadequecies of Westminster. 

[Roxy Hearts]

3 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

If you think negotiating the separation of us from the EU is complicated, remember we have only been a member for 40 years.  I would imagine separating a 300 year old union is a hell of a lot more complicated.

Not really. Lots of countries have ditched London rule. 

[jack D and coke]

6 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

If you think negotiating the separation of us from the EU is complicated, remember we have only been a member for 40 years.  I would imagine separating a 300 year old union is a hell of a lot more complicated.

Yet you voted for it last time. 

?

[sadj]

8 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

If you think negotiating the separation of us from the EU is complicated, remember we have only been a member for 40 years.  I would imagine separating a 300 year old union is a hell of a lot more complicated.

Would it though? You lay down a programme over x years and seperate bit by bit. Some will be larger parts than others. EU isnt complicated. They can basically dictate to us what they want as long as its not detrimental to them it doesn’t matter the effect on the UK. May promises she will get x y and z and gets x-a b c and d. Corbyn ill get better terms. No mate you won’t , the power is not in the UKs hands here. 

 

20people want x 1 person wants y 

 

Back on Independence , I assume you understand why we got nowhere in the 70s and that Browns promises last time persuaded the people waivering to stuck to “better the devil you know” 

 

Do you think Westminster would let us walk away easily or without a protracted period of time where they can milk as much as possible? 

Edited January 21, 2019 by sadj

[Boris]

2 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

If you think negotiating the separation of us from the EU is complicated, remember we have only been a member for 40 years.  I would imagine separating a 300 year old union is a hell of a lot more complicated.

 

I don't.

 

Our Union with England, and subsequently rUK, is different to the UK and the EU.  There are also precedents regards nation states seperating to create new entities.

 

Not saying it wouldn't be without argument, remember who we would be dealing with here(!), but not convinced it would be as complictaed as Brexit is.

[SwindonJambo]

2 hours ago, Roxy Hearts said:

Not really. Lots of countries have ditched London rule. 

 I'm not surprised.  They were colonies.  No-one wants to be a colony. Ironically, the Scots played a gig part in running these colonies.  There is a World of a difference between being a colony and being in a Union.  You may feel that it's an unequal union which is fine but don't ever compare it with being a colony. They didn't have any representation in the UK Parliament whereas Scotland does.

[ri Alban]

10 minutes ago, SwindonJambo said:

They didn't have any representation in the UK Parliament whereas Scotland does.

Since when????   

[jamboy1982]

Scotland is a colony of the English empire. Just like many other nations who have now been released by their rulers. Just because we have a very small say in how things are ran doesn’t make it a union. 

[SwindonJambo]

6 minutes ago, jamboy1982 said:

Scotland is a colony of the English empire. Just like many other nations who have now been released by their rulers. Just because we have a very small say in how things are ran doesn’t make it a union. 

 

So if Scotland went independent, would Shetland be part of the Scottish Empire ?

[SwindonJambo]

17 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Since when????   

 

59 very well paid and expensed MPs perhaps ?

[Thunderstruck]

Just now, SwindonJambo said:

 

So if Scotland went independent, would Shetland be part of the Scottish Empire ?

 

Scotland would then be an appendage to Greater Glasgow which, for the people of Shetland, is as remote as London. 

[Roxy Hearts]

30 minutes ago, SwindonJambo said:

 I'm not surprised.  They were colonies.  No-one wants to be a colony. Ironically, the Scots played a gig part in running these colonies.  There is a World of a difference between being a colony and being in a Union.  You may feel that it's an unequal union which is fine but don't ever compare it with being a colony. They didn't have any representation in the UK Parliament whereas Scotland does.

It feels like a colony at times. Scotland is suffocated by London whether you wish to believe it or not. We are supposed to be an equal partner which is patently untrue. 

[Roxy Hearts]

4 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

Scotland would then be an appendage to Greater Glasgow which, for the people of Shetland, is as remote as London. 

I found it incredulous that the people in the Northern Isles voted for that liar Carmichael. Tavish Scott is another angry unionist. Makes you wonder what Shetlanders really think. 

[Thunderstruck]

2 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

It feels like a colony at times. Scotland is suffocated by London whether you wish to believe it or not. We are supposed to be an equal partner which is patently untrue. 

 

Scotland has one of the most powerful regional governments in Europe, if not the world. The list of devolved powers are very significant and we might be in a better place if the current Scottish Government opted to use these powers to the full rather than playing the grievance card and harping on about another referendum. 

[Thunderstruck]

1 minute ago, Roxy Hearts said:

I found it incredulous that the people in the Northern Isles voted for that liar Carmichael. Tavish Scott is another angry unionist. Makes you wonder what Shetlanders really think. 

 

I found it incredible that the voters of Ross, Skye and Lochaber (albeit a minority of them) voted for the current MP after the hate-filled election campaign waged by him and his aides against his predecessor. I’m sure the ‘#wherescharlie’ campaign will ring a bell.  

[Roxy Hearts]

30 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

I found it incredible that the voters of Ross, Skye and Lochaber (albeit a minority of them) voted for the current MP after the hate-filled election campaign waged by him and his aides against his predecessor. I’m sure the ‘#wherescharlie’ campaign will ring a bell.  

Don't know about it. What happened? If it was hatefilled why did people vote for the person?