Jump to content

How Would You Vote in IndyRef2?


Highlander

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

:qqb006:

 

Please keep posting--the entertainment is much appreciated during these long days of dissertation writing.

 

giphy.gif

 

Stop posting, and have a lie down - you are embarassing yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • ri Alban

    267

  • frankblack

    213

  • Boris

    175

  • JamboX2

    134

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

1 minute ago, frankblack said:

 

giphy.gif

 

Stop posting, and have a lie down - you are embarassing yourself.

 

Mate I have to hand it to you, training a pigeon to post for you on Kickback, that's brilliant stuff. I take back what I said about the quality of your earlier post--it was well above average level English for birds.

And thank you again for the hearty laugh. Keep them coming! :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

Mate I have to hand it to you, training a pigeon to post for you on Kickback, that's brilliant stuff. I take back what I said about the quality of your earlier post--it was well above average level English for birds.

And thank you again for the hearty laugh. Keep them coming! :thumbsup:

 

:cornette_dog:

 

The sad thing here is you don't realise you are acting like a bairn as your meltdown continues.

 

I need to get to work so if it makes you feel better you can keep pretending you won some kind of debate.  🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, frankblack said:

The sad thing here is you don't realise you are acting like a bairn as your meltdown continues.

 

I need to get to work so if it makes you feel better you can keep pretending you won some kind of debate.  🤣

 

I can't decide which is more adorable--you playing pretend (just like a bairn) that big bad meanie Justin is having a meltdown, or your meltdown itself.

 

10 hours ago, frankblack said:

Once Brexit happens you will find the reality that all but the window lickers won't jump into Independence and sacrifice all their security.

You mean non-cowards like you. :qqb006:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/08/2019 at 08:07, frankblack said:

 

:rofl:

 

If you do that you will dilute your own vote.

 

Tactical voting will be evident next Holyrood elections to remove the Nationalist majority which the Greens are propping you up with. 👍

SNP first choice, SIP second choice. 80 seats, thank you very much. 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Adam Murray said:

Decent article in The Herald today.

I think this is where a lot of No voters are at the moment, along with a lot of undecided voters.

 

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17832792.win-no-voter-economy-stupid/?fbclid=IwAR1aa-4uVyvIUEYTrI4s12sJr2WS-vYdWciJk9R0Xr6DY6AuZCQc1Fq0SaE

 

Also, as is said in the article, the next Scottish Elections is likely to be campaigned for on the one issue, with Pro Independence parties looking for a majority to force another Indy ref.

 

Anyone know when the campaigning will start, has it already started, or will it be ramped up due to a possible No Deal Brexit? 2021 is not too far away.

 

Interesting article, but given the author of it isn't writing from a position of impartiality, it colours his argument (imo) and the obvious riposte would be "and Westminster is doing so well?"

 

Which, unfortunately as it may seem to some, fortunately to others, we are getting to the position where the current ineptitude from Westminster is critically affecting the economy so much, that Independence automatically appears to be a better/no difference option.  In other words "project fear", as it could be called, is now a spent force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Interesting article, but given the author of it isn't writing from a position of impartiality, it colours his argument (imo) and the obvious riposte would be "and Westminster is doing so well?"

 

Which, unfortunately as it may seem to some, fortunately to others, we are getting to the position where the current ineptitude from Westminster is critically affecting the economy so much, that Independence automatically appears to be a better/no difference option.  In other words "project fear", as it could be called, is now a spent force.

 

Are you basing your view on the author's impartiality on the fact that his background appears to be rooted in the Scottish business community? As an opinion piece, I thought it was fairly balanced, especially compared with many other articles on the subject.

 

Of course,  that it roughly mirrors my own views, and (nearly 😉) everyone I know on a personal and professional basis, might have something to do with it! 

 

And which Government do you consider to be excelling at growing their economy? Obviously not Westminster, not Holyrood surely, can't be the Bundestag, as the German economy looks like it's about to nosedive.

 

You're kidding yourself on if you think most people won't again consider the risk and reward element, should there ever be a second referendum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, pablo said:

 

Are you basing your view on the author's impartiality on the fact that his background appears to be rooted in the Scottish business community? As an opinion piece, I thought it was fairly balanced, especially compared with many other articles on the subject.

 

He rights for Conservative Home and was a former Head of Comms for the Scottish Conservative Party.  The business community is and should be as vocal on these matters as any other section of society.  And I also get that if any future Yes campaign is to win, then they have to win over that community and win the argument. 

 

25 minutes ago, pablo said:

 

Of course,  that it roughly mirrors my own views, and (nearly 😉) everyone I know on a personal and professional basis, might have something to do with it! 

 

And which Government do you consider to be excelling at growing their economy? Obviously not Westminster, not Holyrood surely, can't be the Bundestag, as the German economy looks like it's about to nosedive.

 

Doesn't that say that current economic thinking is passed it's sell by date?  

 

25 minutes ago, pablo said:

 

You're kidding yourself on if you think most people won't again consider the risk and reward element, should there ever be a second referendum.

 

That isn't what I was saying.  Totally agree that people will consider that, as they no doubt do at any election.

 

What I was trying to say was that given the omnishambles around us as is, the risk and reward element that previously had been an asset to the No campaign, may now seem less risky and potentially more or at least equally rewarding for the Yes campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Boris said:

 

 

What I was trying to say was that given the omnishambles around us as is, the risk and reward element that previously had been an asset to the No campaign, may now seem less risky and potentially more or at least equally rewarding for the Yes campaign.

 

In a nutshell this is 100% correct. If no deal occurs then the economic and competency arguments evaporate for No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Boris said:

 

He rights for Conservative Home and was a former Head of Comms for the Scottish Conservative Party.  The business community is and should be as vocal on these matters as any other section of society.  And I also get that if any future Yes campaign is to win, then they have to win over that community and win the argument. 

 

I didn't know that, and took him at his word about not having a leaning towards any particular party. In that case I'd agree that the journalist could be perceived as being somewhat disingenuous. 

 

1 hour ago, Boris said:

Doesn't that say that current economic thinking is passed it's sell by date?  

 

 

Maybe, but can anyone even remember a time when the Government priority was to grow the economy and the necessary infrastructure to do so? Day job please, and in both Parliaments.

 

1 hour ago, Boris said:

That isn't what I was saying.  Totally agree that people will consider that, as they no doubt do at any election.

 

What I was trying to say was that given the omnishambles around us as is, the risk and reward element that previously had been an asset to the No campaign, may now seem less risky and potentially more or at least equally rewarding for the Yes campaign.

 

Not sure about that. Look, I don't think many on the Leave side will care about the economic consequences, which is fair enough. But for Remainers , the big questions need addressed before a switch could be considered. IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, pablo said:

 

Not sure about that. Look, I don't think many on the Leave side will care about the economic consequences, which is fair enough. But for Remainers , the big questions need addressed before a switch could be considered. IMO.

Don’t disagree! Just meaning a no deal Boris boosted economic balls up may help answer those questions.

 

If the uk implodes due to no deal , previous no voters may just think Indy is the lesser of two evils.

 

But agree that case has to be made by yes campaign, warts and all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jack D and coke
2 hours ago, ri Alban said:

I'd just ask Scotland one question. Did the UK need permission for a Referendum? Well... Ye know!

Imagine the UK had to ask for another one and the EU told us no. You had your referendum now get on with the day job and stfu....you could literally only imagine the seethe. What sort of union does that make ours? 

The uk has left a union where we all traded fairly in general, all had an equal say in decisions, all had a veto too.  We actually had the best deal out of many of the countries by still having our own currency etc yet we left which is fair enough but...

Is any of that comparable to Scotland in the uk union? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jack D and coke said:

Imagine the UK had to ask for another one and the EU told us no. You had your referendum now get on with the day job and stfu....you could literally only imagine the seethe. What sort of union does that make ours? 

The uk has left a union where we all traded fairly in general, all had an equal say in decisions, all had a veto too.  We actually had the best deal out of many of the countries by still having our own currency etc yet we left which is fair enough but...

Is any of that comparable to Scotland in the uk union? 

The Union is finished. Scotland will be telt no more. There's nothing left, other than sectarianism. And that will be destroyed post independence. Roll on Scotland taking it's place back in the world. 

Scotland opens soon!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, ri Alban said:

The Union is finished. Scotland will be telt no more. There's nothing left, other than sectarianism. And that will be destroyed post independence. Roll on Scotland taking it's place back in the world. 

Scotland opens soon!

 

You don't half speak some rubbish on here, ri. There are many advantages to independence but sectarianism will continue on long after it. It's too ingrained in the psyche of too many people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jack D and coke
11 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

You don't half speak some rubbish on here, ri. There are many advantages to independence but sectarianism will continue on long after it. It's too ingrained in the psyche of too many people.

It would probably get worse post Indy. 

All I see on Twitter is unionist/rangers and some Hearts fans fans calling the SNP republicans, taigs, tarriers and Sinn Féin’s pals etc

I don’t imagine them being chuffed about independence tbh. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AlphonseCapone
1 hour ago, jack D and coke said:

It would probably get worse post Indy. 

All I see on Twitter is unionist/rangers and some Hearts fans fans calling the SNP republicans, taigs, tarriers and Sinn Féin’s pals etc

I don’t imagine them being chuffed about independence tbh. 

 

Agree. It will get so much worse after independence as emotions run high. I think we are probably about 30 years away from it no longer being a thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

Imagine the UK had to ask for another one and the EU told us no. You had your referendum now get on with the day job and stfu....you could literally only imagine the seethe. What sort of union does that make ours? 

The uk has left a union where we all traded fairly in general, all had an equal say in decisions, all had a veto too.  We actually had the best deal out of many of the countries by still having our own currency etc yet we left which is fair enough but...

Is any of that comparable to Scotland in the uk union? 

 

This ignores reality.

 

The EU is a union of sovereign states. The EU does not have control over how the constitutions of those states operates.

 

Scotland is not sovereign and is a part of the UK. The constitution of the UK - i.e. Acts of Union - are reserved to the UK parliament.

 

You're comparing apples and oranges.

 

As for Scotland in the UK it can be said that it has enjoyed a hugely favourable position in the UK since 1707. Unlike Wales it retained all it's domestic institutions. Unlike Ireland it wasn't viewed as a colony. Scotland had its own law, courts, nobility, education system and commercial institutions. It benefitted more out of empire and post-war spending than most other areas of the UK ever did. Up till now it's arguably not really needed much more than devolution or its domestic separation from the UK pre-devolution as it's domestic institutions and traditions were respected.

 

Perhaps now that is changing because of Brexit and needs reassessed. 

Edited by JamboX2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

This ignores reality.

 

The EU is a union of sovereign states. The EU does not have control over how the constitutions of those states operates.

 

Scotland is not sovereign and is a part of the UK. The constitution of the UK - i.e. Acts of Union - are reserved to the UK parliament.

 

You're comparing apples and oranges.

 

As for Scotland in the UK it can be said that it has enjoyed a hugely favourable position in the UK since 1707. Unlike Wales it retained all it's domestic institutions. Unlike Ireland it wasn't viewed as a colony. Scotland had its own law, courts, nobility, education system and commercial institutions. It benefitted more out of empire and post-war spending than most other areas of the UK ever did. Up till now it's arguably not really needed much more than devolution or its domestic separation from the UK pre-devolution as it's domestic institutions and traditions were respected.

 

Perhaps now that is changing because of Brexit and needs reassessed. 

You changing your mind again JX2? I get the feeling you're moving towards independence again. I hope you are. 😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

You changing your mind again JX2? I get the feeling you're moving towards independence again. I hope you are. 😁

 

Ha, not quite. All I'm saying is the comparison made is not helpful and misses the point.

 

As for a vote I'm not opposed to a vote so long as it is through the proper constitutional means: agreement with the UK Parliament  and legal power handed off.

 

A Catalonia style situation would be illegitimate and hugely divisive. To be avoided at all costs.

Edited by JamboX2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Ha, not quite. All I'm saying is the comparison made is not helpful and misses the point.

 

As for a vote I'm not opposed to a vote so long as it is through the proper constitutional means: agreement with the UK Parliament  and legal power handed off.

 

A Catalonia style situation would be illegitimate and hugely divisive. To be avoided at all costs.

 

Agree with you regards a Catalonia type situation, however Westminster should honour the wishes of the Scottish Parliament, regardless of their own view on the topic.

 

So Corbyn and McDonnell's comments are relatively refreshing, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Ha, not quite. All I'm saying is the comparison made is not helpful and misses the point.

 

As for a vote I'm not opposed to a vote so long as it is through the proper constitutional means: agreement with the UK Parliament  and legal power handed off.

 

A Catalonia style situation would be illegitimate and hugely divisive. To be avoided at all costs.

Cheers JX2. What about Scottish sovereignty? The disrespect Westminster shows Scotland is deplorable. I used to believe in Labour values but all of it appears a sham. I think it's time Scotland matured into a full sovereign state. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

Cheers JX2. What about Scottish sovereignty? The disrespect Westminster shows Scotland is deplorable. I used to believe in Labour values but all of it appears a sham. I think it's time Scotland matured into a full sovereign state. 

 

Simply it doesn't really exist whilst in the UK. The constitution is clear: Parliamentary sovereignty is the constitutional basis. There is a democratic mandate and that is different entirely.

 

What McDonnell has said should largely be where Labour is. But the whole thing requires an underpinning of respect and understanding that respect is a two way street. "Neverendums" are unhelpful. So there needs to be a tension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Simply it doesn't really exist whilst in the UK. The constitution is clear: Parliamentary sovereignty is the constitutional basis. There is a democratic mandate and that is different entirely.

 

What McDonnell has said should largely be where Labour is. But the whole thing requires an underpinning of respect and understanding that respect is a two way street. "Neverendums" are unhelpful. So there needs to be a tension.

You've got to admit that the better together nonsense was that, nonsense. The vow, in the EU, lead the UK etc, etc. I don't trust Westminster. We need to do what's best for the people who live here(Scotland) and get the governments we would vote for. I don't believe in neverendums either but there does appear to be a clear distinction how we wish to run our affairs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

You've got to admit that the better together nonsense was that, nonsense. The vow, in the EU, lead the UK etc, etc. I don't trust Westminster. We need to do what's best for the people who live here(Scotland) and get the governments we would vote for. I don't believe in neverendums either but there does appear to be a clear distinction how we wish to run our affairs. 

 

At the time it wasn't. The Vow was high level words and has been and is being delivered via the new powers being devolved. Independence would've meant and will mean leaving the EU and rejoining the EU in Scotland's own right.

 

I remember the best criticisms of the Smith Commission being from Labour MPs like Tom Harris and MSPs like Malcolm Chisholm who were advocating a fluid model of power sharing rather than set powers. But that was largely ignored. Albeit Corbyn's reform agenda does move this way in devolved areas. 

 

I think that clear distinction is developing more now than it was then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

coconut doug
5 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

This ignores reality.

 

The EU is a union of sovereign states. The EU does not have control over how the constitutions of those states operates.

 

Scotland is not sovereign and is a part of the UK. The constitution of the UK - i.e. Acts of Union - are reserved to the UK parliament.

 

You're comparing apples and oranges.

 

As for Scotland in the UK it can be said that it has enjoyed a hugely favourable position in the UK since 1707. Unlike Wales it retained all it's domestic institutions. Unlike Ireland it wasn't viewed as a colony. Scotland had its own law, courts, nobility, education system and commercial institutions. It benefitted more out of empire and post-war spending than most other areas of the UK ever did. Up till now it's arguably not really needed much more than devolution or its domestic separation from the UK pre-devolution as it's domestic institutions and traditions were respected.

 

Perhaps now that is changing because of Brexit and needs reassessed. 

 

What domestic institutions did Wales fail to retain when it became part of the U.K.?

 

What evidence do you have to support your view that Ireland was treated more like a colony than Scotland?

 

In what ways did Scotland benefit "more out of empire and post-war spending than most other areas of the UK"? Do you have figures?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

coconut doug
1 hour ago, JamboX2 said:

 

At the time it wasn't. The Vow was high level words and has been and is being delivered via the new powers being devolved. Independence would've meant and will mean leaving the EU and rejoining the EU in Scotland's own right.

 

I remember the best criticisms of the Smith Commission being from Labour MPs like Tom Harris and MSPs like Malcolm Chisholm who were advocating a fluid model of power sharing rather than set powers. But that was largely ignored. Albeit Corbyn's reform agenda does move this way in devolved areas. 

 

I think that clear distinction is developing more now than it was then. 

Architect of the vow disagrees.

 

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/editor-responsible-for-the-vow-now-backs-scottish-independence-1-4754433

 

You don't know what would happen to an Indy Scotland's EU status. This is different though from previous assertions about Spanish vetoes , being forced to join the Euro and Schengen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, coconut doug said:

 

What domestic institutions did Wales fail to retain when it became part of the U.K.?

 

Own courts

Legal system

Independent church

Education system

University independence

Local governance 

Own banks 

 

4 hours ago, coconut doug said:

 

What evidence do you have to support your view that Ireland was treated more like a colony than Scotland?

 

Famine.

 

4 hours ago, coconut doug said:

 

In what ways did Scotland benefit "more out of empire and post-war spending than most other areas of the UK"? Do you have figures?

 

 

Read Tom Devine's book Independence or Union. Detailed breakdowns of welath redistribution, numbers of high ranking Scots in Imperial administration compared to Ireland for example was quite marked from reading the book. The number of Scots businesses which actively pursued imperial trade was higher than the average elsewhere outside London. Then Scottish Secretaries like Johnston and Ross achieved higher per head spend in Scotland and investment through the 40s, 50s to the 70s. 

 

Interesting book. Would recommend it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, coconut doug said:

Architect of the vow disagrees.

 

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/editor-responsible-for-the-vow-now-backs-scottish-independence-1-4754433

 

You don't know what would happen to an Indy Scotland's EU status. This is different though from previous assertions about Spanish vetoes , being forced to join the Euro and Schengen.

 

Not at all. All those things may happen if Scotland applies for EU membership. I said Scotland can apply in its own right once independent. Nothing on terms and conditions or reaction. All that is firmly on the table.

 

And if an editor of the telegraph isn't happy he should attack the agreements reached in the Smith commission and question himself for allowing a very vague vow in his paper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Zlatanable said:

I don't trust Holyrood. 

I don't trust Westminster much, and I can't see why anyone would trust the EU. 

 

I think this ' there does appear to be a clear distinction how we wish to run our affairs. ' is utter nonsense. 

The SNP winning every election, we want to stay in EU, poll in favour of independence or too close to call. There's a distinction alright and fine well you know it! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Zlatanable said:

I don't trust Holyrood. 

I don't trust Westminster much, and I can't see why anyone would trust the EU. 

 

I think this ' there does appear to be a clear distinction how we wish to run our affairs. ' is utter nonsense. 

The Scottish parliament, is a true reflection of how we voted. Wm isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, redjambo said:

 

You don't half speak some rubbish on here, ri. There are many advantages to independence but sectarianism will continue on long after it. It's too ingrained in the psyche of too many people.

Whose psyche? When the fuel has gone, it will die out. Might take a wee while but it will go, eventually, especially if it becomes law and is acted on heavily. The same way as racism etc...

 

 

Edited by ri Alban
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

It would probably get worse post Indy. 

All I see on Twitter is unionist/rangers and some Hearts fans fans calling the SNP republicans, taigs, tarriers and Sinn Féin’s pals etc

I don’t imagine them being chuffed about independence tbh. 

Always is a reaction, but I'm sure they'll be dealt with. Unfortunately I'll not be the justice minister,  so it'll be boringly. I'd sell tickets and TV rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

It would probably get worse post Indy. 

All I see on Twitter is unionist/rangers and some Hearts fans fans calling the SNP republicans, taigs, tarriers and Sinn Féin’s pals etc

I don’t imagine them being chuffed about independence tbh. 

:rofl:Just realised. Scotland will become an Independent republican, just as William becomes King. Nae King Billy!

 

:raging:

Edited by ri Alban
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with another independence referendum being granted if we have a general election where pro Indy parties explicitly declare they want another one unconditionally and they get the majority of votes. 

 

Sturgeon said in several interviews that the 2015 and 2017 votes weren't about independence (to Salmond's annoyance). They did have the "if we are dragged out of the EU" line in their manifesto at least but it wasn't a headline which everyone would know they were voting for. "It's no secret I want independence" she would contradict herself in other interviews to infer that people know what they are voting for by voting SNP. The Greens said that if a million people signed a petition there should be one. That hasn't happened. There is no current mandate for a second vote. 

 

By basing another referendum on total pro Indy manifesto Vs Union manifesto votes as opposed to MSP seats, you cut to the chase as there is no dilution of votes, just as there won't be in a second Indyref vote. It is in the yes sides interest to make sure they have that majority number on their side because if they lose again, people aren't going to want to do this a third time. 

 

Regarding getting into the EU again, I read something online about the Copenhagen Criteria. Scotland would not need to queue to get back in to the EU but they would need to meet this criteria. It is the question that SNP MPs and MSPs can't answer and won't answer. Would Scotland meet the Copenhagen Criteria for entry into the EU? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Hasselhoff said:

I have no problem with another independence referendum being granted if we have a general election where pro Indy parties explicitly declare they want another one unconditionally and they get the majority of votes. 

 

Sturgeon said in several interviews that the 2015 and 2017 votes weren't about independence (to Salmond's annoyance). They did have the "if we are dragged out of the EU" line in their manifesto at least but it wasn't a headline which everyone would know they were voting for. "It's no secret I want independence" she would contradict herself in other interviews to infer that people know what they are voting for by voting SNP. The Greens said that if a million people signed a petition there should be one. That hasn't happened. There is no current mandate for a second vote. 

 

By basing another referendum on total pro Indy manifesto Vs Union manifesto votes as opposed to MSP seats, you cut to the chase as there is no dilution of votes, just as there won't be in a second Indyref vote. It is in the yes sides interest to make sure they have that majority number on their side because if they lose again, people aren't going to want to do this a third time. 

 

Regarding getting into the EU again, I read something online about the Copenhagen Criteria. Scotland would not need to queue to get back in to the EU but they would need to meet this criteria. It is the question that SNP MPs and MSPs can't answer and won't answer. Would Scotland meet the Copenhagen Criteria for entry into the EU? 

What do you think? And give your reasons why. Thank! 👍 Before you start, Scotland won't be in the euro, so the deficit doesn't apply.

Edited by ri Alban
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

What do you think? And give your reasons why. Thank! 👍 Before you start, Scotland won't be in the euro, so the deficit doesn't apply.

 

 

Read the Twitter thread here. What he says!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For someone who claims to enjoy "calling out demagogue tactics" he doesn't half engage in it himself. He makes claims about politicians "grossly oversimplifying the legal process" while he himself does so. His economic arguments I can't comment on as much, seeing as I'm not trained in economics, but he's absolutely ripping the piss on the legal stuff.

 

My conclusion is he's best ignored as a nonsensical Twitter ranter. Yours may differ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

For someone who claims to enjoy "calling out demagogue tactics" he doesn't half engage in it himself. He makes claims about politicians "grossly oversimplifying the legal process" while he himself does so. His economic arguments I can't comment on as much, seeing as I'm not trained in economics, but he's absolutely ripping the piss on the legal stuff.

 

My conclusion is he's best ignored as a nonsensical Twitter ranter. Yours may differ.

 

You are trained on legal stuff? 

 

From what I have seen, he is asking a valid question and getting "I don't know" as an answer. There is no guarantee an Indy Scotland will be able to join the EU without massive austerity to bring our expenditure back within our means to meet the Copenhagen Criteria. The SNP don't want to admit that before they get over the line. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hasselhoff said:

 

You are trained on legal stuff? 

 

From what I have seen, he is asking a valid question and getting "I don't know" as an answer. There is no guarantee an Indy Scotland will be able to join the EU without massive austerity to bring our expenditure back within our means to meet the Copenhagen Criteria. The SNP don't want to admit that before they get over the line. 

 

Yeah, I am a qualified, though inactive, lawyer in the state of Arizona and I'm finishing up a law master's at Edinburgh Uni right now. One of the classes I took this spring was on the legal background and effects of Brexit so I'm decently versed on how the treaties governing the EU work, and what the EU courts do with them. I wrote my term paper on what Brexit means for devolution and the UK federal system.

 

I remain unconvinced on the economic thrust of his argument primarily because of some of the figures I've seen floating around as regards how much tax revenue Scotland contributes to the UK as a whole versus how much it gets rebated to it under Barnett from Westminster. Best I can tell, Scotland would have a significantly larger chunk of money to play with if it were independent. The uncertainty of that would not be enough to dissuade me if I were eligible to vote in another referendum (I more than likely won't be, no matter what happens).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

I remain unconvinced on the economic thrust of his argument primarily because of some of the figures I've seen floating around as regards how much tax revenue Scotland contributes to the UK as a whole versus how much it gets rebated to it under Barnett from Westminster. Best I can tell, Scotland would have a significantly larger chunk of money to play with if it were independent. The uncertainty of that would not be enough to dissuade me if I were eligible to vote in another referendum (I more than likely won't be, no matter what happens).

 

Fair enough on the legal side and your experience. 

 

Could you provide some of the numbers you have seen floating about about what Scotland contributes? I saw a lot of nationalists get excited by a guy on BBC saying that Scotland out in 200 billion to the UK and so maybe that is what you are referring to. 

 

We would of course have more money to play with if we were independent because we would get to keep the full amount rather than giving some to WM. We would then be in charge of paying pensions, sick pay, etc. Problem is WM gives us a whole load extra on top of what they spend for us. Hence the shortfall. 

 

The Scottish Gov are in charge of the numbers and surely know how much we contribute to the UK. They want Indy and so if it is good news for an Indy Scotland why don't they come out and say how much we put in? 

 

Security for my family is the only thing I care about. If the Scottish government could prove that we would benefit from being independent they would get my vote. From what I can see, they ignore valid questions and concerns and focus their efforts on convincing those who are more easily convinced (to put it politely). Doesn't impress me in the slightest. See Andrew Wilson as a prime example of this way of thinking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Hasselhoff said:

We would of course have more money to play with if we were independent because we would get to keep the full amount rather than giving some to WM. We would then be in charge of paying pensions, sick pay, etc. Problem is WM gives us a whole load extra on top of what they spend for us. Hence the shortfall. 

 

I need to finish my dissertation by Monday, but I can look more if you really want me to once I'm done. However the bold bit, at least so far as my understanding goes, is flat-out untrue, and amounts to a political propaganda success story based on how widely it's been accepted. That said I could be totally wrong.

 

With that in mind though I completely agree with you--everything on the economics ought to be as transparent as possible, no matter who is making which particular claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hasselhoff said:

 

 

Read the Twitter thread here. What he says!

I've read it. Scotland ticks all the boxes. And we've been a member for a long time. The rest wouldn't take long to sort out. 

Remember 2014, why would the UK continue back then? It's the same thing if you think about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hasselhoff said:

 

Fair enough on the legal side and your experience. 

 

Could you provide some of the numbers you have seen floating about about what Scotland contributes? I saw a lot of nationalists get excited by a guy on BBC saying that Scotland out in 200 billion to the UK and so maybe that is what you are referring to. 

 

We would of course have more money to play with if we were independent because we would get to keep the full amount rather than giving some to WM. We would then be in charge of paying pensions, sick pay, etc. Problem is WM gives us a whole load extra on top of what they spend for us. Hence the shortfall. 

 

The Scottish Gov are in charge of the numbers and surely know how much we contribute to the UK. They want Indy and so if it is good news for an Indy Scotland why don't they come out and say how much we put in? 

 

Security for my family is the only thing I care about. If the Scottish government could prove that we would benefit from being independent they would get my vote. From what I can see, they ignore valid questions and concerns and focus their efforts on convincing those who are more easily convinced (to put it politely). Doesn't impress me in the slightest. See Andrew Wilson as a prime example of this way of thinking. 

How much tax did the Scottish government take from the supermarket chains last year? Every supermarket up here is stocked with products outwith Scotland.  So a double hit. Buy everyone else's stuff without the tax on profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

I need to finish my dissertation by Monday, but I can look more if you really want me to once I'm done. However the bold bit, at least so far as my understanding goes, is flat-out untrue, and amounts to a political propaganda success story based on how widely it's been accepted. That said I could be totally wrong.

 

With that in mind though I completely agree with you--everything on the economics ought to be as transparent as possible, no matter who is making which particular claim.

 

Yes, please do! I agree there is propaganda at work but I think it is from the nationalist side. GERS are the Scottish Government's own numbers but focus on expenditure. I assume the Scottish Gov must know how much money they send down to WM so why not publish it? SNP MPs use phrases like "crumbs from the table" and "WM give us some of our money back" so let's see the figures that prove it. I fully believe in the 80's and 90's we funded the UK with oil money but those days are in the past now, even more so with the climate emergency which means Sturgeon would be very hypocritical to try and monetise our oil industry now. 

 

By all means, if self-determination is what matters to people more than anything and the resulting austerity is worth it to them, then they should vote for Indy. For most, this isn't enough. 

 

Personally, I feel Scottish first and also British. I identify more with British people than Europeans or anyone else through shared language, values etc. There has to be more of a benefit to Scotland than just being able to choose what to spend money on when that money is spent on things that would still be required if independent anyway. Nationalists will say that GERS only show what the current situation is within the UK but they can never detail how they would do things differently if they had all the powers. How would they make up the shortfall in what we spend vs what we raise? SNP are all about short term spending so we can boast we have more policemen, nurses etc per person than rUK to try and convince those who pay little attention to detail. 

 

Scotland is broken currently and I can't see it getting better as we will be at 50/50 for the foreseeable. In the last week, 

-  Nationalist supporters (Sean Clerkin and pals) holding up a banner that said "England, get out of Scotland" when thousands of people are visiting Edinburgh for the festival.

- Janice Forsyth mentioned Jimmy Crankie would be a guest at an event on Twitter and there was a pile-on accusing her of speaking derogatorily about Sturgeon. Sturgeon had to get involved herself to tell her devoted cult members to lay off her.

- The National newspaper has taken to making a parody Twitter account "Scots in Union" making tongue-in-cheek demands that the pro-indy National is shut down. Many Nationalists are not noticing it is a parody and are becoming further entrenched in their hatred for all things UK.

 

Part of me almost wants Indy to happen just so those who have promised the earth have to deliver without further austerity. Transparency is key and I hope that an Indyref 2 ensures that on both sides so there is no smoke and mirrors. Confirmatory vote should be set up as the official way forward since Sturgeon has backed that herself with Brexit. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Hasselhoff said:

 

Yes, please do! I agree there is propaganda at work but I think it is from the nationalist side. GERS are the Scottish Government's own numbers but focus on expenditure. I assume the Scottish Gov must know how much money they send down to WM so why not publish it? SNP MPs use phrases like "crumbs from the table" and "WM give us some of our money back" so let's see the figures that prove it. I fully believe in the 80's and 90's we funded the UK with oil money but those days are in the past now, even more so with the climate emergency which means Sturgeon would be very hypocritical to try and monetise our oil industry now. 

 

By all means, if self-determination is what matters to people more than anything and the resulting austerity is worth it to them, then they should vote for Indy. For most, this isn't enough. 

 

Personally, I feel Scottish first and also British. I identify more with British people than Europeans or anyone else through shared language, values etc. There has to be more of a benefit to Scotland than just being able to choose what to spend money on when that money is spent on things that would still be required if independent anyway. Nationalists will say that GERS only show what the current situation is within the UK but they can never detail how they would do things differently if they had all the powers. How would they make up the shortfall in what we spend vs what we raise? SNP are all about short term spending so we can boast we have more policemen, nurses etc per person than rUK to try and convince those who pay little attention to detail. 

 

Scotland is broken currently and I can't see it getting better as we will be at 50/50 for the foreseeable. In the last week, 

-  Nationalist supporters (Sean Clerkin and pals) holding up a banner that said "England, get out of Scotland" when thousands of people are visiting Edinburgh for the festival.

- Janice Forsyth mentioned Jimmy Crankie would be a guest at an event on Twitter and there was a pile-on accusing her of speaking derogatorily about Sturgeon. Sturgeon had to get involved herself to tell her devoted cult members to lay off her.

- The National newspaper has taken to making a parody Twitter account "Scots in Union" making tongue-in-cheek demands that the pro-indy National is shut down. Many Nationalists are not noticing it is a parody and are becoming further entrenched in their hatred for all things UK.

 

Part of me almost wants Indy to happen just so those who have promised the earth have to deliver without further austerity. Transparency is key and I hope that an Indyref 2 ensures that on both sides so there is no smoke and mirrors. Confirmatory vote should be set up as the official way forward since Sturgeon has backed that herself with Brexit. 

 

 

 

 

Where is this confirmatory vote? Oh right, Brexit didn't have one, yet it'll be in the Indyref2 agenda. Good yin!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Hasselhoff said:

I have no problem with another independence referendum being granted if we have a general election where pro Indy parties explicitly declare they want another one unconditionally and they get the majority of votes. 

 

Sturgeon said in several interviews that the 2015 and 2017 votes weren't about independence (to Salmond's annoyance). They did have the "if we are dragged out of the EU" line in their manifesto at least but it wasn't a headline which everyone would know they were voting for. "It's no secret I want independence" she would contradict herself in other interviews to infer that people know what they are voting for by voting SNP. The Greens said that if a million people signed a petition there should be one. That hasn't happened. There is no current mandate for a second vote. 

 

By basing another referendum on total pro Indy manifesto Vs Union manifesto votes as opposed to MSP seats, you cut to the chase as there is no dilution of votes, just as there won't be in a second Indyref vote. It is in the yes sides interest to make sure they have that majority number on their side because if they lose again, people aren't going to want to do this a third time. 

 

Regarding getting into the EU again, I read something online about the Copenhagen Criteria. Scotland would not need to queue to get back in to the EU but they would need to meet this criteria. It is the question that SNP MPs and MSPs can't answer and won't answer. Would Scotland meet the Copenhagen Criteria for entry into the EU? 

Just stop it eh. The "need to get to the back of the queue" myth has been debunked about a thousand times by everyone including prominent members of the EU.

Its Turkey that's "in the queue" and will be for many more decades to come.

 

Project fear is in full flow again I see. Pish talking cretins who will do anything to protect their precious Union that does nothing except shit on them from a great height but hey, god save the queen and red post boxes n shit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

Just stop it eh. The "need to get to the back of the queue" myth has been debunked about a thousand times by everyone including prominent members of the EU.

Its Turkey that's "in the queue" and will be for many more decades to come.

 

Project fear is in full flow again I see. Pish talking cretins who will do anything to protect their precious Union that does nothing except shit on them from a great height but hey, god save the queen and red post boxes n shit!

 

Mate, all else being equal that kind of response is really uncalled for and certainly does nothing but harm your own cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...