How Would You Vote in IndyRef2?

[EastSideJambo]

2 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Yeah, that was funny that.  The Tories at the Westminster election sold the Scottish electorate one policy - no to another referendum.  Those that way inclined took the bait, even although this was a Westminster election, not a Holyrood one.  Still trounced in Scotland though.

 

Still, those who elected those Tories have the government they deserve.

 

Maybe you were correct when you said that the electorate were thick, because to me it looks like the Tories duped them at the last Westminster election in certain constituencies, but then again I suspect it is less support for the Tories, more anti-referendum, and the Tories happily cashed in on that. 

 

(I don't think that the electorate are thick, for the record.)

The days of people refusing to consider voting for the nasty Tories in Scotland are over. I suspect you realise that some people will vote whatever way is necessary in order to oust or keep out the SNP 

 

Scotland is very divided and there is no sign of those divisions dissipating 

[Dawnrazor]

21 hours ago, bobsharp said:

I have no cards to play in the game, and have by emigration disqualified myself from an opinion...

No Bob, you've disqualified yourself from a vote but not an opinion ?

[Boris]

6 minutes ago, EastSideJambo said:

The days of people refusing to consider voting for the nasty Tories in Scotland are over. I suspect you realise that some people will vote whatever way is necessary in order to oust or keep out the SNP 

 

Scotland is very divided and there is no sign of those divisions dissipating 

 

Of course I do, that's the point I was making.

 

A bit like 1997 when the electorate massively rejected the Tories.  An dthe same may happen in Scotland too, but the only thing I can't fully understand is why centre-left people let their hatred of the SNP consume them so much that they would vote Tory.

[jack D and coke]

 

8 minutes ago, EastSideJambo said:

The days of people refusing to consider voting for the nasty Tories in Scotland are over. I suspect you realise that some people will vote whatever way is necessary in order to oust or keep out the SNP 

 

Scotland is very divided and there is no sign of those divisions dissipating 

Yeah that’s true. They make out the Tories are gaining seats when they’re as unelectable as ever in Scotland. Ruth Davidson has literally nothing to offer other than hitting people over the head about indyref 2. 

She could be possibly the worst politician to ever come out of Scotland. I have no idea what she stands for other than No to indyref and get on with the day job Nicola. 

[Thunderstruck]

13 minutes ago, Cruyff Turn said:

That’s absurd. We sell different things and provide different services. Our economies depend on different sizes of public and private sector finances. Our tax system will be completely different. We will have different strategies on different areas such as defence, infrastructure... etc

 

 

Why, then, make statements like “Ireland by 2020 is forecast to become to 5th richest Country on earth per capita.“ if you don’t understand why. 

 

Also, in light of the differences listed above, are you saying that Ireland isn’t much of a comparison?

 

[Thunderstruck]

39 minutes ago, Hunky Dory said:

 

The reality of both is nowhere near the promises made pre-2014.

 

It’s a process. 

 

Did you expect everthing by 19/9/14?

[AlphonseCapone]

13 minutes ago, Hugh Phamism said:

 

Yip. That was also my point. Only time will tell.

 

 

FWIW, my opinion, and it is only an opinion as no one can know. But I think we are on a path to independence that has been coming since the first devolution vote in the 70s. In that 40 year period we've been getting increasingly closer to independence. 

 

The reasons I think it is inevitable is that there is less a sense of Britishness. This is borne out in numerous Social Attitude Surveys over the years and it's a UK wide trend, though Scotland has consistently had the lowest proportion of people identifying as British. I think this stems from the fact that Britain has a relatively weak culture compared to the individual culture of for example Scotland. A lot of what is seen as British culture could be argued to be dominated by England such as music. Of course British history is much younger. I also think that as we lose the generations that fought for Britain in the war, we lose a group of people who really did believe in the notion of Britain. I know people dismiss this as nationalistic nonsense but it would be false to say it doesn't influence people. We are seeing it all over the globe and many people voting for Brexit used terms like, gaining our independence back and British sovereignty. 

 

Another factor is that younger people in this country see little that connects them to Britain. London seems a far away place. That's of course true to someone in Newcastle. But what Scotland has is joint connection through history, symbols, football, culture etc. Growing up now with a powerful devolved parliament, paying a Scottish Income tax, using Scottish Bank notes, watching Scottish TV shows, reading Scottish papers, voting in Scottish elections, is it any surprise that the notion of Britishness is rapidly disappearing. 

 

Of course anything can happen in this crazy world. And maybe people will become too careful as they get older and not want to chance it like the current older people. But the Brexit vote tells me older people won't always be swayed by economic fears when there are other factors at play. 

 

Like I said, I think we started on a path towards independence from the 70's, each attempt, devolution, more powers, all meant to stop independence thinking dead has only increased its liklihood. Say what you want but 45% is a significant number of people. I'm 30 and I firmly believe Scotland will be independent in my lifetime (baring something tragic happening to me!) 

 

All imo. 

[Space Mackerel]

Remember, we only need 3 full size Murrayfields to change a Naw to an Aye. 

 

I think we are onto 4 or 5 now easily. 

[Space Mackerel]

One of the main Naws is a Yes supporter now. Must be 10’s of  thousands more. 

 

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16290381.architect-of-the-vow-murray-foote-backs-scottish-independence/

[Hugh Phamism]

3 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

FWIW, my opinion, and it is only an opinion as no one can know. But I think we are on a path to independence that has been coming since the first devolution vote in the 70s. In that 40 year period we've been getting increasingly closer to independence. 

 

The reasons I think it is inevitable is that there is less a sense of Britishness. This is borne out in numerous Social Attitude Surveys over the years and it's a UK wide trend, though Scotland has consistently had the lowest proportion of people identifying as British. I think this stems from the fact that Britain has a relatively weak culture compared to the individual culture of for example Scotland. A lot of what is seen as British culture could be argued to be dominated by England such as music. Of course British history is much younger. I also think that as we lose the generations that fought for Britain in the war, we lose a group of people who really did believe in the notion of Britain. I know people dismiss this as nationalistic nonsense but it would be false to say it doesn't influence people. We are seeing it all over the globe and many people voting for Brexit used terms like, gaining our independence back and British sovereignty. 

 

Another factor is that younger people in this country see little that connects them to Britain. London seems a far away place. That's of course true to someone in Newcastle. But what Scotland has is joint connection through history, symbols, football, culture etc. Growing up now with a powerful devolved parliament, paying a Scottish Income tax, using Scottish Bank notes, watching Scottish TV shows, reading Scottish papers, voting in Scottish elections, is it any surprise that the notion of Britishness is rapidly disappearing. 

 

Of course anything can happen in this crazy world. And maybe people will become too careful as they get older and not want to chance it like the current older people. But the Brexit vote tells me older people won't always be swayed by economic fears when there are other factors at play. 

 

Like I said, I think we started on a path towards independence from the 70's, each attempt, devolution, more powers, all meant to stop independence thinking dead has only increased its liklihood. Say what you want but 45% is a significant number of people. I'm 30 and I firmly believe Scotland will be independent in my lifetime (baring something tragic happening to me!) 

 

All imo. 

 

I agree A.C.. I'm in my mid 50's and have seen these changes first hand. What we shouldn't forget is that the older generation went through WW2 and the immediate aftermath. My generation does not have the same feeling of loyalty to that 'Great Britain'. I remember when the union flag was the flag of choice at England internationals, and the (royal) Lion Rampart outnumbered the St Andrews cross at Scotland games. These days have have changed and all parts of the UK are becoming more nationalistic. 

 

[EastSideJambo]

35 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

 

Yeah that’s true. They make out the Tories are gaining seats when they’re as unelectable as ever in Scotland. Ruth Davidson has literally nothing to offer other than hitting people over the head about indyref 2. 

She could be possibly the worst politician to ever come out of Scotland. I have no idea what she stands for other than No to indyref and get on with the day job Nicola. 

There is some traction in her encouragement for Nippy to get on with the day job though. She's a fanatical separatist and always will be 

[Boris]

3 minutes ago, EastSideJambo said:

There is some traction in her encouragement for Nippy to get on with the day job though. She's a fanatical separatist and always will be 

 

Equally Ms Davidson is surely a "fanatical" unionist?

 

Using words like fanatical to describe someones politics is rather pejorative, wouldn't you say?  I'd go as far as saying the word separatist is also in the bracket, or at the very least its use is to provoke negative feelings.  Yet earlier you seemed miffed that the Tories are called, um, Tories.

 

No doubt you referred to the former Soviet Republics that became nation states as separatists at the time.

[Cruyff Turn]

36 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

Why, then, make statements like “Ireland by 2020 is forecast to become to 5th richest Country on earth per capita.“ if you don’t understand why. 

 

Also, in light of the differences listed above, are you saying that Ireland isn’t much of a comparison?

 

I’ve already told you what the comparison is based on in my previous post. 

 

Its based on population, history and geography. Ireland have higher unemployment, a smaller population and little or no natural resources compared with Scotland. Yet because they have full control of their own Country, they are now one of the richest countries in the world per capita. 

 

They may have a tonne of debt, I’ve not looked at that tbh. From the figures from their Economy however, they created more revenue from their Public sector than they spent in 2017/18 and they are still spending more on Public Services (ph) than in Scotland, especially on health. I thought that was a fair Comparison as we both have similar Societies and needs. 

 

I understand what you’re saying about their low corporation tax which has created a lot of that growth. That may or may not be applicable to Scotland in terms of a ‘model’. The overriding point was though, Ireland can create that wealth because of their Independence and the powers that come with that, Scotland cannot. I think that point was pretty clear. 

 

Either way mate, the debate on whether Scotland can be Independent is pretty much accepted across the board. 

[EastSideJambo]

23 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Equally Ms Davidson is surely a "fanatical" unionist?

 

Using words like fanatical to describe someones politics is rather pejorative, wouldn't you say?  I'd go as far as saying the word separatist is also in the bracket, or at the very least its use is to provoke negative feelings.  Yet earlier you seemed miffed that the Tories are called, um, Tories.

 

No doubt you referred to the former Soviet Republics that became nation states as separatists at the time.

I make no apology for any term used to describe Nicola Sturgeon 

[JamboX2]

3 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

No one hates the English up here either, hate was maybe the wrong choice of word there. I worked in England for over 10 years and have great pals all over. 

You do ocassionally come across a welt whenever politics gets raised just the same as you up here I may add. 

You didn’t really answer my question though as to why they don’t want to look at a federal solution. I’m genuinely interested in what you think you’re a very politically switched on poster. 

 

I think they do. The debate down here is about English regional devolution. England is such a big place and high population nation that they want regional devolution. George Osbourne was on a show on Sunday morning calling for greater powers in London and the mayoral cities. I think that's their direction of travel and it in turn will regionalise matters here and in effect federalise matters. 

 

It's a process JD. 

[Thunderstruck]

38 minutes ago, Cruyff Turn said:

I’ve already told you what the comparison is based on in my previous post. 

 

Its based on population, history and geography. Ireland have higher unemployment, a smaller population and little or no natural resources compared with Scotland. Yet because they have full control of their own Country, they are now one of the richest countries in the world per capita. 

 

They may have a tonne of debt, I’ve not looked at that tbh. From the figures from their Economy however, they created more revenue from their Public sector than they spent in 2017/18 and they are still spending more on Public Services (ph) than in Scotland, especially on health. I thought that was a fair Comparison as we both have similar Societies and needs. 

 

I understand what you’re saying about their low corporation tax which has created a lot of that growth. That may or may not be applicable to Scotland in terms of a ‘model’. The overriding point was though, Ireland can create that wealth because of their Independence and the powers that come with that, Scotland cannot. I think that point was pretty clear. 

 

Either way mate, the debate on whether Scotland can be Independent is pretty much accepted across the board. 

 

You could ask the Irish how independent they were (arguably, still are) when under the thumb of the EU-IMF Troika after the GEC 10 years ago. 

 

It goes without saying that Scotland COULD be independent, the important consideration is SHOULD it be independent. 

 

What are the costs and benefits? The absence of any coherent plan, timetable or indication of likely partnerships with other countries does not create an environment where anyone should even consider another vote. 

 

Perhaps taking leaps into the unknown is your thing but would it be right to do so if it created uncertainty and poorer living conditions?

 

In the the vain hope of getting a straight answer out of a nationalist - do you have a limit where you would say no to independence as the cost to society would be too great?

[Boris]

2 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

You could ask the Irish how independent they were (arguably, still are) when under the thumb of the EU-IMF Troika after the GEC 10 years ago. 

 

It goes without saying that Scotland COULD be independent, the important consideration is SHOULD it be independent. 

 

What are the costs and benefits? The absence of any coherent plan, timetable or indication of likely partnerships with other countries does not create an environment where anyone should even consider another vote. 

 

Perhaps taking leaps into the unknown is your thing but would it be right to do so if it created uncertainty and poorer living conditions?

 

In the the vain hope of getting a straight answer out of a nationalist - do you have a limit where you would say no to independence as the cost to society would be too great?

 

Conflating Eurozone membership with EU membership.

 

Two seperate things.

[ri Alban]

7 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

I don't think they are. But devolution is so far - asymmetric between parts of the UK and England has limited devolution.

 

Holyrood is extremely powerful. I suppose the adult question is how loose a union do people want? Personally I think we've got a good level of devolution. I'd just like to see bolder use of power.

If you don't control your money and assets, you have no power. Holyrood ain't one of the most powerful devolved parliaments. A total lie. 

[AlphonseCapone]

34 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

I think they do. The debate down here is about English regional devolution. England is such a big place and high population nation that they want regional devolution. George Osbourne was on a show on Sunday morning calling for greater powers in London and the mayoral cities. I think that's their direction of travel and it in turn will regionalise matters here and in effect federalise matters. 

 

It's a process JD. 

 

Based on what? 

[ri Alban]

7 hours ago, Cade said:

Scotland has the most powerful devolved parliament in the world, is the proud boast of the Unionist parties as they try to persuade Scotland that they fulfilled their promises to give the Scottish parliament meaningful extra powers. And it’s true that with a couple of minor caveats and quibbles, Scotland is indeed the proud owner of the most powerful devolved parliament in the world.

Of course one of the quibbles is in the word devolved. There are self-governing territories quite close to home which have considerably more powerful parliaments than Scotland does. The British crown dependencies of the Isle of Man, Jersey, and Guernsey are independent in most respects. In fact they have what many in Scotland defined as devo max, control over everything except foreign affairs and defence. The British crown territories of Bermuda, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, St Helena, Montserrat, the British Virgin Islands, the Turks and Caicos, and the Cayman Islands, enjoy similar control over their own affairs. They control their own taxation policies, some of them have control over their own immigration policies. For the most part they are independent in all important respects, with the main exceptions of foreign affairs and defence.

The self-governing kingdoms of the Danish and Dutch crowns likewise enjoy a similar degree of autonomy. The Dutch kingdoms of Aruba, Curacao and Bonaire, and Sint Maartin are self-governing islands in the Caribbean. They have close ties to the Netherlands which retains responsibility for defence and most foreign affairs, although the islands can and do represent themselves at an international level on occasion. The same is true for the Danish crown possessions of Greenland and the Faroe Islands. They are independent in almost all respects. Greenland was even able to leave the EEC.

But apart from the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, Bermuda, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, St Helena, Montserrat, the British Virgin Islands, the Turks and Caicos, the Cayman Islands, Aruba, Curacao and Bonaire, Sint Maartin, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands, Scotland has the most powerful devolved parliament in the world. So that’s OK then.

There are a few other countries which aren’t independent but which still enjoy considerably more autonomy than Scotland does. Puerto Rico is a country in free association with the United States. It has the right to self-determination, and has had several referendums on independence, none of which required the permission of Washington. Most recently it voted to become the 51st state of the Union. Guam, American Samoa, and the US Virgin Islands are other self-governing territories of the United States. Like Puerto Rico they have considerable control over their own financial affairs. French Polynesia and New Caledonia are French possessions in the South Pacific, they likewise have autonomy. New Caledonia is due to hold a referendum on independence.

But apart from the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, Bermuda, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, St Helena, Montserrat, the British Virgin Islands, the Turks and Caicos, the Cayman Islands, Aruba, Curacao and Bonaire, Sint Maartin, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, French Polynesia and New Caledonia, Scotland has the most powerful devolved parliament in the world. So that’s OK then.

Well … being devolved means that at any time Scotland’s autonomy can be revoked or altered by the Westminster parliament. There is no constitutional guarantee of the permanency of Holyrood, despite the fact that the Unionist parties promised to ensure that would be the case. After winning the first independence referendum, they went back on their word. So since there is no constitutional guarantee of the status of Scotland, that means that every single federal territory in the world has more power than the Scottish parliament. The constitutional status of a constituent member of a federal state cannot be altered except by a change to the constitution, a single government can’t do that unless extra steps are taken, most commonly involving a referendum.

Each of the US states, the Canadian provinces, the German Länder, the Swiss Cantons, the states of Mexico, and the states of Australia have considerably more power than Scotland’s parliament does. Quebec controls its own immigration policy. The US states as well as the Canadian provinces and the Mexican states control vehicle registration. All have powers over taxation, including sales taxes. They have control over the natural resources exploited within their own territory. The US state of Alaska has an oil fund which it periodically disburses to state residents as a financial windfall. The constituent states of the Federated States of Micronesia, Yap, Chuuk, Pohnpei, and Kosrae even have the power to represent themselves independently on an international level. Tiny wee islands in the Pacific, but they’re more powerful than Scotland is.

So apart from the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, Bermuda, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, St Helena, Montserrat, the British Virgin Islands, the Turks and Caicos, the Cayman Islands, Aruba, Curacao and Bonaire, Sint Maartin, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, French Polynesia and New Caledonia, Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Newfoundland, and the rest of the Canadian provinces, Alaska, Rhode Island, Hawaii, and the rest of the states of the USA, Yucatan, Sonora, Leon, and the other states of Mexico, Berne, Grisons, Aargau, Schwyz, and the other cantons of Switzerland, Bavaria, Baden-Wurtemberg, Schleswig-Holstein and the other Länder of Germany, Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania, Yap, Chuuk, Pohnpei, and Kosrae, Scotland has the most powerful devolved parliament in the world. So that’s OK then.

But … there are some other countries, territories, and regions which have a measure of self-government and like Scotland are not constituent parts of federal states. Gagauzia is a self governing territory of Turkish speaking Orthodox Christians which is a constituent part of Moldova, which isn’t a federal state, but Gagauz autonomy is written into the Moldovan constitution and can’t be altered by a Moldovan government without the consent of the Gagauz parliament. Which is more than can be said for Scotland.

Then there are countries and territories which like Scotland are actually devolved.  Nunavut was carved out of the North West Territories as an autonomous territory for Canada’s Inuit people. The new territory was named Nunavut, which in Inuktitut, the Inuit language, means “Has more devolution than Scotland”. As with the other territories of Canada, Yukon and the remaining part of the North West Territories, the Federal government is ensuring that Nunavut has control of its own mineral and oil and gas resources. Washington DC and the Federal District of Mexico City are not federal states in their respective countries, but each enjoys most of the powers enjoyed by states. The Northern Territory of Australia likewise enjoys many of the same powers that the fully fledged Australian states possess although it enjoys these powers as devolved powers from the Federal government which retains the right to legislate on its behalf.

Catalonia, Galicia, the Basque Country and the Canary Islands are autonomous communities in Spain. Each has control over its own broadcasting, something not allowed to Scotland. The Basque Country raises all taxes within its territory and is responsible for remitting part of the receipts to Madrid to cover its share of the costs of the Spanish state. Far more control than Scotland has.

Madeira and the Azores are autonomous parts of Portugal. They have control over immigration and residency policy, control over their marine economic zones, and control over oil and mineral rights as well as fishing.

So apart from the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, Bermuda, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, St Helena, Montserrat, the British Virgin Islands, the Turks and Caicos, the Cayman Islands, Aruba, Curacao and Bonaire, Sint Maartin, Greenland, the Faroe Islands, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, French Polynesia and New Caledonia, Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Newfoundland, and the rest of the Canadian provinces, Alaska, Rhode Island, Hawaii, and the rest of the states of the USA, Yucatan, Sonora, Leon, and the other states of Mexico, Berne, Grisons, Aargau, Schwyz, and the other cantons of Switzerland, Bavaria, Baden-Wurtemberg, Schleswig-Holstein and the other Länder of Germany, Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania, Yap, Chuuk, Pohnpei, and Kosrae, Gagauzia, Catalonia, the Basque Country, Galicia, the Canary Islands, the Azores, Madeira, Washington DC, the Districto Federal de Mexico, Yukon, Nunavut, the North West Territories, and the Northern Territory of Australia, Scotland has the most powerful devolved parliament in the world.

So that’s OK then.

Probably my favourite post on JKB ever. 

[ri Alban]

4 hours ago, EastSideJambo said:

Yip 

Must be to vote no. 

[Thunderstruck]

26 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Conflating Eurozone membership with EU membership.

 

Two seperate things.

 

The point was about independence. Is a nation truly independent if a threesome of external agencies can impose conditions (including austerity) in return for a bail out. 

 

 

[EastSideJambo]

12 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Must be to vote no. 

We're thankfully not that stupid 

[tian447]

I voted No last time, and rightly so.  I believed it was for the best at the time.

 

However, the state of politics in the UK at the minute is an absolute shambles.  Straight up lies, and decisions made without considering Scotland and Northern Ireland are starting to pull my pisser.  The inability to negotiate a deal with the EU, after years of broken promises that it would be sorted is also just ridiculous.

 

I would be tempted to vote Yes in another Independence Referendum, but some glaring errors and straight up lies in facts made last time around would need to be set in stone first.

[Nookie Bear]

1 hour ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

 

It goes without saying that Scotland COULD be independent, the important consideration is SHOULD it be independent. 

 

What are the costs and benefits? The absence of any coherent plan, timetable or indication of likely partnerships with other countries does not create an environment where anyone should even consider another vote. 

 

Perhaps taking leaps into the unknown is your thing but would it be right to do so if it created uncertainty and poorer living conditions?

 

In the the vain hope of getting a straight answer out of a nationalist - do you have a limit where you would say no to independence as the cost to society would be too great?

 

This is where i am - good post.

[Space Mackerel]

1 hour ago, JamboX2 said:

 

I think they do. The debate down here is about English regional devolution. England is such a big place and high population nation that they want regional devolution. George Osbourne was on a show on Sunday morning calling for greater powers in London and the mayoral cities. I think that's their direction of travel and it in turn will regionalise matters here and in effect federalise matters. 

 

It's a process JD. 

 

To have full Federalism you are going to have to have a full referendum involving all 4 nations within the current UK. This nonsense about it slowly slipping into place is complete hogwash. It's total wishful thinking on your behalf to preserve the Union.  I have no idea where you get your ideas from. That dug food salesman on Twitter?

[Space Mackerel]

4 minutes ago, Hunky Dory said:

 

Even if delivered on the 19th, what's transpiring is not what was promised.  That's the point here.

 

Smith commission is garbage, its a watered down vow in which Westminster have reneged already on one aspect.

 

And shipbuilding, even the watered-watered-down proposal was still a lie.  It went from 13, to 8, to being built nationwide.

 

Better to ask them what "promise" they kept after the 19th? 

 

 

[AlphonseCapone]

1 hour ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

In the the vain hope of getting a straight answer out of a nationalist - do you have a limit where you would say no to independence as the cost to society would be too great?

 

Except absolutely no one knows what the cost, if any, would be to society until it happened. 

 

You're pretty obsessed with economics on independence and that's fine but most people are under no illusion that an independent Scotland wouldn't be a utopia or a pariah state. 

 

On your ask the Irish how independent they felt question. My partner is Irish so is her family. Not once did they ever not feel independent because they got a loan from the EU. Not once have they ever not felt independent because they are in the EU. Not a single one would ever trade their situation for Scotland's.

[ri Alban]

8 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

To have full Federalism you are going to have to have a full referendum involving all 4 nations within the current UK. This nonsense about it slowly slipping into place is complete hogwash. It's total wishful thinking on your behalf to preserve the Union.  I have no idea where you get your ideas from. That dug food salesman on Twitter?

Dugfid salesman on twitter. 

[Space Mackerel]

1 hour ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

You could ask the Irish how independent they were (arguably, still are) when under the thumb of the EU-IMF Troika after the GEC 10 years ago. 

 

It goes without saying that Scotland COULD be independent, the important consideration is SHOULD it be independent. 

 

What are the costs and benefits? The absence of any coherent plan, timetable or indication of likely partnerships with other countries does not create an environment where anyone should even consider another vote. 

 

Perhaps taking leaps into the unknown is your thing but would it be right to do so if it created uncertainty and poorer living conditions?

 

In the the vain hope of getting a straight answer out of a nationalist - do you have a limit where you would say no to independence as the cost to society would be too great?

 

Have a read.

 

 

How to Start a New Country FINAL (1).pdf

[Thunderstruck]

19 minutes ago, Hunky Dory said:

 

Even if delivered on the 19th, what's transpiring is not what was promised.  That's the point here.

 

Smith commission is garbage, its a watered down vow in which Westminster have reneged already on one aspect.

 

And shipbuilding, even the watered-watered-down proposal was still a lie.  It went from 13, to 8, to being built nationwide.

 

So, the long list of powers transferred under the 2016 Act aren’t enough? Constant grievance - it’s the nationalist way. 

 

As for warships - Statements of Requirement may have changed but the indisputable fact remains that Govan has a full order book that will keep it busy to 2032. The next type may well follow the process adopted for the Carriers with construction of components around the U.K. with final construction at a central point which may well be Rosyth. 

 

Are you you willing to share with us your notion of what would replace all of those highly skilled defence sector jobs if you got your independence. 

[ri Alban]

1 hour ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

You could ask the Irish how independent they were (arguably, still are) when under the thumb of the EU-IMF Troika after the GEC 10 years ago. 

 

It goes without saying that Scotland COULD be independent, the important consideration is SHOULD it be independent. 

 

What are the costs and benefits? The absence of any coherent plan, timetable or indication of likely partnerships with other countries does not create an environment where anyone should even consider another vote. 

 

Perhaps taking leaps into the unknown is your thing but would it be right to do so if it created uncertainty and poorer living conditions?

 

In the the vain hope of getting a straight answer out of a nationalist - do you have a limit where you would say no to independence as the cost to society would be too great?

Could ask the same to you. When is being in the union to detrimental to Scotland, that you'd want independence. Didn't think so. 

[Guest]

20 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

Does anybody know why the uk government is so against a federal arrangement? 

 

Simple, they don’t want to give up any more powers. They didn’t even want devolution and held out against it for a very long time. They would reverse it at the drop of a hat if they could. That alone is yet another good reason to vote yes next time. Evidence: using brexit to grab back some powers.

[ri Alban]

So the UK is about to lose £0.5t of trade with the EU, with no Brexit plan. How are England going to look after us. 

Edited September 20, 2018 by ri Alban

[Cruyff Turn]

1 hour ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

1. You could ask the Irish how independent they were (arguably, still are) when under the thumb of the EU-IMF Troika after the GEC 10 years ago. 

 

2. It goes without saying that Scotland COULD be independent, the important consideration is SHOULD it be independent. 

 

3.What are the costs and benefits? The absence of any coherent plan, timetable or indication of likely partnerships with other countries does not create an environment where anyone should even consider another vote. 

 

4.Perhaps taking leaps into the unknown is your thing but would it be right to do so if it created uncertainty and poorer living conditions?

 

5.In the the vain hope of getting a straight answer out of a nationalist - do you have a limit where you would say no to independence as the cost to society would be too great?

 

1. On your first point. I’m not getting into the ins and out of Irelands history of their previous currency before they adopted the Euro, or the restrictions placed on them because it’s irrelevant to this debate - at the moment. 

 

2. Should Scotland be Independent? 

 

I don’t think there is anyway on earth that the Status Quo can be resumed. 

 

The UK can no longer claim to be a Democracy. The system is outdated and creates more problems than it solves. 

 

The current UK government have ridden roughshod over Democracy in Scotland on a whole number of levels.

 

a. We voted in a General Election before the EU Referendum and those MP’s we elected voted overwhelmingly against having that Referendum.

 

b. When they had the Referendum Scotland voted overwhelmingly against it. Now I don’t really give a shit about whether it was a ‘UK wide vote’. In a Union of apparent equals, one Country doesn’t foist it’s will upon the other. 

 

c. The outcome of that vote could have been widely accepted in Scotland by everyone IF, the negotiations were bipartisan and the outcome of the vote in Scotland and N.Ireland was respected by the UK Government.

 

In doing so, the UK Government and the bipartisan negotiators, could have negotiated on each individual case with the EU for both Scotland and N.Ireland. None of which has happened. Now it has become nothing more than what a group of Tories want over another group of Tories.

 

d. The UK Government in doing what they have done have now decided that they must have to take back all the powers Devolved to Scotland. 

 

e. This despite the fact people in Scotland voting in a Referendum to have a Devolved Parliament. 

 

That is just 5 examples on one subject where the UK government has not given a flying **** about Democracy in Scotland. I could include Nuclear weapons as well which are unwanted in Scotland. 

 

As I posted previously, the SNP are the biggest supported Party in Scotland by a distance in terms of membership. I’m not saying membership numbers equates to votes but they will probably be the biggest Party at Holyrood for a very long time.

 

That obviously creates a problem because it means that the Question of Independence will always be at the forefront of Scottish Politics.

 

It means that a large percentage of our population feels that there are things that are needing to be addressed, and there is clearly only certain ways that these issues can be resolved. Which is, the UK becomes a Federation or Scotland becomes Independent. 

 

Do you agree / disagree that there is issues that need to be addressed and why?

 

Secondly. 

 

Why do you believe Scotland should not be Independent?

 

3. I actually agree. There needs to be a coherent plan put forward on many subjects. What Currency. The Constitution. The interim period in between leaving the UK and how that would operate. etc..The public needs to know and understand these things. On that, all I could say is I’m sure it’s happened the World over in many Countries so we wouldn’t be unique in that regard.

 

I’d imagine the hand over of most powers would be relatively straight forward if we had systems already in place. 

 

I personally don’t believe there would be any obstacles to trade with the rest of the UK & vice versa, or with Borders, or with the EU or elsewhere in the World. It would be completely moronic to suggest we’d become some N.Korean backwater. 

 

4. Scotland leaving the UK isn’t going to create much poorer living standards. People who are poor will still be poor. People who are rich will still be rich. At least we could have the powers on Social Benefits and Welfare and the economic powers to hopefully help those in need or create more jobs and increase wages. 

The Sky isn’t going to fall in if Scotland leaves the UK. 

 

Infact, Leaving the EU and especially the Human Rights Convention, will lead to many poorer standards in our quality of food imported from other places, medicines, manufacturing, goods and the loss of protection for workers and citizens rights. Which is surely much more damaging to society and people’s quality of life?  

 

5. What kind of cost to Society? 

 

[Thunderstruck]

9 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Could ask the same to you. When is being in the union to detrimental to Scotland, that you'd want independence. Didn't think so. 

 

That would require detailed knowledge of an alternative. Otherwise, how could any judgement be reached.  

 

I think that even even the most ardent separatist would have to agree that there is no costed alternative. 

[H2]

17 hours ago, Cruyff Turn said:

How do you know it would lead to Austerity? 

 

8.6% of UK assets, whether that’s embassies, gold, bonds, military hardware, it’s debt, whatever is belongs to Scotland.  This is nothing like a EU trade agreement or disputing what directives we have to keep etc... etc... 

 

Scotland doesn’t have fiscal powers, So how do you know Scotland would be poorer or richer? 

 

Ireland by 2020 is forecast to become to 5th richest Country on earth per capita. We have more going for us than Ireland ffs. The only difference is they have the power to grow their economy, we don’t. 

It is not rocket science to work out when there is a divorce both parties is better off. It's not difficult to conclude that the one that has the assets will not release them.

Whille I don;t believe verything I read in newspapers there is a common thread in austeiry, even from those supporting SNP " An assessment of the SNP 's Growth Commission report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said that if current conditions could be considered austerity, then that would continue under the proposals. "

Ireland is already the 5th highest ranked per capita, that doesn't make it the 5th wealthiest, it indicates there are some very wealthy individuals. for example Brunei are 4th, but that vast majority of that wealth sits with one person amongst a relitvely small population. But you can make statisics say what you want them to say and per capita is a statistic.

No idea where the 8.6% comes from?

One thing of which I am very confident, if Scotland gets independence from the UK, all of the UK will be worse off. It will be a bitter battle, much worse than Brexit and Scotalnd will become a divided nation.

[H2]

18 hours ago, All roads lead to Gorgie said:

They might be now but just wait until Boris wins his second term in office then they will be craving Holyrood's speedy return. It's a safety blanket that Scotland needs against Boris and his likes! 

I hope you don't  base indepndence on the short term aspect over one individual. While I think Boris is erratic, has very odd views, amongst many other negative qualities, the Scottish leadership offer nothing. - but at the moment the whole political world is in a mixing bowl of confusion and sheep followers. I believe the world would propser if we (the world) had one Government.

 

[Thunderstruck]

45 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Have a read.

 

 

How to Start a New Country FINAL (1).pdf

 

An interesting theoretical exercise but it is leaning more towards processes and their costs rather than the real costs to real people.

 

It reminds me of the sort of structured project management churned out by analysts who are more concerned with the journey than the destination - the kind that bring meaning to the old saying that “after all is said and done, much more is said than done”. 

 

 

[H2]

18 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

I'm not convinced on that tbh. There's now a whole generation of voters who've never lived in a Scotland without its own parliament. As the years roll on and that number continues to increase the concept of no Scottish Parliament will just be baffling to most people rather than a genuine position. All imo of course. 

yes but they must look at for example last years perfromance, how many bills did they pass last year, and what was it again?

[AlphonseCapone]

7 minutes ago, H2 said:

yes but they must look at for example last years perfromance, how many bills did they pass last year, and what was it again?

 

But that's the performance of a particular Government that can be voted out. Parliament does a lot of good work that goes unnoticed. 

[H2]

3 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

But that's the performance of a particular Government that can be voted out. Parliament does a lot of good work that goes unnoticed. 

That goes for the UK Parliament too.

 

[Thunderstruck]

21 minutes ago, Hunky Dory said:

 

Statement of Requirement is a fancy term for a broken promise.  

 

What powers are you referring to?  The ability to (only) vary income tax rates/bands, or receiving (portion) of VAT raised, those increased borrowing powers (that we need permission for), or that the Scottish parliament is a permanent institution (already broken), the control of economic assets in Scotland (Fort Kinnaird anyone?).

 

We have less power and control over our affairs than the likes of Guernsey.

 

Tell you what, go to Govan and ask the guys in the Yard if they think promises have been broken. 

 

After that, read the 2016 Act and then consider pre-existing powers. It is not a Parliament without significant power albeit one timid when it comes to using these powers. 

 

I note that you have no answer on the impact of losing Defence Industry jobs. Surely you are not another independence at any cost sort of nationalist. 

[Space Mackerel]

I don’t really get this argument that after independence Scotland will be divided. 

 

I mean Scottish Unionists will still be Scottish after all, seems all a bit daft to me. ?

[Cruyff Turn]

19 minutes ago, H2 said:

It is not rocket science to work out when there is a divorce both parties is better off. It's not difficult to conclude that the one that has the assets will not release them.

Whille I don;t believe verything I read in newspapers there is a common thread in austeiry, even from those supporting SNP " An assessment of the SNP 's Growth Commission report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said that if current conditions could be considered austerity, then that would continue under the proposals. "

Ireland is already the 5th highest ranked per capita, that doesn't make it the 5th wealthiest, it indicates there are some very wealthy individuals. for example Brunei are 4th, but that vast majority of that wealth sits with one person amongst a relitvely small population. But you can make statisics say what you want them to say and per capita is a statistic.

No idea where the 8.6% comes from?

One thing of which I am very confident, if Scotland gets independence from the UK, all of the UK will be worse off. It will be a bitter battle, much worse than Brexit and Scotalnd will become a divided nation.

Scotland has been divided for Centuries. Don’t you know your own history? Or do you just like the soundbite? 

 

I don’t agree with the Growth Commission report, infact they should throw it in the bin and get actual real Economists to come up with a report which isn’t related to SNP policy, views or beliefs. 

 

8.6% is the size of our Population within the whole of UK. If they don’t release the assets, we won’t have any debt. Do you really think the UK government would be so petty in not handing over our share of assets like on defence for example and leave part of this Island Un-defended? We’ve paid for it ffs.

 

I don’t really care about the rest of the UK once Scotland becomes Independent. I don’t live elsewhere in the UK. 

 

It’ll be more bitter than Brexit, probably less damaging though. 

 

[AlphonseCapone]

11 minutes ago, H2 said:

That goes for the UK Parliament too.

 

 

Indeed. 

[Thunderstruck]

11 minutes ago, Hunky Dory said:

 

The GMB and Unite - "shipyard workers are disillusioned by broken promises".  Google away.

 

Will leave it at that.  It's the same old tedious rhetoric 4 years down the line.

 

As I said, ask the guys working there. I have. 

 

 

[Space Mackerel]

40 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

An interesting theoretical exercise but it is leaning more towards processes and their costs rather than the real costs to real people.

 

It reminds me of the sort of structured project management churned out by analysts who are more concerned with the journey than the destination - the kind that bring meaning to the old saying that “after all is said and done, much more is said than done”. 

 

 

 

Thats some going to read all that in an hour and produce a detailed analysis as above. 

 

Why do you like being British? Is it just a state of mind you’ve never challenged? 

[All roads lead to Gorgie]

1 hour ago, H2 said:

I hope you don't  base indepndence on the short term aspect over one individual. While I think Boris is erratic, has very odd views, amongst many other negative qualities, the Scottish leadership offer nothing. - but at the moment the whole political world is in a mixing bowl of confusion and sheep followers. I believe the world would propser if we (the world) had one Government.

 

I was not referring to independence but the point you raised about a growing number of people wanting the Scottish Parliament scrapped all together. One government? was that not the idea of the EU in a gradual bit by bit way anyway. 

Edited September 20, 2018 by All roads lead to Gorgie

[Boris]

3 hours ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

The point was about independence. Is a nation truly independent if a threesome of external agencies can impose conditions (including austerity) in return for a bail out. 

 

 

Welcome to the Western world!