The rise and fall of The SNP.

[kingantti1874]

3 hours ago, Zlatanable said:

 

'Every time i read posts like yours i am reminded of the Scottish cringe and national self loathing by a large percentage of our people whose main satisfaction in life is to imagine that they are better that their fellow citizens (Tories). '

 

The SNP have been in power at Holyrood since 2007, 14ish years ago as I write this. 

 

Do you ever ask yourself if they could have done better?

Is the local democracy better? (no)

Is the football better? (no)

Is education better? (no)

Is Scotland a more coherent and happier place? (no)

 

And in 2007 I voted SNP, in part, because they were going to replace the council tax. Have they replaced the council tax? (no)

 

I am not, and never will be a Conservative (Tories). But if a person votes for them, that is ok with me.

I vote to change *this*. I voted for the Scottish Parliament, I have changed from voting for just Labour, to voting for Greens, SNP, Margo MacDonald and the Scottish Socialist Party, because I wanted something different.

 

I am not, as you might and many of you might assume, fundamentally against Scotland being independent.

 

But since 2011, this has become a deeply ugly mess, that keeps getting worse. 

I am not asking you to give up believing in or wishing for Scotland to be independent. But quit making out this SNP era since 2007 is the utopia that exists before the even better utopia that will exist. It is the same place with the same problems (don't even start me on the drug death story and Nicola Sturgeon's reaction to it)

 

 

 

Good post. 
 

the SNP poisonous use of the word “tories” is borderline discrimination.. Donald Trump level politics.  

[Seymour M Hersh]

2 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

Good post. 
 

the SNP poisonous use of the word “tories” is borderline discrimination.. Donald Trump level politics.  

 

Except they been practising this level of politics way before Trump ever got into it. Perhaps it's just SNP level politics and Trump copied them.

[kingantti1874]

Just now, Brighton Jambo said:

Great post.  This is exactly where I am.  I am not fundamentally opposed to independence for philosophical reasons.  I am opposed to it because I believe it will make life worse for my family.  It will create risks to what I have worked so hard to achieve and build for my kids and it will take decades to truly see any meaningful benefit (if at all)
 

I do understand for some people that’s worth it, either they don’t have much and so have nothing to lose or they so passionately want to have total self rule they are willing to take the pain.  
 

If someone could lay out the economic case to show how we would unequivocally be better off as a nation and as citizens within that nation I would absolute consider it.  In 7/8 years I have seen absolutely nothing of that sort.  All I ever hear is vote for independence to get away from Boris and the nasty Tories, hardly a compelling reason to rip up the status quo.  

Spot on. If there was an economic case for independence the SNP would be making it over and over and over again. but There isnt an economic case! Just pathetic slogans to hide behind  slogans.
 

This giver know what it will means economically, they are happy to accept the cost and happy to do and say whatever it takes to achieve their goal then deal with the aftermath.

 

If there is a referendum it should be two part, the first to negotiate a deal the second to vote on that deal.. so they people actually have idea on  what they are voting for.

 

for me, honestly. I cannot be arsed with any more of this divisive crap. 

[Fxxx the SPFL]

I first became aware of Scottish Nationalism in the early seventies through a modern studies teacher at Tynie High School he used to really push his pro independence stuff in class. Since then i have always felt that we should and could have been independent and had we got that in the seventies i'm almost certain we as a country would be in a far better place certainly wealthy given all the natural resources available to us.  Anyway both myself and my wife voted for independence at the referendum but now have both changed our minds just basically we now believe that we would really struggle to make our country prosperous and a better place to benefit all. I have spoken with friends work colleagues and a good number are of the same opinion and i would have thought that any polls taken now would show a shift away from independence obviously imo. The Salmond/Sturgeon issue has caused a lot of grief and not helped as has the EU's handling of the vaccine rollout. I will however still pin my sails to the mast and continue voting SNP and hope that we can obtain some more devolution and improve the lives of our fellow countrymen/women

Edited March 19, 2021 by Fxxx the SPFL

[kingantti1874]

13 minutes ago, **** the SPFL said:

I first became aware of Scottish Nationalism in the early seventies through a modern studies teacher at Tynie High School he used to really push his pro independence stuff in class. Since then i have always felt that we should and could have been independent and had we got that in the seventies i'm almost certain we as a country would be in a far better place certainly wealthy given all the natural resources available to us.  Anyway both myself and my wife voted for independence at the referendum but now have both changed our minds just basically we now believe that we would really struggle to make our country prosperous and a better place to benefit all. I have spoken with friends work colleagues and a good number are of the same opinion and i would have thought that any polls taken now would show a shift away from independence obviously imo. The Salmond/Sturgeon issue has caused a lot of grief and not helped as has the EU's handling of the vaccine rollout. I will however still pin my sails to the mast and continue voting SNP and hope that we can obtain some more devolution and improve the lives of our fellow countrymen/women

agree with a lot of this, the SNP however are not interested in the day to day running of the country, and a vote for them isn’t a vote for more devolution. They only have one agenda. 
 

the problem is they don’t have any competent opposition, a party who will focus on ending divisive nationalism, fixing they country they’ve broken and stop acting like an angry reluctant partner at Westminster. Focus on making sure we act as a strong equal partner who won’t accept any shit.

[BudgeUp]

If Sturgeon goes the next person in charge will be Angus Robertson.

 

There's a reason why the bulk of campaigning done by the Conservatives was in Moray. The SNP at Westminster lost something when he lost his seat.

[dobmisterdobster]

1 hour ago, Lord BJ said:

This thread is truly bonkers, a bunch of fanatics projecting their own prejudices in the main. 
 

Anyway, Sturgeon having mislead Parliament will have very little impact on indepedence. In reality it’s nothing to do with indepedence, which is about the method of governance for Scotland. 
 

The problem is far too many people are and like to conflating issues. That said it is understandable when the SNP, in particular have purposely conflated issues to stoke the fires of independence; understandably. This is compounded when the SNP have tried to portray themselves as the party of good, honest people with the best interest of the people and the tories, and pretty much every party, as evil and only interested in themselves. It was a narrative that never stood up to scrutiny but now only a dummy would push that narrative. I expect many will on this board and in general will still push it though 😂
 

You would imagine it will impact the elections and most certainly her approval rating  but on the arguments for and against Indy, not sure it will change much. Though the fanatics will no doubt use it all the time as it a new toy to throw about into a tired game. 

 

I personally think her position should come into question, I doubt it seriously will. 
 

For me the fish has reached the end of her shelf life for a number of different reason. Time in power, in fighting in party, salmond inquiry but not least this COVID crisis must have taken it out her and could anyone blame her walking away just of the back of the COVID crisis. 🤔

 

As an aside her accepting a bit of responsibility for her actions, would probably be the idea . The claims of conspiracy theories, political bias, really are a bit hypocritical. Whilst does anyone seriously want a politician who is so forgetful 🤷🏻‍♂️
 

 

 

As much as I dislike Sturgeon, I think this latest controversy will have little effect on her or her party.

People are so desensitised to political scandals. Especially in the social media age.

Also people are more tribal than ever before. Those who support/oppose her will continue to do so no matter what happens.

[jack D and coke]

2 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

 

As much as I dislike Sturgeon, I think this latest controversy will have little effect on her or her party.

People are so desensitised to political scandals. Especially in the social media age.

Also people are more tribal than ever before. Those who support/oppose her will continue to do so no matter what happens.

Probably right but for a few reasons I reckon it could be the right time for NS to move aside. Before this I felt her shelf life was about up anyway. Not for the demented but in the grand scheme of things. 
It might be good for the SNP who knows but you’re right it’ll likely entrench a lot of people to defend her more. 
You could almost feel the masterbation levels on the richter scale since that news was announced last night and reading here and social media this morning I don’t know whether to laugh or be disturbed that some people are in such a mess with the SNP. Heads utterly rekked on both sides. 
It’s where we are with politics now. 

[Don Dan]

https://news.sky.com/story/salmond-inquiry-new-details-emerge-as-committee-finds-sturgeon-misled-parliament-12250307
 

Sky News can reveal further details contained in a report that found Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon misled parliament.

Holyrood's harassment committee also concluded that it finds it "hard to believe" she didn't know of concerns around Alex Salmond's behaviour before November 2017.

And committee members have included a passage in their report to say they are "concerned" at the length of time it took, in the wake of harassment complaints against Mr Salmond, for Ms Sturgeon to tell her top civil servant about contact with him on the matter.

The harassment committee has reached its conclusions by a majority vote ahead of the publication of its final report next week.

Members have decided that Scotland's first minister misled the committee itself and, as such, misled parliament and potentially breached the ministerial code of conduct.

It has increased pressure on Ms Sturgeon to step down. Her opponents have repeatedly levelled the accusation that, in misleading parliament, she breached the ministerial code.

The code dictates that any minister found to knowingly be in breach should offer their resignation.

However, Sky News understands that the word "knowingly" was not included in the text agreed by the committee.

Its members decided by a majority that they were misled by the first minister.

She appeared before them earlier this month to give oral evidence and, before that, made a written submission in which she insisted she had not offered to intervene in a government investigation into harassment complaints made against her predecessor.

However, Mr Salmond insisted that she had, during a meeting at her house on 2 April 2018. His account was corroborated by Duncan Hamilton QC, his legal adviser, who was present at the meeting and wrote to the committee that Ms Sturgeon had said: "If it comes to it, I will intervene."

Speaking to Sky News last night, Ms Sturgeon said: "I stand by all of the evidence I gave to the committee, all eight hours' worth of evidence.

"What's been clear is that opposition members of this committee made their minds up about me before I muttered a single word of evidence, their public comments have made that clear.

"So this leak from the committee - very partisan leak - tonight before they've finalised the report is not that surprising."

The committee's finding, passed by a majority, reads:

"The committee notes there is a fundamental contradiction in the evidence in relation to whether, at the meeting on the 2nd April 2018, the first minister did or did not agree to intervene.

"Taking account of the competing versions of the event, the committee believes that she did in fact leave Alex Salmond with the impression that she would, if necessary, intervene.

"This is confirmed by Duncan Hamilton, who was also at the meeting. Her written evidence is, therefore, an inaccurate account of what happened and she has misled the committee on this matter.

"This is a potential breach of the ministerial code under the terms of section 1.3 (c)."

Ms Sturgeon told the Scottish parliament that she first learned of complaints against Mr Salmond at the 2 April 2018 meeting. Sky News subsequently revealed an account by Geoff Aberdein, Mr Salmond's former chief of staff, of a meeting four days earlier on 29 March 2018 that suggested the complaints were discussed then.

Ms Sturgeon misled the Scottish parliament in her evidence about the investigation into Mr Salmond (below), a committee has found

On that contradiction the committee found, by majority, that:

"The first minister's failure to recollect the meeting (of the 29th March) and her account is at odds with Alex Salmond.

"The committee accepts there may be differing recollections of this meeting.

"It's not in a position to take a view on whether the first minister's version or Geoff Aberdein's is more persuasive. It notes that the former first minister has the benefit of confirmation."

On the first minister's contact with her predecessor in the wake of complaints being made against him by two female civil servants, the Holyrood committee was "concerned".

Ms Sturgeon had two phone calls and three meetings with Mr Salmond in 2018 after the complaints had been received. Having met Mr Salmond initially on 2 April 2018, it wasn't until June of that year that she told her government's permanent secretary about the contact.

The passage voted by majority in the committee's report reads:

"The committee is concerned it took until the 6th June 2018 for the first minister to inform the permanent secretary of the fact of meetings (with Alex Salmond).

"Given the sensitivity, the committee believes it was inappropriate for the first minister to continue to meet (Alex Salmond) on this topic.

"She should have made the permanent secretary aware as soon as possible after the 2nd April 2018 meeting, at which point she should have confirmed she would cease contact with Alex Salmond."

Committee members were given evidence during their inquiry from civil service unions who expressed concerns of bullying behaviour in 2010 around the office of the then first minister, Mr Salmond.

Their findings state:

"The committee finds it hard to believe that the first minister had no knowledge of any concerns about inappropriate behaviour on the part of Alex Salmond before November 2017.

"If she did have such knowledge, then she should have acted upon it. If she did have such knowledge, she has misled the committee."

 

Holyrood's harassment committee, comprising 4 SNP MSPs and five members of the opposition, is due to publish its findings, in full, early next week.

Their inquiry has been looking into the Scottish government's mishandling of a 2018 investigation of harassment complaints against Mr Salmond.

He challenged its legality and a court ruled that it was "unlawful" and "tainted by apparent bias". Mr Salmond was subsequently acquitted of sexual assault charges at a criminal trial in March 2020.

The remit of the Holyrood committee has been to consider and report on the actions of the first minister, Scottish government officials and special advisers.

It has examined the development of the government's policy regarding harassment, events surrounding Mr Salmond's judicial review and the handling of complaints as well as matters concerning the ministerial code.

Ms Sturgeon is facing a separate inquiry into whether she breached the ministerial code.

James Hamilton, Ireland's former director of public prosecutions, is due to publish the findings of his investigation in the coming days.

Mr Hamilton is an independent adviser to the Scottish government on the code and has been conducting enquiries following Ms Sturgeon's self-referral amidst questions surrounding what she knew, and when.

 

Edited March 19, 2021 by Boy Daniel

[NANOJAMBO]

1 hour ago, kingantti1874 said:

Spot on. If there was an economic case for independence the SNP would be making it over and over and over again. but There isnt an economic case! Just pathetic slogans to hide behind  slogans.
 

This giver know what it will means economically, they are happy to accept the cost and happy to do and say whatever it takes to achieve their goal then deal with the aftermath.

 

If there is a referendum it should be two part, the first to negotiate a deal the second to vote on that deal.. so they people actually have idea on  what they are voting for.

 

 

Aye, sure. The daftest thing I've heard on here for a while & that's saying something.  The idea that (some) people might vote for indy IF it makes them better off or no worse off is ridiculous. Either you believe in a better , fairer society and are willing to bear the cost of it - or you're not.

 

The notion that a party is going to put together a financial plan for post indy is simply nonsense - because there is no guarantee that the party in question (the SNP ?) would be elected into power so why would they waste time on an economic plan when the other parties have absolutely no interest in indy and would (and did previously) spend their time simply sniping at the SNP. 

 

 

 

 

As i said previously, either you believe in a better , fairer society and are willing to bear the cost of it - or you're not.

 

 

Want to see an economic case for indy ? - read Scotland the Brief,  but you never will because you're not in favour of independence anyway. 

[manaliveits105]

Drew Hendry snp on the radio - the tories had decided she was guilty before the enquiry - eh the committee wasnt just tory Drew me boy - it was multi party but hey - bluddy tooooooooooooaries !! - the snps only mantra 

 

The UK government havent even had to get out of second gear yet to put a spanner in indyref2 

[Stewie Griffin]

10 hours ago, kingantti1874 said:

41. 
 

best bit is I’m not even a unionist. !! bear with me !! 😂

 

I couldn’t give a **** about the flag (although I recognise that people will), I don’t care about boris, the tories and I think the monarchy are a waste of space. I don’t like those twats at Westminster any more than I like the morons at Holyrood . All LIARS!

 

im a “me-ist” ! if for one second I though independence could or would benefit me or my family I’d be all over it. If it were 1979 and we still had a shit ton of oil and gas to rely on id vote for it in a second.
 

Sadly, it’s all spent

 

An independent Scotland will be a poorer Scotland for the rest of my life, people like me all already paying for Scotland’s vote buying bullshit and it will only get worse. Independence will come at a massive cost - it will mean both massive tax hikes and massive spending cuts.

 

life is too short. 
 

 

Great post that’s exactly how I look at it as well. 

[jack D and coke]

1 minute ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Aye, sure. The daftest thing I've heard on here for a while & that's saying something.  The idea that (some) people might vote for indy IF it makes them better off or no worse off is ridiculous. Either you believe in a better , fairer society and are willing to bear the cost of it - or you're not.

 

The notion that a party is going to put together a financial plan for post indy is simply nonsense - because there is no guarantee that the party in question (the SNP ?) would be elected into power so why would they waste time on an economic plan when the other parties have absolutely no interest in indy and would (and did previously) spend their time simply sniping at the SNP. 

 

 

 

 

As i said previously, either you believe in a better , fairer society and are willing to bear the cost of it - or you're not.

 

 

Want to see an economic case for indy ? - read Scotland the Brief,  but you never will because you're not in favour of independence anyway. 

I found that point by kingantti amusing that they should lay out the terms to vote on first. The British government obfuscate on purpose to muddy waters to ensure you stay put. Only in some imaginary world would they foresee such circumstances where the British govt would come to the table and discuss a possible split like adults. Since brexit theyve loudly said they we want free trade deals with every country on the planet but they’re going to erect hard borders and screw us over?  
I do however agree with him being a me’ist. That’s what unionists are, well apart from Rangers fans or some of our huns.  
It’s got nothing to do with anything other than they fear it might cost them. Which is of course a perfectly acceptable position to take. I have no truck with that at all. 
Just quit with the constant trashing of your own country and its people to justify that position. 

[SectionN]

46 minutes ago, BudgeUp said:

If Sturgeon goes the next person in charge will be Angus Robertson.

 

There's a reason why the bulk of campaigning done by the Conservatives was in Moray. The SNP at Westminster lost something when he lost his seat.

Isn’t his campaign manager in court for a sexual offence?

 

Runs in the party...

 

 

[kingantti1874]

1 minute ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Aye, sure. The daftest thing I've heard on here for a while & that's saying something.  The idea that (some) people might vote for indy IF it makes them better off or no worse off is ridiculous. Either you believe in a better , fairer society and are willing to bear the cost of it - or you're not.

 

The notion that a party is going to put together a financial plan for post indy is simply nonsense - because there is no guarantee that the party in question (the SNP ?) would be elected into power so why would they waste time on an economic plan when the other parties have absolutely no interest in indy and would (and did previously) spend their time simply sniping at the SNP. 

 

 

 

 

As i said previously, either you believe in a better , fairer society and are willing to bear the cost of it - or you're not.

 

 

Want to see an economic case for indy ? - read Scotland the Brief,  but you never will because you're not in favour of independence anyway. 

 

Scotland’s ability to build a better / fairer society is entirely dependent on the funds which would be available to it.

 

our borrowing is obscene, we would see huge spending cuts as our ability to borrow would be hugely constrained,  our ability to raise taxes would be hampered by a talent drain, and the economic handcuffs imposed from Brussels.

 

The superficial policies which have been used to buy the votes of the gullible ..  free prescriptions, baby boxes and bus passes will all go almost immediate.
 

there will be no more free education. We would A weaker defunded health service, pensions funds will be impacted and jobs impacted by absolutely necessary hard borders with our biggest and most important market.
 

do you think those in favour of independence truly understand the cost? Truly understand what they are signing up for? They do not.  
 

There is a reason the SNP and SNP supporters like yourself would not support a 2 phase referrendum, you know fine well that people would not sign up to it once they fully understand the price. 

 

it will take 50 years to recover. 

 

in all honesty, I think the SNP are a disgrace, happy to lie to their own people. Happy to con those who don’t know any better. They No better than Boris and Dominic and the Brexiteers who similarly had no plan
 

 

[kingantti1874]

2 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

I found that point by kingantti amusing that they should lay out the terms to vote on first. The British government obfuscate on purpose to muddy waters to ensure you stay put. Only in some imaginary world would they foresee such circumstances where the British govt would come to the table and discuss a possible split like adults. Since brexit theyve loudly said they we want free trade deals with every country on the planet but they’re going to erect hard borders and screw us over?  
I do however agree with him being a me’ist. That’s what unionists are, well apart from Rangers fans or some of our huns.  
It’s got nothing to do with anything other than they fear it might cost them. Which is of course a perfectly acceptable position to take. I have no truck with that at all. 
Just quit with the constant trashing of your own country and its people to justify that position. 

It will cost us. 

[kingantti1874]

3 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

I found that point by kingantti amusing that they should lay out the terms to vote on first. The British government obfuscate on purpose to muddy waters to ensure you stay put. Only in some imaginary world would they foresee such circumstances where the British govt would come to the table and discuss a possible split like adults. Since brexit theyve loudly said they we want free trade deals with every country on the planet but they’re going to erect hard borders and screw us over?  
I do however agree with him being a me’ist. That’s what unionists are, well apart from Rangers fans or some of our huns.  
It’s got nothing to do with anything other than they fear it might cost them. Which is of course a perfectly acceptable position to take. I have no truck with that at all. 
Just quit with the constant trashing of your own country and its people to justify that position. 

The SNP proposed a second referendum on brexit after the terms of the deal were known. Which I supported 100% 
 

which is it?  Unhappy for the U.K. public to be misled, but perfectly acceptable for the Scottish public to be misled.

 

not the first time nationalists have come across as a bit inconsistent is it

[jack D and coke]

1 minute ago, kingantti1874 said:

It will cost us. 

That is your opinion bud. That’s fine. 
You can’t back it up though. Just like I can’t back up the fact things would be better. It’s what you believe and no matter what I or anyone else told you you wouldn’t change your mind I’d expect. 
Quit the trashing of the country and it’s people is all that rustles my jimmys. 

[jack D and coke]

1 minute ago, kingantti1874 said:

The SNP proposed a second referendum on brexit after the terms of the deal were known. Which I supported 100% 
 

which is it?  Unhappy for the U.K. public to be misled, but perfectly acceptable for the Scottish public to be misled.

 

not the first time nationalists have come across as a bit inconsistent is it

I don’t think you can be misled, not really anyway. You either believe in it or you don’t. 
Either is fine too. 
It’s the trashing and mocking I can’t abide. 

[jack D and coke]

18 minutes ago, SectionN said:

Isn’t his campaign manager in court for a sexual offence?

 

Runs in the party...

 

 

See any names you recognise in that?

[kingantti1874]

21 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

That is your opinion bud. That’s fine. 
You can’t back it up though. Just like I can’t back up the fact things would be better. It’s what you believe and no matter what I or anyone else told you you wouldn’t change your mind I’d expect. 
Quit the trashing of the country and it’s people is all that rustles my jimmys. 

fair enough mate. I think its pretty clear though if you look at the data. The certainly isn’t enough evidence to the contrary that will make me ever take gamble. But I respect your view

 

on the trashing, I would think you will agree this is a 2 way street. Yoons , Traitors and Unionist liars is equally disrespectful and the fact that “Tory” is a used dirty word.

Edited March 19, 2021 by kingantti1874

[coconut doug]

6 hours ago, Zlatanable said:

 

'Every time i read posts like yours i am reminded of the Scottish cringe and national self loathing by a large percentage of our people whose main satisfaction in life is to imagine that they are better that their fellow citizens (Tories). '

 

The SNP have been in power at Holyrood since 2007, 14ish years ago as I write this. 

 

Do you ever ask yourself if they could have done better?

Is the local democracy better? (no)

Is the football better? (no)

Is education better? (no)

Is Scotland a more coherent and happier place? (no)

 

And in 2007 I voted SNP, in part, because they were going to replace the council tax. Have they replaced the council tax? (no)

 

I am not, and never will be a Conservative (Tories). But if a person votes for them, that is ok with me.

I vote to change *this*. I voted for the Scottish Parliament, I have changed from voting for just Labour, to voting for Greens, SNP, Margo MacDonald and the Scottish Socialist Party, because I wanted something different.

 

I am not, as you might and many of you might assume, fundamentally against Scotland being independent.

 

But since 2011, this has become a deeply ugly mess, that keeps getting worse. 

I am not asking you to give up believing in or wishing for Scotland to be independent. But quit making out this SNP era since 2007 is the utopia that exists before the even better utopia that will exist. It is the same place with the same problems (don't even start me on the drug death story and Nicola Sturgeon's reaction to it)

 

 

 

 

You are entitled to share your political thoughts with us, that's what the thread is about. I'm entitled too, so you have no right to tell me what i should and should not be saying. You are entitled to challenge what i say but misrepresenting what i have said and trying to shut me down is not honest debate. Have you ever asked yourself why you resort to such things, so frequently? (no). 

 

  At no time have i made out that this is a utopian political era or that we will ever live in anything approaching it as you claim. You recently called me an idiot so i wonder why you are so keen to engage with somebody you believe to be so badly informed and incapable of rational thought. I do not though wonder enough that i might require a reply.

[Dazo]

41 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Aye, sure. The daftest thing I've heard on here for a while & that's saying something.  The idea that (some) people might vote for indy IF it makes them better off or no worse off is ridiculous. Either you believe in a better , fairer society and are willing to bear the cost of it - or you're not.

 

The notion that a party is going to put together a financial plan for post indy is simply nonsense - because there is no guarantee that the party in question (the SNP ?) would be elected into power so why would they waste time on an economic plan when the other parties have absolutely no interest in indy and would (and did previously) spend their time simply sniping at the SNP. 

 

 

 

 

As i said previously, either you believe in a better , fairer society and are willing to bear the cost of it - or you're not.

 

 

Want to see an economic case for indy ? - read Scotland the Brief,  but you never will because you're not in favour of independence anyway. 

What a pile of shite. If you think some people don’t vote because of money in their pocket you’ve easily trumped him for the daftest thing on here. Why do you think we continually try to get bribed by tax cuts, extra handouts or in whatever form they come in ? Votes for money for people who have no strong beliefs or political persuasion. If there was a promised pot of gold at the end of the rainbow some people will change there vote. 

[jack D and coke]

1 minute ago, kingantti1874 said:

fair enough mate. I think its pretty clear though if you look at the data. The certainly isn’t enough evidence to the contrary that will make me ever take gamble. But I respect your view

There is no real data for an independent Scotland unless you can point me to some? Theres not one for one if we were in the EU either. You went on about our borrowing being obscene in a previous post?!!? We don’t borrow. The British govt borrows (or invents money really) and lumps some of the burden on us for things whether we see any benefit from it or not.
We would not having anything imposed from Brussels either. You’re confusing being in the single currency there. 
And 50 years to recover...I’ll leave it there. 
And the highlighted part is exactly what I was getting at. You will never be convinced it would matter not what you were presented with. 
 

[stevie]

52 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

 

Scotland’s ability to build a better / fairer society is entirely dependent on the funds which would be available to it.

 

our borrowing is obscene, we would see huge spending cuts as our ability to borrow would be hugely constrained,  our ability to raise taxes would be hampered by a talent drain, and the economic handcuffs imposed from Brussels.

 

The superficial policies which have been used to buy the votes of the gullible ..  free prescriptions, baby boxes and bus passes will all go almost immediate.
 

there will be no more free education. We would A weaker defunded health service, pensions funds will be impacted and jobs impacted by absolutely necessary hard borders with our biggest and most important market.
 

do you think those in favour of independence truly understand the cost? Truly understand what they are signing up for? They do not.  
 

There is a reason the SNP and SNP supporters like yourself would not support a 2 phase referrendum, you know fine well that people would not sign up to it once they fully understand the price. 

 

it will take 50 years to recover. 

 

in all honesty, I think the SNP are a disgrace, happy to lie to their own people. Happy to con those who don’t know any better. They No better than Boris and Dominic and the Brexiteers who similarly had no plan
 

 

Very good post.

[kingantti1874]

8 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

There is no real data for an independent Scotland unless you can point me to some? Theres not one for one if we were in the EU either. You went on about our borrowing being obscene in a previous post?!!? We don’t borrow. The British govt borrows (or invents money really) and lumps some of the burden on us for things whether we see any benefit from it or not.
We would not having anything imposed from Brussels either. You’re confusing being in the single currency there. 
And 50 years to recover...I’ll leave it there. 
And the highlighted part is exactly what I was getting at. You will never be convinced it would matter not what you were presented with. 
 

 

We know our GDP, we know our spending. We can offer and make assumption on the pros which independence would bring as well as the constraints and costs it would introduce and this estimate the impact. 
 

I absolutely hate debating the technicalities of who physically executes the borrowing.  It is a deflection pure and simple. 
 

 

 

[pablo]

3 hours ago, **** the SPFL said:

I first became aware of Scottish Nationalism in the early seventies through a modern studies teacher at Tynie High School he used to really push his pro independence stuff in class. Since then i have always felt that we should and could have been independent and had we got that in the seventies i'm almost certain we as a country would be in a far better place certainly wealthy given all the natural resources available to us.  Anyway both myself and my wife voted for independence at the referendum but now have both changed our minds just basically we now believe that we would really struggle to make our country prosperous and a better place to benefit all. I have spoken with friends work colleagues and a good number are of the same opinion and i would have thought that any polls taken now would show a shift away from independence obviously imo. The Salmond/Sturgeon issue has caused a lot of grief and not helped as has the EU's handling of the vaccine rollout. I will however still pin my sails to the mast and continue voting SNP and hope that we can obtain some more devolution and improve the lives of our fellow countrymen/women

 

If you believe in devolution, you need to hold your nose and vote for anyone other than the SNP. The SNP are anti-devolution.

[kingantti1874]

19 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

There is no real data for an independent Scotland unless you can point me to some? Theres not one for one if we were in the EU either. You went on about our borrowing being obscene in a previous post?!!? We don’t borrow. The British govt borrows (or invents money really) and lumps some of the burden on us for things whether we see any benefit from it or not.
We would not having anything imposed from Brussels either. You’re confusing being in the single currency there. 
And 50 years to recover...I’ll leave it there. 
And the highlighted part is exactly what I was getting at. You will never be convinced it would matter not what you were presented with. 
 

we would be joining the Euro, as a minor partner of the EU we would have no choice, especially if we propose to borrow from the ECB. (Who imposed huge economic sanctions on Greece) spending
 

we will not retain the pound and peg ourselves to economic policy designed for the U.K. it makes no sense whatsover

 

it’s a nonsense, and yet another SNP lie. 

[Unknown user]

3 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

 

I absolutely hate debating the technicalities of who physically executes the borrowing.  It is a deflection pure and simple. 

No it isn't, Scotland doesn't have any debt, and depending on who you listen to we'd either have a AAA credit rating or an A+ credit rating - the first is better than the UK has, the second is the same.

 

The standard is that successor States do not take debt from the larger country they're leaving, so it simply isn't deflection.

 

Right now every household in Britain averages 2k a year burden toward the interest on our national debt alone, never mind getting it down - that disappears in an independent Scotland 

[kingantti1874]

2 minutes ago, Smithee said:

No it isn't, Scotland doesn't have any debt, and depending on who you listen to we'd either have a AAA credit rating or an A+ credit rating - the first is better than the UK has, the second is the same.

 

The standard is that successor States do not take debt from the larger country they're leaving, so it simply isn't deflection.

 

Right now every household in Britain averages 2k a year burden toward the interest on our national debt alone, never mind getting it down - that disappears in an independent Scotland 

You think we can leave without taking our share of the U.K. national debt?  That’s staggering and wrong in equal measure tbh

 

assuming it was how would that be in any way fair, why would we still be allowed un restricted access to the U.K. market our economy is highly dependent on.  Even assuming  the fantasy that we can simply “walk away” holds, our spending is still out of control and would require significant tax hikes and spending cuts.

 

you, your family and everyone you know will be poorer for a very long time.  
 

it scares me to death that this is the sort of logic people are basing their opinion on. This is what the SNP want. 
 

 

[jack D and coke]

Just now, kingantti1874 said:

we would be joining the Euro, as a minor partner of the EU we would have no choice, especially if we propose to borrow from the ECB. (Who imposed huge economic sanctions on Greece) spending
 

we will not retain the pound and peg ourselves to economic policy designed for the U.K. it makes no sense whatsover

 

it’s a nonsense, and yet another SNP lie. 

Bud you’re making all sorts of assumptions and some of them pretty wild at that.  
You can’t really back up anything you’re saying. These are your opinions and you’re entitled to them but they aren’t facts. 

Why wouldn’t we peg ourselves to this market? Especially for the short to medium term? If it was to ever happen it makes sense for all partners to ensure as smooth a transition as possible. Your pound is still a pound no? Unless you believe that the ruk would give us a bit of a going over? What would they gain from that too? There is institutions like banks who would have to move to ruk to domicile because they’d have to do you think they’d practically just write off every mortgage and loan up here? People always go about borrowing etc and how Britain “bailed Ireland out”. It’s kind of how things work and Britain both made money out the deal (lenders normally do) and Ireland has repaid the money. There’s always talk of repaying debt. Supposing we stay in the U.K. when is Britain paying it back? Haven’t you noticed it’s just keeps getting bigger? Scotland will have to pay it back though aye?? Interest rates almost going negative debt its now part of all countries. Unless you can show me some countries in surplus anywhere? 
You see absolute doom and destruction everywhere and I don’t.
Fair enough though.
Have a good weekend man. 

[Unknown user]

3 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

You think we can leave without taking our share of the U.K. national debt? 

Yes, that's the way it's always done, with one exception in the many many examples in the last century that I'm aware of, in Africa years ago.

 

We had no say in building the debt and aren't legally responsible for it, whether you like it or not.

[kingantti1874]

3 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Bud you’re making all sorts of assumptions and some of them pretty wild at that.  
You can’t really back up anything you’re saying. These are your opinions and you’re entitled to them but they aren’t facts. 

Why wouldn’t we peg ourselves to this market? Especially for the short to medium term? If it was to ever happen it makes sense for all partners to ensure as smooth a transition as possible. Your pound is still a pound no? Unless you believe that the ruk would give us a bit of a going over? What would they gain from that too? There is institutions like banks who would have to move to ruk to domicile because they’d have to do you think they’d practically just write off every mortgage and loan up here? People always go about borrowing etc and how Britain “bailed Ireland out”. It’s kind of how things work and Britain both made money out the deal (lenders normally do) and Ireland has repaid the money. There’s always talk of repaying debt. Supposing we stay in the U.K. when is Britain paying it back? Haven’t you noticed it’s just keeps getting bigger? Scotland will have to pay it back though aye?? Interest rates almost going negative debt its now part of all countries. Unless you can show me some countries in surplus anywhere? 
You see absolute doom and destruction everywhere and I don’t.
Fair enough though.
Have a good weekend man. 

Agree - I am making assumptions based on logic.

 

But do you not think it would be better if these points were clarified before we take a decision, do you not think there is a reason for the deliberate ambiguity.

 

anyway, to your point. - it’s a nice day, I’m supposed to be working . So enjoy your weekend also

[kingantti1874]

2 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Yes, that's the way it's always done, with one exception in the many many examples in the last century that I'm aware of, in Africa years ago.

 

We had no say in building the debt and aren't legally responsible for it, whether you like it or not.

A quick google search tells me you are incorrect 

 

https://balkaninsight.com/2020/01/14/serbia-faces-yugoslav-era-debt-repayments-for-years-to-come/

 

 

[Mikey1874]

Scotland doesn't take its share of debt it won't get anything.

 

It certainly won't get to keep the £. 

 

The growing debt is another obstacle. Not insurmountable but the question arises whether the SNP / Independence will rely on emotion or facts. 

[Unknown user]

4 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

A quick google search tells me you are incorrect 

 

https://balkaninsight.com/2020/01/14/serbia-faces-yugoslav-era-debt-repayments-for-years-to-come/

 

 

Have you actually read it?

 

It doesn't back you up at all, Serbia took the decision to take out the debt itself as a republic in it's own right, it didn't inherit the debt from the larger country.

[kingantti1874]

Just now, Smithee said:

Have you actually read it?

 

It doesn't back you up at all, Serbia took the decision to take out the debt itself as a republic in it's own right, it didn't inherit the debt from the larger country.

Here is a hugely partisan nationalist publication talking about the exact same issue. 

 

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19151128.scotland-can-negotiate-separation-assets-debt-ruk/

 

quite simply the idea we can walk away is absolutely mind bending naivety 

[jack D and coke]

8 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

Agree - I am making assumptions based on logic.

 

But do you not think it would be better if these points were clarified before we take a decision, do you not think there is a reason for the deliberate ambiguity.

 

anyway, to your point. - it’s a nice day, I’m supposed to be working . So enjoy your weekend also

Don’t you remember during the last one the British govt point blank refused to negotiate before the vote. Make it easy for you? Why do you reckon? They’re trying to protect us or Scotland is a possession as George Osborne intimated in his newspaper column not long ago as him and Cameron were afraid they would be the ones who “lost” Scotland like Britain lost Ireland and lost the United States lol. 
You’d think that Scotland as supposedly a country who joined the Union of free will would be able to leave as Thatcher said we could. Now we’re scared into staying put amd regardless of your views being told even if we vote in big numbers for the snp this election that you aren’t getting one. They like to throw the Putin stuff about well that’s sounds quite Putinesque to me. 
Right enough for a Friday anyway I’m finishing work soon☺️👍🏼

[pablo]

8 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

A quick google search tells me you are incorrect 

 

https://balkaninsight.com/2020/01/14/serbia-faces-yugoslav-era-debt-repayments-for-years-to-come/

 

 

 

The fanatics believe that we would be granted our independence in the same way former European colonies were. Suits their narrative of us being downtrodden victims of England. All bollocks naturally.

 

The point is moot though, as although they'll be able to blindly continue to vote for the SNP they're not going to be casting a vote to leave the UK in a long long time. 

[Unknown user]

Just now, kingantti1874 said:

Here is a hugely partisan nationalist publication talking about the exact same issue. 

 

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19151128.scotland-can-negotiate-separation-assets-debt-ruk/

 

quite simply the idea we can walk away is absolutely mind bending naivety 

And yet it's the standard across the world so who's actually being naive?

[coconut doug]

28 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

 

Scotland’s ability to build a better / fairer society is entirely dependent on the funds which would be available to it.

 

Absolutely correct and it would be the same as any other country on the planet. Imagining that we get more from the UK government than we could generate ourselves is to make the case that we are an inferior part of the U.K. The statistics show we export more per capita than anywhere else in the Uk and we generate more income than anywhere outside the SE of England.

 

our borrowing is obscene, we would see huge spending cuts as our ability to borrow would be hugely constrained,  our ability to raise taxes would be hampered by a talent drain, and the economic handcuffs imposed from Brussels.

 

The UK's borrowing is massive but we dont actually borrow much money anymore. Nobody would be stupid enough to lend to the UK. 96% of pandemic lending (the biggest ever piece of borrowing in our history) comes in the form of quantatative easing which wont be paid back but the cost of doing it will be spread all over the country with the poorest most likely to suffer as a result particularly as it is not they who benefit from the QE.

 

28 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

 

The superficial policies which have been used to buy the votes of the gullible ..  free prescriptions, baby boxes and bus passes will all go almost immediate. All government have bad policies but the three you have lited are all good ones. Very simply. when people cannot afford medicines their health suffers. The poor once again suffer disproportionately. Baby boxes are particularly valuable to the poorest in our society. a very cheap and basic help to those who need them. A policy taken from Finland where the rights and welfare of children have propelled their educational standards to the highest in the world. 

          Bus passes and free or subsidised travel are also characteristics of socially advance countries. The environmental benefits are obvious as are the social opportunities created even if they are not valued by those who value take home pay more than quality of and access to decent services
 

there will be no more free education. We would A weaker defunded health service, pensions funds will be impacted and jobs impacted by absolutely necessary hard borders with our biggest and most important market.  Education is not free, it is paid for through taxation. Charging for tertiary education will restrict access to it and diminish the ability of the poorer members of society . It will also further fuel a skills shortage which will increase the rate of immigration as we continue ti fill our skilled jobs with people from other countries because we cannot train our own.

 The strength of our health service will be dependent on how much money we allocate to it. That will depend on how much money we have but it will also be a political decision. Scotland's political profile would suggest we are likely to spend proportionately more on this.

The border between Scotland and England will be determined by the Eu if we become members. Borders work both ways and both countries would want trade to continue. Any improper interference from England would have EU wide repercussions for England. The common language and close proximity and existing commecrial presence would mean Scotland likely to experience a jobs increase. A bit like finance house moving to Paris or frankfurt. They could come to Ed or Gla instead.

 Pension funds will not be impacted Fund managers invest their money where they think best that will not change. What has changed is that they are no longer investing in UK government bonds as seen by 96% of our current debt financed by QE
 

do you think those in favour of independence truly understand the cost? Truly understand what they are signing up for? They do not.  I think many do but i wonder if those on the other side can see what is going to happen to Scotland if we dont take control of our future. Do you think the Barnett formula will save you forever or do you think we might strive to stand on our own endeavours.  Some counties that have recently become independent have managed the transition extrememy well often starting with fewer institutions and resources than Scotland. I think it is you that is overestimating the cost and underestimating the benefits.
 

There is a reason the SNP and SNP supporters like yourself would not support a 2 phase referrendum, you know fine well that people would not sign up to it once they fully understand the price. Why is it only Indy supporters that don't understand costs? Why does the RUK want to hold on to us so badly when the know that around half of us don't want to stay. Is it because they like us so much and enjoy subsidising our benefit culture.

 

it will take 50 years to recover.  Unless we get out now.

 

in all honesty, I think the SNP are a disgrace, happy to lie to their own people. Happy to con those who don’t know any better. They No better than Boris and Dominic and the Brexiteers who similarly had no plan

 

So it seems but that's not the future we want and we can choose what we have in Scotland. We can't decide what happens in the UK.
 

 

 

[BudgeUp]

22 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

You think we can leave without taking our share of the U.K. national debt?  That’s staggering and wrong in equal measure tbh

 

There's 2 ways it can go.

 

Leave and take a share of the debt, as well as a share of assets. 

 

Or

 

No debt or assets.

 

It depends on how much assets are worth what way it goes. 

[kingantti1874]

3 minutes ago, Smithee said:

And yet it's the standard across the world so who's actually being naive?

I’m guessing you’ve taken your insight from some less than credible nationalist mouthpieces on social media. Also happy to perpetuate lies to achieve their aim.  
 

Maybe I’m doing you a disservice? I dunno - but Dr Craig Dalzell writing I do believe would have a better insight than yourself 

[jack D and coke]

2 minutes ago, BudgeUp said:

There's 2 ways it can go.

 

Leave and take a share of the debt, as well as a share of assets. 

 

Or

 

No debt or assets.

 

It depends on how much assets are worth what way it goes. 

Richard Murphy goes into length about it here.

https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2020/07/28/scotland-debt/

 

[coconut doug]

42 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

 

We know our GDP, we know our spending. We can offer and make assumption on the pros which independence would bring as well as the constraints and costs it would introduce and this estimate the impact. 
 

I absolutely hate debating the technicalities of who physically executes the borrowing.  It is a deflection pure and simple. 
 

 

 

 

If you know this you will know Scotland's GDP is far greater than our spending.

 

Who borrows any money is not a deflection. Almost half of our notioal debt is owed to the BofE i.e ourselves.

[Unknown user]

4 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

I’m guessing you’ve taken your insight from some less than credible nationalist mouthpieces on social media. Also happy to perpetuate lies to achieve their aim.  
 

Maybe I’m doing you a disservice? I dunno - but Dr Craig Dalzell writing I do believe would have a better insight than yourself 

Guess what you like mate, I speak facts

[kingantti1874]

3 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

If you know this you will know Scotland's GDP is far greater than our spending.

 

Who borrows any money is not a deflection. Almost half of our notioal debt is owed to the BofE i.e ourselves.

it’s not though. 

[kila]

This thread goes round in circles and it seems some can only comprehend capitalist models. The concept of money is totally ****ed these days, as it literally does grow on trees for those with the power to make a difference. But it's a great tool to control the majority so the few can have it all. Otherwise they'd be giving up luxuries so the rest of us can have a slightly nicer life.

 

How does this tie in with Scottish independence? I'm more of a socialist (though a bit of both with capitalism is ideal if things are kept sane and fair) and I think Scotland can be really progressive.

 

[coconut doug]

3 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

it’s not though. 

 

It is though. 2019 gdp quoted at £168.14 Billion and public spending around £80 billion.

[SectionN]

36 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

Scotland doesn't take its share of debt it won't get anything.

 

It certainly won't get to keep the £. 

 

The growing debt is another obstacle. Not insurmountable but the question arises whether the SNP / Independence will rely on emotion or facts. 

Independent Scotland cannot walk away from the debt but also expect the UK government to allow Scotland to use the pound.