The rise and fall of The SNP.

[Ulysses]

52 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

Yeah, but they saved first and spent later. That is not the UK's way - we spend first then work out how to pay for it...

 

In fairness, they spent first.  The Norwegian social democratic welfare state predates its oil fund.

 

 

49 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

Hmmn well, she's politically clueless as she herself admits. She voted for Brexit too...

 

You should try being here.  Mme. U is well-read and politically savvy.  As for her character judgement, I'll have to leave that for others to decide. 

[Justin Z]

16 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

In fairness, they spent first.  The Norwegian social democratic welfare state predates its oil fund.

The same sort of fund Scotland could have created and availed itself of had it not been ruled by London a half century ago.

What will be the next big miss for Scotland if it doesn't free itself from Union exploitation?

 

 

 

[jack D and coke]

Yeah, yeah it’s Lesley Riddoch but she makes some decent points here. 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/sturgeon-wins-a-resounding-victory-and-a-mandate-for-indyref2

 

[Boris]

10 hours ago, Lord BJ said:

It might, but it’s a much better narrative, particularly looking at the polls, than saying no. The SNP can’t argue the principal just the timing, the polls agree with that position. 
 

It’s negotiations 101bor maybe JKB 101, if you don’t want to have a discussion you create another discussion. Bear over there, if you will.  
 

I think Westminster will be much more ‘involved’ in the agreement of the referendum this time. It’s small margins and both sides will know simple things like wording of the question can have a big impact. 
 

I suspect it won’t be a yes/no question next time, for example; not leave or remain but more akin to that. 
 

Anyway long time no speak. Hope things all good with you and family in these strange times 👍

Yeah, alll speculation at the moment I suppose, what will be will be.

 

All good here thanks, appreciate you asking.  Trust all well at Lord BJ Towers too! Take it easy! 

[gjcc]

9 hours ago, Justin Z said:

The same sort of fund Scotland could have created and availed itself of had it not been ruled by London a half century ago.

What will be the next big miss for Scotland if it doesn't free itself from Union exploitation?

 

 

 

Definitely something that could have been looked at in the 80’s when oil revenues were at an all time high and Scotland was run at a surplus. 

[Mysterion]

Just now, gjcc said:

Definitely something that could have been looked at in the 80’s when oil revenues were at an all time high and Scotland was run at a surplus. 

 

The UK in the 80s was undergoing Thatcher's great revolution and trying to keep up as a major power in military - it was the folly of men  and women still living in the past. It's done now so looking forward the Scottish Investment Bank that was set up needs to start creating money. 

 

[John Findlay]

9 hours ago, Ulysses said:

  As for her character judgement, I'll have to leave that for others to decide. 

That will probably be her downfall.

[Spellczech]

10 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

In fairness, they spent first.  The Norwegian social democratic welfare state predates its oil fund.

 

 

 

You should try being here.  Mme. U is well-read and politically savvy.  As for her character judgement, I'll have to leave that for others to decide. 

Ok but that's not what I meant. They didn't have to use the oil fund to pay off massive debt accrued due to the welfare system pre-existing the discovery of oil. That is proven by the mere existence of the oil fund.

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, Spellczech said:

Ok but that's not what I meant. They didn't have to use the oil fund to pay off massive debt accrued due to the welfare system pre-existing the discovery of oil. That is proven by the mere existence of the oil fund.

The Norwegian welfare system started in the 40s.

[Spellczech]

5 minutes ago, Smithee said:

The Norwegian welfare system started in the 40s.

Well googled, but that wasn't the point.

[Unknown user]

8 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

Well googled, but that wasn't the point.

 

 

Feel free to clarify

 

[Spellczech]

22 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

 

Feel free to clarify

 

That was my post clarifying to Ulysses...

 

I wasn't saying the Norwegian Welfare state only came about due to Oil Fund having the capacity to afford it, I was saying that Norwegians didn't have the debt at time the oil came on tap, so were able to save the oil money. Norwegians pay very high taxes to afford their welfare state.

 

By contrast, the UK has always spent more than it gathered in taxes, and even if the Scottish Govt somehow managed to tear up the contracts and grab a big slice of future oil revenues, they would have to pay off our share of the National debt before they could consider a Norwegian style state fund and in the meantime taxes would have to shoot up to pay for all the freebies for old, young and lazy...

 

I don't think Independence is a totally hopeless dream, I just think the SNP have to be honest and admit that there would be at least a few generations, and I mean real generations, not those 7 year ones - of real economic pain... (but then that is the real reason they fancy jumping out of one Union into another - they hope the EU will help us through the economic hardship)

Edited May 10, 2021 by Spellczech

[Unknown user]

5 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

That was my post clarifying to Ulysses...

 

I wasn't saying the Norwegian Welfare state only came about due to Oil Fund having the capacity to afford it, I was saying that Norwegians didn't have the debt at time the oil came on tap, so were able to save the oil money. Norwegians pay very high taxes to afford their welfare state.

 

By contrast, the UK has always spent more than it gathered in taxes, and even if the Scottish Govt somehow managed to tear up the contracts and grab a big slice of future oil revenues, they would have to pay off our share of the National debt before they could consider a Norwegian style state fund and in the meantime taxes would have to shoot up to pay for all the freebies for old, young and lazy...

 

Thanks.

Well firstly there's no legal obligation to take any of the UK's debt, I don't like Sturgeon's stance on this at all.

Secondly, the bit in bold sounds like a really strong argument for leaving the UK to me, and it makes me wonder why any unionist who's aware of it would be so demanding of fiscal responsibility in Scotland yet prefer the opposite from the UK.

[Spellczech]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

 

Thanks.

Well firstly there's no legal obligation to take any of the UK's debt, I don't like Sturgeon's stance on this at all.

Secondly, the bit in bold sounds like a really strong argument for leaving the UK to me, and it makes me wonder why any unionist who's aware of it would be so demanding of fiscal responsibility in Scotland yet prefer the opposite from the UK.

Some economists believe that bankruptcy will inevitably work for countries in the same way as it does for individuals like Kerry Katona - who somehow has managed to be bankrupted 3 times in the last 15 years but always lived in houses that cost £5k per month in rent over that time...ie that you can walk away from it only paying Xp in the £1. 

 

It certainly works in strange ways at the macro-economic level, as we saw after WW2 where USA held us to our debts but forgave those of the defeated Axis Powers. I don't know what the situation with USSR was but I suspect they just ignored theirs...

[Unknown user]

4 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

Some economists believe that bankruptcy will inevitably work for countries in the same way as it does for individuals like Kerry Katona - who somehow has managed to be bankrupted 3 times in the last 15 years but always lived in houses that cost £5k per month in rent over that time...ie that you can walk away from it only paying Xp in the £1. 

 

It certainly works in strange ways at the macro-economic level, as we saw after WW2 where USA held us to our debts but forgave those of the defeated Axis Powers. I don't know what the situation with USSR was but I suspect they just ignored theirs...

 

 

No matter where the discussion goes different standards are being applied by unionists when they look at Westminster compared to Holyrood.

[Spellczech]

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

 

 

No matter where the discussion goes different standards are being applied by unionists when they look at Westminster compared to Holyrood.

Perhaps, but the one rule of bankruptcy appears to be that if you are going to go bust, go big, and I expect that applies to countries too. If we are to go bust better to do it as part of the UK in the longer term than in the near term once the EU, due to Spain, says "No, you made your bed, you lie in it - we have plenty of poor little countries already..."

[Spellczech]

16 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

Perhaps, but the one rule of bankruptcy appears to be that if you are going to go bust, go big, and I expect that applies to countries too. If we are to go bust better to do it as part of the UK in the longer term than in the near term once the EU, due to Spain, says "No, you made your bed, you lie in it - we have plenty of poor little countries already..."

Aditionally, is it not up to the Independence parties to make a solid case FOR independence before they consider the strength or weaknesses of any arguments against it? So far this has not been done. It is another leap into the unknown yet they've had literally decades to put the arguments together...

Edited May 10, 2021 by Spellczech

[Boab]

1 hour ago, Spellczech said:

Aditionally, is it not up to the Independence parties to make a solid case FOR independence before they consider the strength or weaknesses of any arguments against it? So far this has not been done. It is another leap into the unknown yet they've had literally decades to put the arguments together...

What better way to gauge the strength of arguments against it by asking the people to vote on it ?

72 seats to 59 says it’s a mandate, no ?

[Boab]

Sorry, 72 to 57.

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, Spellczech said:

Aditionally, is it not up to the Independence parties to make a solid case FOR independence before they consider the strength or weaknesses of any arguments against it? So far this has not been done. It is another leap into the unknown yet they've had literally decades to put the arguments together...

 

Approximately half the population seem to think there's already a solid case in Scotland getting a government that it votes for and is focused on Scotland's wants and needs.

[pablo]

14 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Approximately half the population seem to think there's already a solid case in Scotland getting a government that it votes for and is focused on Scotland's wants and needs.

 

Half the population? 

[gjcc]

2 hours ago, Spellczech said:

Aditionally, is it not up to the Independence parties to make a solid case FOR independence before they consider the strength or weaknesses of any arguments against it? So far this has not been done. It is another leap into the unknown yet they've had literally decades to put the arguments together...

You don’t even need to be truthful though.
Warm up the Indy bus 30 million extra a week for our NHS!!

[Don Dan]

Here’s a plan. Johnston just asks Nicola for a (credible) plan for an independent Scotland and if the numbers stack up to the current situation then let us have it. Sturgeon needs to convince WM there is a plan instead endlessly asking for one. Obviously some things are up for negotiation but a plan is a starting point.

[Maroon Sailor]

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

 

Approximately half the population seem to think there's already a solid case in Scotland getting a government that it votes for and is focused on Scotland's wants and needs.

 

I don't buy this getting a government Scotland votes for. I've never voted SNP in my life but now have a 4th term with them. They are useless as well and that's what makes it so annoying. They hoodwink most of the electorate with their Indy mandate and they know how to play the game.

 

And it is a game but people's livelihoods are being played with.

 

It is what it is though - being out voted is the price you pay for democracy.

 

A lot of pain before gain if they get their way. No matter what, Scotland will still be divided 50/50 and that is thanks to the SNP pushing for something that is so close to call one way or another. That's not going to be a healthy Scotland imo

[pablo]

19 minutes ago, Boy Daniel said:

Here’s a plan. Johnston just asks Nicola for a (credible) plan for an independent Scotland and if the numbers stack up to the current situation then let us have it. Sturgeon needs to convince WM there is a plan instead endlessly asking for one. Obviously some things are up for negotiation but a plan is a starting point.

 

That's actually a good idea. At least that way, we'd know what we were voting for if there is ever another referendum. But I wouldn't put it all down to the SG. Draw up a framework and have broad negotiation upfront between the UK, SG and the EU.

[Cade]

So, the Unionist plan is to hold the Independence negotiations first then let the electorate vote on the outcome?

What kind of backwards logic is that?

How do you ensure that the result of the negotiations is legally binding before entering into the referendum?

And why aren't the public consulted during the negotiations?

And why would Westminster even agree to this, as it's an open admission that Independence is likely and it reveals all their cards (and lies) to the public before the referendum??

You'll have to do much better than that.

 

 

[gjcc]

13 minutes ago, Cade said:

So, the Unionist plan is to hold the Independence negotiations first then let the electorate vote on the outcome?

What kind of backwards logic is that?

How do you ensure that the result of the negotiations is legally binding before entering into the referendum?

And why aren't the public consulted during the negotiations?

And why would Westminster even agree to this, as it's an open admission that Independence is likely and it reveals all their cards (and lies) to the public before the referendum??

You'll have to do much better than that.

 

 

It’s absolutely ludicrous. It hinges on the reason WM don’t want Scotland to leave the union is because it’s worried about us. Of course they are.   
 

If we are such a burden they’d be champing at the bit to get rid. 

Edited May 10, 2021 by gjcc
Autocorrect fix

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, Maroon Sailor said:

 

I don't buy this getting a government Scotland votes for. I've never voted SNP in my life but now have a 4th term with them. They are useless as well and that's what makes it so annoying. They hoodwink most of the electorate with their Indy mandate and they know how to play the game.

 

And it is a game but people's livelihoods are being played with.

 

It is what it is though - being out voted is the price you pay for democracy.

 

A lot of pain before gain if they get their way. No matter what, Scotland will still be divided 50/50 and that is thanks to the SNP pushing for something that is so close to call one way or another. That's not going to be a healthy Scotland imo

So let's get rid of them with independence.

 

It isn't about getting a government you personally voted for, but one the Scottish electorate voted for instead of whatever England decides.

[pablo]

I'm not sure how making the proposition clearer could possibly be a bad thing? 

 

Surely we've now learnt through Brexit that negotiations after the event is extremely difficult 

 

So open the books, have complete transparency and work on the proposal jointly. Set out a framework that covers defence, debt, citizenship, the border with England and involve the EU to give us a realistic idea of what it would take to rejoin.

 

If after all that, we have something to vote on that looks like what the SNP has been telling us looks to be true, it'll be a landslide for Leave.

 

Why wouldn't the SNP relish that opportunity?

[jack D and coke]

1 hour ago, Boy Daniel said:

Here’s a plan. Johnston just asks Nicola for a (credible) plan for an independent Scotland and if the numbers stack up to the current situation then let us have it. Sturgeon needs to convince WM there is a plan instead endlessly asking for one. Obviously some things are up for negotiation but a plan is a starting point.

 

58 minutes ago, pablo said:

 

That's actually a good idea. At least that way, we'd know what we were voting for if there is ever another referendum. But I wouldn't put it all down to the SG. Draw up a framework and have broad negotiation upfront between the UK, SG and the EU.

It might be a plan if the uk agrees to talks beforehand. Something which they point blank refused to do last time thus creating the confusion and doubt over many things. It then allows the conversation to get completely bogged down. 
That’s clearly the way they want it to go. 

[Cruyff]

7 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

 

It might be a plan if the uk agrees to talks beforehand. Something which they point blank refused to do last time thus creating the confusion and doubt over many things. It then allows the conversation to get completely bogged down. 
That’s clearly the way they want it to go. 

 

That is what needs to happen. The talks on assets, debt, the border, trade, currency, armed forces, faslane etc.. Should happen prior to a Referendum, it is in both the our own interests that happens. 

 

[Cruyff]

42 minutes ago, Cade said:

So, the Unionist plan is to hold the Independence negotiations first then let the electorate vote on the outcome?

What kind of backwards logic is that?

How do you ensure that the result of the negotiations is legally binding before entering into the referendum?

And why aren't the public consulted during the negotiations?

And why would Westminster even agree to this, as it's an open admission that Independence is likely and it reveals all their cards (and lies) to the public before the referendum??

You'll have to do much better than that.

 

 

Of course we should hold negotiations first. It's the best way forward. There needs to be a smooth transition of power and for things to be as amicable as possible. At the end of the day, we share an Island, we have shared security interests. 

[Roxy Hearts]

13 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

 

It might be a plan if the uk agrees to talks beforehand. Something which they point blank refused to do last time thus creating the confusion and doubt over many things. It then allows the conversation to get completely bogged down. 
That’s clearly the way they want it to go. 

No better together scare stories, just facts and no propaganda! I don't trust Westminster but would earn more respect if they laid out an honest plan if we got independence. 

[XB52]

34 minutes ago, pablo said:

I'm not sure how making the proposition clearer could possibly be a bad thing? 

 

Surely we've now learnt through Brexit that negotiations after the event is extremely difficult 

 

So open the books, have complete transparency and work on the proposal jointly. Set out a framework that covers defence, debt, citizenship, the border with England and involve the EU to give us a realistic idea of what it would take to rejoin.

 

If after all that, we have something to vote on that looks like what the SNP has been telling us looks to be true, it'll be a landslide for Leave.

 

Why wouldn't the SNP relish that opportunity?

I'm sure they would but Westminster are flat out refusing to 'allow' us to have a referendum so I can't see us persuading them to enter into negotiations first

[pablo]

3 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

No better together scare stories, just facts and no propaganda! I don't trust Westminster but would earn more respect if they laid out an honest plan if we got independence. 

 

They're not going to lay out a plan, why would they do that?

 

The Scottish Government and UK Government put together a mutually agreed White Paper on Scottish Independence.

 

Set up a delegation of Civil Servants and involve expert international consultants to work out the monetary questions including currency and debt.

 

The SG could then put the White Paper forward for something for us to vote for or against?

[Don Dan]

1 hour ago, Cade said:

the Unionist plan

Why is it a Unionist plan? 

[Don Dan]

1 hour ago, Cade said:

So, the Unionist plan is to hold the Independence negotiations first then let the electorate vote on the outcome?

No won spoke about negotiations prior to the referendum. 

Quote

What kind of backwards logic is that?

How do you ensure that the result of the negotiations is legally binding before entering into the referendum?

You can’t. You are presenting your idea of how an independent Scotland would. Negotiations would take place if Yes won the day. 
 

And why aren't the public consulted during the negotiations?

The plan would be part of the democratic process which involves all in Scotland. It would formatted in a White paper like the last time.

Quote

And why would Westminster even agree to this,

If you present a credible plan along with a request or demand to hold another referendum rather than a demand for one without a plan it would hold up better. It would be harder to refuse and if and when it goes to court then you present a strong case when ask why you want one. Remember so far we have (not to my knowledge) said how this independence will work and what foundation it will be built on. 

Quote

 

 

as it's an open admission that Independence is likely and it reveals all their cards (and lies) to the public before the referendum??

we assume independence is likely. Who’s cards and lies are revealed. Ours or theirs. 

Quote

You'll have to do much better than that.

 

We have to do much better than that. We have to do much better than the last time if we want to win. 

Edited May 10, 2021 by Boy Daniel
Correction

[Mysterion]

30 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

 

That is what needs to happen. The talks on assets, debt, the border, trade, currency, armed forces, faslane etc.. Should happen prior to a Referendum, it is in both the our own interests that happens. 

 

The only problem with that is how they set about negotiating Brexit. Any Indie negotiations would be done by professionals but ultimately reporting into government officials like Gove who still think the UK is a superpower. 
 

Negotiations will be built to absolutely **** us over so the little Englander /  Daily Mail supporting morons of the South can feel good about their shitty lives.
 

 

[Don Dan]

4 minutes ago, Mysterion said:

Negotiations will be built to absolutely **** us over

Just hire Michelle Barnier that will scare the crap out of them. He and his team **** over Boris and his morons. 

[pablo]

16 minutes ago, Mysterion said:

The only problem with that is how they set about negotiating Brexit. Any Indie negotiations would be done by professionals but ultimately reporting into government officials like Gove who still think the UK is a superpower. 
 

Negotiations will be built to absolutely **** us over so the little Englander /  Daily Mail supporting morons of the South can feel good about their shitty lives.
 

 

 

But wouldn't the negotiation teams be the Civil Service, which obviously isn't devolved with a team representing the aspirations of the Scottish Government?

 

The PM has a duty and responsibility for the entire UK and it's people. If a region within it wishes to leave, then it's in all our interests to do it fairly. Expert consultants would be involved.

 

The White Paper would be mutually agreed and then handed over to the Scottish Government to put forward for us to vote on thereafter.

[Roxy Hearts]

1 hour ago, pablo said:

 

They're not going to lay out a plan, why would they do that?

 

The Scottish Government and UK Government put together a mutually agreed White Paper on Scottish Independence.

 

Set up a delegation of Civil Servants and involve expert international consultants to work out the monetary questions including currency and debt.

 

The SG could then put the White Paper forward for something for us to vote for or against?

Not a plan then but proper grown up discussions to map out what's best for both countries. Cannot understand all the animosity just because a country wishes to govern itself. The way they go on makes you think they need us or something!

[Boris]

I'm not sure comparing Brexit with Scottish independence is like for like.

 

There are plenty of precedents of states becoming independent from larger entities, and international law will come into it too regards what constitutes coastal waters etc.

 

So in that case, certain things are "non-negotiable" I would imagine.

 

No doubt there will be some sort of negotiation over separation of assets/liabilities, but can't see anyone getting stiffed e.g. taking on more liabilities than assets and vice versa.

[pablo]

2 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

Not a plan then but proper grown up discussions to map out what's best for both countries. Cannot understand all the animosity just because a country wishes to govern itself. The way they go on makes you think they need us or something!

 

Well, let's stop the animosity. Open the books and put together a joint proposal, mutually agreed by both Governments. Give people some clarity on citizenship, currency, debt,  borders and defence. Have independent consultants involved to determine what it will take and the timescales involved. 

 

If the numbers add up, and it's an attractive proposal then Leave will skoosh the referendum. 

[Boris]

1 minute ago, pablo said:

 

Well, let's stop the animosity. Open the books and put together a joint proposal, mutually agreed by both Governments. Give people some clarity on citizenship, currency, debt,  borders and defence. Have independent consultants involved to determine what it will take and the timescales involved. 

 

If the numbers add up, and it's an attractive proposal then Leave will skoosh the referendum. 

Fair enough idea, but "mutually agreed" bit may be a hurdle!

 

As an aside, we always hear how much trade Scotland does with rUK, I've never heard or found out what the reverse is. Do we have a figurative trade deficit with rUK?

[Roxy Hearts]

6 minutes ago, pablo said:

 

Well, let's stop the animosity. Open the books and put together a joint proposal, mutually agreed by both Governments. Give people some clarity on citizenship, currency, debt,  borders and defence. Have independent consultants involved to determine what it will take and the timescales involved. 

 

If the numbers add up, and it's an attractive proposal then Leave will skoosh the referendum. 

Suits me. 👍

[pablo]

5 minutes ago, Boris said:

Fair enough idea, but "mutually agreed" bit may be a hurdle!

 

As an aside, we always hear how much trade Scotland does with rUK, I've never heard or found out what the reverse is. Do we have a figurative trade deficit with rUK?

 

I don't know. But that would come out in the wash, wouldn't it? 

 

Maximum transparency. No more Barnett Formula consequentials, no more doubting the GERS figures. Let's just see it laid out bare.

 

One side is obviously at it. If we have to do it again, let's do the heavy lifting upfront and let the dog see the rabbit, so to speak.

[Konrad von Carstein]

2 hours ago, pablo said:

I'm not sure how making the proposition clearer could possibly be a bad thing? 

 

Surely we've now learnt through Brexit that negotiations after the event is extremely difficult 

 

So open the books, have complete transparency and work on the proposal jointly. Set out a framework that covers defence, debt, citizenship, the border with England and involve the EU to give us a realistic idea of what it would take to rejoin.

 

If after all that, we have something to vote on that looks like what the SNP has been telling us looks to be true, it'll be a landslide for Leave.

 

Why wouldn't the SNP relish that opportunity?

I see a flaw in your plan!   Johnston, Gove et al have shown in act and deed that thay can't be trusted.

[Boab]

2 minutes ago, Konrad von Carstein said:

I see a flaw in your plan!   Johnston, Gove et al have shown in act and deed that thay can't be trusted.

Exactly. Johnson is pathological in his lying. Can’t believe I’ve seen the word trust used when speaking of these people.

[pablo]

2 minutes ago, Konrad von Carstein said:

I see a flaw in your plan!   Johnston, Gove et al have shown in act and deed that thay can't be trusted.

 

But mutually agreed would mean that the White Paper would need to be signed off by the Scottish Government too. That's what would be put forward by the SG for Scotland to vote on.

[Konrad von Carstein]

Just now, pablo said:

 

But mutually agreed would mean that the White Paper would need to be signed off by the Scottish Government too. That's what would be put forward by the SG for Scotland to vote on.

They blooming well tried (or did) to renage an a deal that they signed withEurope did they not?

 

No trust is a poor starting point.