The rise and fall of The SNP.

[Space Mackerel]

Out with the old, in with the new.

 

 

[NANOJAMBO]

5 hours ago, Space Mackerel said:

Out with the old, in with the new.

 

 

"LOL & NAW"  or "yes". 

 

[strappingjock]

Daily Express Nov 18 2020

 

In a hammer blow to Nicola Sturgeon’s independence plans, Treasury figures show public spending in Scotland is higher than the UK average. This means because Scotland remains in the Union it results in a benefit of almost £2,000 per person. But the SNP slated the figures and further demanded the devolved Scottish Government be handed more financial spending powers, claiming the funding given by Westminster was not enough. The Nationalists were accused of causing deep and scarring austerity and ignoring the priorities of dealing with coronavirus.

 

The Treasury's country and regional analysis report (CRA) found spend per head on public services was £11,566 in Scotland, compared to a UK average of £9,895, a difference of £1,671. Elsewhere, in Northern Ireland, the figure was £11,987, for Wales it was £10,929 while for England it stood at £9,604.

 

So based on the average, expenditure per head is :-

England 97 %

Wales 110 %

Scotland 117 %

N Ireland 121 %

 

The year is not specified but it must be  2018/19.

 

I am worried. SNP might just drop us all of a cliff and God knows how much it will cost us if we lose the subsidy from Westminster. At the moment it looks like 85% of the UK is subsidising the other 15% - those who make the most noise about independence.  If the English public cottons on we will all be out in the cold. They would all get an extra 1.3% per head if the Scots, Irish and Welsh were dumped. Be careful what you wish for !

 

Further to a previous post I have looked at legislation arrangements. Just like Australia, Canada and NZ, Scotland’s legislation needs Royal assent. Here it is done direct by the Queen and in the others usually by the Governor General. An independent Scotland could follow the same route, but NOT if we want to rejoin the EU. There is no way Brussels would, or could, allow a member state to have the creation of its laws controlled by a non member state i.e. rump UK. We would have to dump all ties with the UK and Crown and become a republic. We could not have our own monarch as the Scottish crown ceased to exist in 1603 when James became king of both countries, well before the Act of Union.

 

So my fellow Scots need to think long and hard about following the race to the cliff edge led by the SNP. Brexit is not a cliff, but independence will be if we follow Nicola. Handing our country back to Brussels would be complete madness.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 3, 2021 by strappingjock
spelling/punctuation

[Unknown user]

39 minutes ago, strappingjock said:

Daily Express Nov 18 2020

 

In a hammer blow to Nicola Sturgeon’s independence plans, Treasury figures show public spending in Scotland is higher than the UK average. This means because Scotland remains in the Union it results in a benefit of almost £2,000 per person. But the SNP slated the figures and further demanded the devolved Scottish Government be handed more financial spending powers, claiming the funding given by Westminster was not enough. The Nationalists were accused of causing deep and scarring austerity and ignoring the priorities of dealing with coronavirus.

 

The Treasury's country and regional analysis report (CRA) found spend per head on public services was £11,566 in Scotland, compared to a UK average of £9,895, a difference of £1,671. Elsewhere, in Northern Ireland, the figure was £11,987, for Wales it was £10,929 while for England it stood at £9,604.

 

So based on the average, expenditure per head is :-

England 97 %

Wales 110 %

Scotland 117 %

N Ireland 121 %

 

The year is not specified but it must be  2018/19.

 

I am worried. SNP might just drop us all of a cliff and God knows how much it will cost us if we lose the subsidy from Westminster. At the moment it looks like 85% of the UK is subsidising the other 15% - those who make the most noise about independence.  If the English public cottons on we will all be out in the cold. They would all get an extra 1.3% per head if the Scots, Irish and Welsh were dumped. Be careful what you wish for !

 

Further to a previous post I have looked at legislation arrangements. Just like Australia, Canada and NZ, Scotland’s legislation needs Royal assent. Here it is done direct by the Queen and in the others usually by the Governor General. An independent Scotland could follow the same route, but NOT if we want to rejoin the EU. There is no way Brussels would, or could, allow a member state to have the creation of its laws controlled by a non member state i.e. rump UK. We would have to dump all ties with the UK and Crown and become a republic. We could not have our own monarch as the Scottish crown ceased to exist in 1603 when James became king of both countries, well before the Act of Union.

 

So my fellow Scots need to think long and hard about following the race to the cliff edge led by the SNP. Brexit is not a cliff, but independence will be if we follow Nicola. Handing our country back to Brussels would be complete madness.

 

 

 

 

So basically, we wouldn't be allowed in the EU because the queen and Scotland should STFU and be grateful for what our overlords give us.

 

[manaliveits105]

Our great leader has constantly blamed the toaries for causing austerity though so would assume she wouldnt take us in to it would she ??

Croatia didnt meet eu criteria on defecit in 2013 but were allowed in and suffered years of austerity 

our defecit is over 8% and rising 

but hey freeeeeedumb - wallace - the corries - river city .

[Unknown user]

And here's some slanted figures and snide to prove that Scotland is uniquely shite in this world and couldn't run her own affairs.

[Roxy Hearts]

1 hour ago, strappingjock said:

Daily Express Nov 18 2020

 

In a hammer blow to Nicola Sturgeon’s independence plans, Treasury figures show public spending in Scotland is higher than the UK average. This means because Scotland remains in the Union it results in a benefit of almost £2,000 per person. But the SNP slated the figures and further demanded the devolved Scottish Government be handed more financial spending powers, claiming the funding given by Westminster was not enough. The Nationalists were accused of causing deep and scarring austerity and ignoring the priorities of dealing with coronavirus.

 

The Treasury's country and regional analysis report (CRA) found spend per head on public services was £11,566 in Scotland, compared to a UK average of £9,895, a difference of £1,671. Elsewhere, in Northern Ireland, the figure was £11,987, for Wales it was £10,929 while for England it stood at £9,604.

 

So based on the average, expenditure per head is :-

England 97 %

Wales 110 %

Scotland 117 %

N Ireland 121 %

 

The year is not specified but it must be  2018/19.

 

I am worried. SNP might just drop us all of a cliff and God knows how much it will cost us if we lose the subsidy from Westminster. At the moment it looks like 85% of the UK is subsidising the other 15% - those who make the most noise about independence.  If the English public cottons on we will all be out in the cold. They would all get an extra 1.3% per head if the Scots, Irish and Welsh were dumped. Be careful what you wish for !

 

Further to a previous post I have looked at legislation arrangements. Just like Australia, Canada and NZ, Scotland’s legislation needs Royal assent. Here it is done direct by the Queen and in the others usually by the Governor General. An independent Scotland could follow the same route, but NOT if we want to rejoin the EU. There is no way Brussels would, or could, allow a member state to have the creation of its laws controlled by a non member state i.e. rump UK. We would have to dump all ties with the UK and Crown and become a republic. We could not have our own monarch as the Scottish crown ceased to exist in 1603 when James became king of both countries, well before the Act of Union.

 

So my fellow Scots need to think long and hard about following the race to the cliff edge led by the SNP. Brexit is not a cliff, but independence will be if we follow Nicola. Handing our country back to Brussels would be complete madness.

 

 

 

 

That's me convinced. ATF!

[Pans Jambo]

Brilliant that a bunch of wealthy toffs make off with Billions from the public purse, run the country into over £2 Trillion of debt and remove us from the worlds biggest trading bloc and then have the audacity to tell Scotland that it COULD be an independent nation, but it shouldnd be ‘allowed’ the choice until they say so!
Then theres the folk on here who cant tell the difference between the SNP and Scotland.

Scotland cant be independent because some fudged figures say we run a deficit unyet almost every other country on the face of the planet can and does.

 

Aye OK then.

 

Edited January 3, 2021 by Pans Jambo

[Unknown user]

Policy and infrastructure would be set up with Scotland's needs in mind and not for the south east of England. We would undoubtedly be able to run things more efficiently (unless you think Westminster represents the best possible way things can be done )

 

So no one can categorically say Scotland would run at a deficit, we'd cut our own cloth, and it would be up to us, the Scottish electorate, to decide who we want and in what direction we want to go. 

 

As for the deficit, on average each household in Britain has 2k a year of their taxes go towards paying just the interest on the UK's ever growing debt.

 

If fiscal prudence is genuinely your concern, shouldn't Scotland be getting away from such reckless financial management?

[coconut doug]

 

4 hours ago, strappingjock said:

D

 

The year is not specified but it must be  2018/19.

 

I am worried. SNP might just drop us all of a cliff and God knows how much it will cost us if we lose the subsidy from Westminster. At the moment it looks like 85% of the UK is subsidising the other 15% - those who make the most noise about independence.  If the English public cottons on we will all be out in the cold. They would all get an extra 1.3% per head if the Scots, Irish and Welsh were dumped. Be careful what you wish for !

 

Further to a previous post I have looked at legislation arrangements. Just like Australia, Canada and NZ, Scotland’s legislation needs Royal assent. Here it is done direct by the Queen and in the others usually by the Governor General. An independent Scotland could follow the same route, but NOT if we want to rejoin the EU. There is no way Brussels would, or could, allow a member state to have the creation of its laws controlled by a non member state i.e. rump UK. We would have to dump all ties with the UK and Crown and become a republic. We could not have our own monarch as the Scottish crown ceased to exist in 1603 when James became king of both countries, well before the Act of Union.

 

So my fellow Scots need to think long and hard about following the race to the cliff edge led by the SNP. Brexit is not a cliff, but independence will be if we follow Nicola. Handing our country back to Brussels would be complete madness.

 

 

 

 

 

Even if these figures were accurate and had much relevance to the case for Indy, why would you want to be a scrounger all your life? 

 

Why would the EU allow the Queen to give royal assent to the UK but deny it to Indy Scotland. The queen doesn't create or control our laws and certainly wouldn't after indy. If she refused to give assent she would be emptied whether it happened in Scotland or the UK.

 

Why could we not have our own monarch if we wished? We've chosen one before when there were competing claims? We could choose the current Queen if we wish but there are sure to be plenty of applicants from deposed monarchies all over Europe. Scottish kings were in any case kings of Scots and not kings of Scotland. This is not an issue for Independence.

 

 

Edited January 3, 2021 by coconut doug
referenced wrong person

[Weakened Offender]

2 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

 

Even if these figures were accurate and had much relevance to the case for Indy, why would you want to be a scrounger all your life? 

 

Why would the EU allow the Queen to give royal assent to the UK but deny it to Indy Scotland. The queen doesn't create or control our laws and certainly wouldn't after indy. If she refused to give assent she would be emptied whether it happened in Scotland or the UK.

 

Why could we not have our own monarch if we wished? We've chosen one before when there were competing claims? We could choose the current Queen if we wish but there are sure to be plenty of applicants from deposed monarchies all over Europe. Scottish kings were in any case kings of Scots and not kings of Scotland. This is not an issue for Independence.

 

 

 

I'd happily dump her and her filthy lot. 

[manaliveits105]

Boris had it spot on this morning - there was a referendum in 1975 and then 2014 which is about the right period 

- only 33 years to go 

[coconut doug]

1 hour ago, Weakened Offender said:

 

I'd happily dump her and her filthy lot. 

 

Then where would we be?

 

How would we get by without all the experience, expertise and moral leadership the Royal family and their Lords give us?

 

Clearly we in Scotland do not have these things and could not survive without importing them from England.

[strappingjock]

TO  Weekend Offender

 

Why would the EU allow the Queen to give royal assent to the UK but deny it to Indy Scotland. The queen doesn't create or control our laws and certainly wouldn't after indy. If she refused to give assent she would be emptied whether it happened in Scotland or the UK.

 

Simple - with UK in EU,  the queen was head of state of a EU member so there was no problem, just like Sweden, Spain, Netherlands, Denmark.  So any laws passed in UK came under EU supervision and ECJ.  Out of EU she can assent to laws of Scotland but cannot assent to laws of an EU member state.  Very simple if you think about it.  Also, you forget  that, although extremely unlikely, the queen DOES have the ultimate power to refuse assent to  England, Scotland, Wales, NI, Canada, Australia, & NZ - fact, not fiction.  If Scotland is that unhappy then a complete break is the only option, though I doubt the jock in the street would be happy with that.

 

Also, although rare, Royal assent has been refused, but you cannot sack the queen for the refusal. If you want that then a republic it must be for you.

 

Why could we not have our own monarch if we wished? We've chosen one before when there were competing claims? We could choose the current Queen if we wish but there are sure to be plenty of applicants from deposed monarchies all over Europe. Scottish kings were in any case kings of Scots and not kings of Scotland. This is not an issue for Independence.

 

We could  create our own crown from scratch, but there is no way we can claim the present one after 1603 as it was merged with the English one.   We can declare William Wallace or Alex Salmond king if we wish  but   E II R it cannot be.   And we know what happened to the last Tsar Alex.

 

Of course, if Nicola  continues to upset people Shetland might just choose to be a crown dependency and goodbye oil !!  

 

We really have three  choices :--

 

1   Stay in the union,

2   Independence with the queen and no EU

3   Clean break and EU membership, if they will have us.

 

We cannot have our bread buttered both sides, but I doubt Nicola will actually tell us that.    With her, indy is the only game in town and she does not give a hoot about the afterlife.

Edited January 3, 2021 by strappingjock

[Unknown user]

38 minutes ago, strappingjock said:

TO  Weekend Offender

 

Why would the EU allow the Queen to give royal assent to the UK but deny it to Indy Scotland. The queen doesn't create or control our laws and certainly wouldn't after indy. If she refused to give assent she would be emptied whether it happened in Scotland or the UK.

 

Simple - with UK in EU,  the queen was head of state of a EU member so there was no problem, just like Sweden, Spain, Netherlands, Denmark.  So any laws passed in UK came under EU supervision and ECJ.  Out of EU she can assent to laws of Scotland but cannot assent to laws of an EU member state.  Very simple if you think about it.  Also, you forget  that, although extremely unlikely, the queen DOES have the ultimate power to refuse assent to  England, Scotland, Wales, NI, Canada, Australia, & NZ - fact, not fiction.  If Scotland is that unhappy then a complete break is the only option, though I doubt the jock in the street would be happy with that.

 

Also, although rare, Royal assent has been refused, but you cannot sack the queen for the refusal. If you want that then a republic it must be for you.

 

Why could we not have our own monarch if we wished? We've chosen one before when there were competing claims? We could choose the current Queen if we wish but there are sure to be plenty of applicants from deposed monarchies all over Europe. Scottish kings were in any case kings of Scots and not kings of Scotland. This is not an issue for Independence.

 

We could  create our own crown from scratch, but there is no way we can claim the present one after 1603 as it was merged with the English one.   We can declare William Wallace or Alex Salmond king if we wish  but   E II R it cannot be.   And we know what happened to the last Tsar Alex.

 

Of course, if Nicola  continues to upset people Shetland might just choose to be a crown dependency and goodbye oil !!  

 

We really have three  choices :--

 

1   Stay in the union,

2   Independence with the queen and no EU

3   Clean break and EU membership, if they will have us.

 

We cannot have our bread buttered both sides, but I doubt Nicola will actually tell us that.    With her, indy is the only game in town and she does not give a hoot about the afterlife.

4 independence, making deals with as many partners as possible during the notice period (although WTO trading is pretty great I hear!) for the short term, and let the Scottish electorate decide whether they want to apply to join the EU or otherwise by having a mature, democratic conversation on the subject. 

 

It isn't up to the Yes movement to say what Scotland will look like after independence, it's up to the people of Scotland to decide.

 

That's the point.

Edited January 3, 2021 by Smithee

[Space Mackerel]

On 01/01/2021 at 00:33, Zlatanable said:

Fake reality. 

Is that yer maw in the top photie?

 

😁

[Unknown user]

So, the SNP are fair falling eh?

[ri Alban]

New poll puts SNP on 57 seats at 2024 GE. Alistair Jack is number one target to lose his seat. But he'll have already lost it by then, when we're independent. 

 

Oh and Lab and the tory are both locked out. Labour need the SNP to govern, so they'll be anti independent. 

Edited January 4, 2021 by ri Alban

[strappingjock]

Smithee

 

4 independence, making deals with as many partners as possible during the notice period (although WTO trading is pretty great I hear!) for the short term, and let the Scottish electorate decide whether they want to apply to join the EU or otherwise by having a mature, democratic conversation on the subject. 

 

It isn't up to the Yes movement to say what Scotland will look like after independence, it's up to the people of Scotland to decide.

 

That's the point.

 

Perfectly correct, but when has Nicola even hinted that there would be two referenda - one to quit UK and another to to join EU.

The second one has never seen the light of day and I have doubts it is intended - it would cramp her style.

 

It is easy to whip up emotion against the old enemy down south but giving our country away to the unelected bureaucrats of Brussels is, I fear,

not going to be put to the people, especially if we keep giving her a bigger majority here. You only have to look at her recent behaviour - "keep the light on Brussels, we'll be back soon".

 

Looks awful like she has decided already and we have not been asked.

 

So, again, I say be careful what you wish for.

 

[davemclaren]

18 minutes ago, strappingjock said:

Smithee

 

4 independence, making deals with as many partners as possible during the notice period (although WTO trading is pretty great I hear!) for the short term, and let the Scottish electorate decide whether they want to apply to join the EU or otherwise by having a mature, democratic conversation on the subject. 

 

It isn't up to the Yes movement to say what Scotland will look like after independence, it's up to the people of Scotland to decide.

 

That's the point.

 

Perfectly correct, but when has Nicola even hinted that there would be two referenda - one to quit UK and another to to join EU.

The second one has never seen the light of day and I have doubts it is intended - it would cramp her style.

 

It is easy to whip up emotion against the old enemy down south but giving our country away to the unelected bureaucrats of Brussels is, I fear,

not going to be put to the people, especially if we keep giving her a bigger majority here. You only have to look at her recent behaviour - "keep the light on Brussels, we'll be back soon".

 

Looks awful like she has decided already and we have not been asked.

 

So, again, I say be careful what you wish for.

 

Presumably whoever wins the first general election after independence would drive that, one way or other.  

[Unknown user]

42 minutes ago, strappingjock said:

Smithee

 

4 independence, making deals with as many partners as possible during the notice period (although WTO trading is pretty great I hear!) for the short term, and let the Scottish electorate decide whether they want to apply to join the EU or otherwise by having a mature, democratic conversation on the subject. 

 

It isn't up to the Yes movement to say what Scotland will look like after independence, it's up to the people of Scotland to decide.

 

That's the point.

 

Perfectly correct, but when has Nicola even hinted that there would be two referenda - one to quit UK and another to to join EU.

The second one has never seen the light of day and I have doubts it is intended - it would cramp her style.

 

It is easy to whip up emotion against the old enemy down south but giving our country away to the unelected bureaucrats of Brussels is, I fear,

not going to be put to the people, especially if we keep giving her a bigger majority here. You only have to look at her recent behaviour - "keep the light on Brussels, we'll be back soon".

 

Looks awful like she has decided already and we have not been asked.

 

So, again, I say be careful what you wish for.

 

I couldn't care less what Nicola has or hasn't said, the long term future of the country isn't at her behest. There's a whole bunch of things I don't agree with her on but none of them mean scotland couldn't or shouldn't be an independent nation. 

 

[strappingjock]

Very true, as long as you yourself get the chance to do anything.  If she gets the majority she wants, you will not be able to stop her, and the country's future WILL be at her behest.  If she screws up it may be too late to reverse it. 

 

How would you feel if you end up with a hostile England to the south and a EU with no appetite for what could well be a failed nation by the time she has finished with it.

 

Personally, I will probably leave if she gets turned loose.  The prospect of being stuck unwanted by EU  and UK combined would be too shaming to consider.

 

 

Edited January 5, 2021 by strappingjock
spelling

[jack D and coke]

1 hour ago, strappingjock said:

Very true, as long as you yourself get the chance to do anything.  If she gets the majority she wants, you will not be able to stop her, and the country's future WILL be at her behest.  If she screws up it may be too late to reverse it. 

 

How would you feel if you end up with a hostile England to the south and a EU with no appetite for what could well be a failed nation by the time she has finished with it.

 

Personally, I will probably leave if she gets turned loose.  The prospect of being stuck unwanted by EU  and UK combined would be too shaming to consider.

 

 

Can I ask why you joined this site jock? 
Are you a hearts fan?

[Unknown user]

2 hours ago, strappingjock said:

Very true, as long as you yourself get the chance to do anything.  If she gets the majority she wants, you will not be able to stop her, and the country's future WILL be at her behest.  If she screws up it may be too late to reverse it. 

 

How would you feel if you end up with a hostile England to the south and a EU with no appetite for what could well be a failed nation by the time she has finished with it.

 

Personally, I will probably leave if she gets turned loose.  The prospect of being stuck unwanted by EU  and UK combined would be too shaming to consider.

Hysterical nonsense mate

[Auld Reekin']

17 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Hysterical nonsense mate

 

Hysterically funny too though!   

[Unknown user]

10 minutes ago, Auld Reekin' said:

 

Hysterically funny too though!   

The prospect of being stuck unwanted by EU  and UK combined would be too shaming to consider.

[Auld Reekin']

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

The prospect of being stuck unwanted by EU  and UK combined would be too shaming to consider.

 

[strappingjock]

jack D

 

No. Not a hearts fan. Just worried about my country. Rampant unthinking nationalism is always a concern.

 

People forget that Adolf was voted into power.

 

[Unknown user]

8 minutes ago, strappingjock said:

jack D

 

No. Not a hearts fan. Just worried about my country. Rampant unthinking nationalism is always a concern.

 

People forget that Adolf was voted into power.

 

The Scottish people have the right to decide Scotland's future.

[Adam_the_legend]

5 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

The Scottish people have the right to decide Scotland's future.

As long as the result goes the way you want though eh. Question has been asked and answered, would prefer we try and get through this pandemic, the repercussions of which will be felt for years to come rather than another divisive referendum. And for those with short memories Scotland was a pretty horrible place to be around 2014, families and friends falling out with each other all over the shop, I’m not keen to go through that again any time soon. 

[jack D and coke]

18 minutes ago, strappingjock said:

jack D

 

No. Not a hearts fan. Just worried about my country. Rampant unthinking nationalism is always a concern.

 

People forget that Adolf was voted into power.

 

Ok. So why join a hearts site to just simply prattle on about this one subject? It’s ludicrous stuff imo too.
Are you on Hibs net? Follow Follow? Kerrydale Street espousing the same stuff? Or just us that gets the pleasure? 
FWIW there is rampant nationalism going on in England in case you haven’t noticed and also in some parts of Scotland. Why is one bad and one good? I don’t like either of it tbh and I don’t believe most Scots that want indy are swivel eyed loons. Those are the unionists imo. Just read some of George Galloway’s opinions.
There’s a huge majority of people nowhere near that but who are normal well functioning people who don’t like the path the U.K. is taking and you’re posts are miles away from any reality imo. Scotland would have to adjust but we’d be just fine. You’re like a lot of people who seem to reckon we’d vote Yes one day and be independent the next and out of everything with no currency etc. Just silly nonsense. 
You’re like everyone else too you’re entitled to an opinion but why not take this to Facebook or Twitter? 
Why did you choose to come on here telling us how embarrassed you’re going to be etc? Strange imo. 

[Unknown user]

5 minutes ago, Adam_the_legend said:

As long as the result goes the way you want though eh. 

Nope, the conversation can carry on post independence if you like, fine by me. 

[jack D and coke]

6 minutes ago, Adam_the_legend said:

As long as the result goes the way you want though eh. Question has been asked and answered, would prefer we try and get through this pandemic, the repercussions of which will be felt for years to come rather than another divisive referendum. And for those with short memories Scotland was a pretty horrible place to be around 2014, families and friends falling out with each other all over the shop, I’m not keen to go through that again any time soon. 

First point. Totally agree, there’s far more

important things to worry about just now. 
 

Don’t seem to recall this horrible place though myself. Have friends and family on both sides like probably anyone. Had debates etc. All still mates. 
 

[Adam_the_legend]

9 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

First point. Totally agree, there’s far more

important things to worry about just now. 
 

Don’t seem to recall this horrible place though myself. Have friends and family on both sides like probably anyone. Had debates etc. All still mates. 
 

This thread is a microcosm for how I remember it. Scotland split between “nationalists” and “unionists”. Seeing how disrespectful Scots could be to each other for no other reason than they would vote yes or no.

 

There were positives. The country became more politically engaged than I’ve ever seen it but as I said, I’m not keen to repeat it anytime soon. 

[jack D and coke]

13 minutes ago, Adam_the_legend said:

This thread is a microcosm for how I remember it. Scotland split between “nationalists” and “unionists”. Seeing how disrespectful Scots could be to each other for no other reason than they would vote yes or no.

 

There were positives. The country became more politically engaged than I’ve ever seen it but as I said, I’m not keen to repeat it anytime soon. 

You didn’t think until then we could be disrespectful to each other? Really lol? 
Tbh I think it gets blown out of proportion a lot and social media just magnifies it. We’ve always had reasons to dislike each other here though. Scotland is probably as backward as anywhere on the planet imo for that kind of thing. People that came over 2-300 years ago still aren’t all that welcome in some parts and we annexed a part of their country also to ensure we could control it ffs. Ulster is a lot of Scotland’s doing. You only need to look at the amount of sneering anti catholic and Celtic undertones in the posts about the FM or the SNP in general. It seems only now that the unionist majority who have held the whip hand here for so long don’t like it when things look like theyre starting to go against them. They’re the ones to worry about imo. The unionists will be the spiteful, vindictive ones in the event of a Yes. 
Anyway I’m out lol. It’s for another time all this👍🏼

Edited January 5, 2021 by jack D and coke

[Auld Reekin']

5 hours ago, strappingjock said:

jack D

 

No. Not a hearts fan. Just worried about my country. Rampant unthinking nationalism is always a concern.

 

People forget that Adolf was voted into power.

 

 

But knee-jerk, unthinking, unionism is fine, right?   

[Cruyff]

4 hours ago, Adam_the_legend said:

As long as the result goes the way you want though eh. Question has been asked and answered, would prefer we try and get through this pandemic, the repercussions of which will be felt for years to come rather than another divisive referendum. And for those with short memories Scotland was a pretty horrible place to be around 2014, families and friends falling out with each other all over the shop, I’m not keen to go through that again any time soon. 

If a Party stands on the promise that they wish to hold a Referendum on whatever, in their manifesto and win a majority of seats based on that promise, then you have a Referendum. 

 

If folk don't want that Referendum on whatever it is, they can vote for another party that opposes it. 

 

That's democracy in a nutshell. 

[manaliveits105]

Discussion on radio this morning that after UK Gov gave a tranche of business support towards end of last year £30 million the SG have only released £6m so far whilst businesses flounder - now there are processes and applications but in the current climate that is shameful 

 

I see our finance minister (on speed) will have another moan later today about The Toaries and Rishi - its not enough !!

it never is hen with snp - sort out yer day jobs and get on with helping the Scottish people and not your sole political policy 

The fact that they have no plans to put back the Toytown Parliament elections in May beggars belief 

 

GET THEM OOT 

[strappingjock]

Cards on Table

 

I am from Pollock but my accountant other half is English - I duck - she actually is a Budgie fan.  She was from Northumberland and day trips to Eyemouth were a norm. She  loved Scotland and has lived in Moray and Glasgow. Her mother was stationed in Gareloch in the war.  She was all for Scotland having its say in 2014 but all that has changed due to the constant banging by SNP about one topic.  She and her family ( me included) now refuse to buy anything Scottish. Lifetime of scotch replaced with Irish and even checks for the Saltire on goods to be sure not to buy them. Scottish banks and energy companies blacklisted ..............................................  no need to go further. And I have come to agree with her.  Its shaming. But before anyone derides me, I am surprised, and also dismayed, by the number of English people who take the same view.  It's easy to tell then to F O  but if we leave and and not in the EU will will be at their mercy.  Does anyone see Canada pissing off the USA ? No, and for good reason. If your neighbour has ten times your population you do not antagonise him.

 

The accountant has reminded me that Nicola has stated Scotland will take on its fair share of debt. Anyone know about the Equivalent ? In 1707 English debt was about £14M. Scotland was paid £400k ( the equivalent ) as compensation. That was 1/35 of total or 2.86%. Now Scots are about  8.5% of UK population so they will now have to take on that part of UK debt when they leave. However, that will need to be weighted as Scotland gets enhanced public money under Barnet, some 17% above UK average, so the 8.5% will have to become 9.94% to reflect the extra benefit Scotland obtains from the Union.

 

UK national debt in 2018 was £1.78 trillion. So Scotland would have to stump up between £151-177 billion or £18.21k for every single living person in the country. A whole year’s income plus a bit, or double the per-head-amount England gets every year. And all that under the thumb of the Bank of England.

 

It's not that Scotland cannot go it alone, its merely a question of how many starve to prove it. Obviously it will not be paid as a lump sum, but if you think we have suffered austerity in the past, "we aint seen nothin yet"

 

Enjoy.

 

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, strappingjock said:

Cards on Table

 

I am from Pollock but my accountant other half is English - I duck - she actually is a Budgie fan.  She was from Northumberland and day trips to Eyemouth were a norm. She  loved Scotland and has lived in Moray and Glasgow. Her mother was stationed in Gareloch in the war.  She was all for Scotland having its say in 2014 but all that has changed due to the constant banging by SNP about one topic.  She and her family ( me included) now refuse to buy anything Scottish. Lifetime of scotch replaced with Irish and even checks for the Saltire on goods to be sure not to buy them. Scottish banks and energy companies blacklisted ..............................................  no need to go further. And I have come to agree with her.  Its shaming. But before anyone derides me, I am surprised, and also dismayed, by the number of English people who take the same view.  It's easy to tell then to F O  but if we leave and and not in the EU will will be at their mercy.  Does anyone see Canada pissing off the USA ? No, and for good reason. If your neighbour has ten times your population you do not antagonise him.

 

The accountant has reminded me that Nicola has stated Scotland will take on its fair share of debt. Anyone know about the Equivalent ? In 1707 English debt was about £14M. Scotland was paid £400k ( the equivalent ) as compensation. That was 1/35 of total or 2.86%. Now Scots are about  8.5% of UK population so they will now have to take on that part of UK debt when they leave. However, that will need to be weighted as Scotland gets enhanced public money under Barnet, some 17% above UK average, so the 8.5% will have to become 9.94% to reflect the extra benefit Scotland obtains from the Union.

 

UK national debt in 2018 was £1.78 trillion. So Scotland would have to stump up between £151-177 billion or £18.21k for every single living person in the country. A whole year’s income plus a bit, or double the per-head-amount England gets every year. And all that under the thumb of the Bank of England.

 

It's not that Scotland cannot go it alone, its merely a question of how many starve to prove it. Obviously it will not be paid as a lump sum, but if you think we have suffered austerity in the past, "we aint seen nothin yet"

 

Enjoy.

 

As far as I'm aware, in the history of nations there's only been one example of a country leaving a larger state and taking a share of the debt, and that was a few billion, once. Apart from that it isn't the normal state of affairs at all, so it's a pretty weak argument.

[Justin Z]

12 minutes ago, strappingjock said:

UK national debt in 2018 was £1.78 trillion. So Scotland would have to stump up between £151-177 billion or £18.21k for every single living person in the country. A whole year’s income plus a bit, or double the per-head-amount England gets every year. And all that under the thumb of the Bank of England.

 

Absolutely not true; successor states by precedent carry with them none of the debt incurred by the government in charge when, they did not have the sovereign power to make their own decisions on that debt. It is de facto not their responsibility.

 

Scotland will likely offer to take some of the debt on, in exchange for concessions from rUK—an exceptionally strong initial negotiating point indeed.

 

Speaking of the Bank of England, the governor himself said several years back that the value of the Scottish economy was north of £1 trillion, so this would hardly be a big ask even if what you were saying was true.

[jack D and coke]

34 minutes ago, strappingjock said:

Cards on Table

 

I am from Pollock but my accountant other half is English - I duck - she actually is a Budgie fan.  She was from Northumberland and day trips to Eyemouth were a norm. She  loved Scotland and has lived in Moray and Glasgow. Her mother was stationed in Gareloch in the war.  She was all for Scotland having its say in 2014 but all that has changed due to the constant banging by SNP about one topic.  She and her family ( me included) now refuse to buy anything Scottish. Lifetime of scotch replaced with Irish and even checks for the Saltire on goods to be sure not to buy them. Scottish banks and energy companies blacklisted ..............................................  no need to go further. And I have come to agree with her.  Its shaming. But before anyone derides me, I am surprised, and also dismayed, by the number of English people who take the same view.  It's easy to tell then to F O  but if we leave and and not in the EU will will be at their mercy.  Does anyone see Canada pissing off the USA ? No, and for good reason. If your neighbour has ten times your population you do not antagonise him.

 

The accountant has reminded me that Nicola has stated Scotland will take on its fair share of debt. Anyone know about the Equivalent ? In 1707 English debt was about £14M. Scotland was paid £400k ( the equivalent ) as compensation. That was 1/35 of total or 2.86%. Now Scots are about  8.5% of UK population so they will now have to take on that part of UK debt when they leave. However, that will need to be weighted as Scotland gets enhanced public money under Barnet, some 17% above UK average, so the 8.5% will have to become 9.94% to reflect the extra benefit Scotland obtains from the Union.

 

UK national debt in 2018 was £1.78 trillion. So Scotland would have to stump up between £151-177 billion or £18.21k for every single living person in the country. A whole year’s income plus a bit, or double the per-head-amount England gets every year. And all that under the thumb of the Bank of England.

 

It's not that Scotland cannot go it alone, its merely a question of how many starve to prove it. Obviously it will not be paid as a lump sum, but if you think we have suffered austerity in the past, "we aint seen nothin yet"

 

Enjoy.

 

The amount of folk who kick up a stink about people not buying things with a UJ on it etc are numerous and are all supposed to just be on the nasty side, interesting you admit it but fair enough really. It would honestly never stop me using or buying anything I wanted but I have no problem with people being childish about stuff if they want to be. That’s really, really childish behaviour from an adult. 
The point about Canada doesn’t really stand up bud. The US don’t control their affairs, give them a budget then call them cadgers. 
Appreciate your thoughts though it’s a free country. 

[strappingjock]

Justin Z

 

If you look at the Geneva conventions, Scotland could not be a successor state unless the Queen is dropped as it has to be a SOVEREIGN successor state to qualify.  CANAUSNZ are out of scope as they became dominions so long ago they are not covered.  Scotland would also have to apply to be a member of the UN, never mind the EU, as a successor state. The more you dig, the more complicated it gets. It is not simply "Q - do you want independence from Westminster"  it is

 

Q1            do we leave UK 

Q2           Q1 answer is YES  do you agree to renounce the Crown

 

If either answer is NO then do nothing.

 

In other words, the headlong rush for indy is being done with absolutely zero thought for the actual mechanics and unintended consequences.  There is a lot of resentment in the Czech Republic and Slovakia that the people themselves were never asked if they wanted Czechoslovakia to be partitioned, or in Greece where they woke up one morning and found themselves in the eurozone without consultation.

 

I've said it before, be careful what you wish for, but in this case it might be more of "beware what you let SNP get away with".

 

If anyone is proposing Scotland could become independent and simply walk away from its obligations I would be even more ashamed to be a Scot. I am a bit woolly on some things like there being no specific definition of dependent territory. As a component part of the UK, I could hardly fit Scotland into the description of a dependent territory  as mentioned in conventions.  Its getting a lot more involved is it not ?  Indy ref, if it comes, is going to need a lot more than a yes/no answer.

[Roxy Hearts]

1 hour ago, strappingjock said:

Cards on Table

 

I am from Pollock but my accountant other half is English - I duck - she actually is a Budgie fan.  She was from Northumberland and day trips to Eyemouth were a norm. She  loved Scotland and has lived in Moray and Glasgow. Her mother was stationed in Gareloch in the war.  She was all for Scotland having its say in 2014 but all that has changed due to the constant banging by SNP about one topic.  She and her family ( me included) now refuse to buy anything Scottish. Lifetime of scotch replaced with Irish and even checks for the Saltire on goods to be sure not to buy them. Scottish banks and energy companies blacklisted ..............................................  no need to go further. And I have come to agree with her.  Its shaming. But before anyone derides me, I am surprised, and also dismayed, by the number of English people who take the same view.  It's easy to tell then to F O  but if we leave and and not in the EU will will be at their mercy.  Does anyone see Canada pissing off the USA ? No, and for good reason. If your neighbour has ten times your population you do not antagonise him.

 

The accountant has reminded me that Nicola has stated Scotland will take on its fair share of debt. Anyone know about the Equivalent ? In 1707 English debt was about £14M. Scotland was paid £400k ( the equivalent ) as compensation. That was 1/35 of total or 2.86%. Now Scots are about  8.5% of UK population so they will now have to take on that part of UK debt when they leave. However, that will need to be weighted as Scotland gets enhanced public money under Barnet, some 17% above UK average, so the 8.5% will have to become 9.94% to reflect the extra benefit Scotland obtains from the Union.

 

UK national debt in 2018 was £1.78 trillion. So Scotland would have to stump up between £151-177 billion or £18.21k for every single living person in the country. A whole year’s income plus a bit, or double the per-head-amount England gets every year. And all that under the thumb of the Bank of England.

 

It's not that Scotland cannot go it alone, its merely a question of how many starve to prove it. Obviously it will not be paid as a lump sum, but if you think we have suffered austerity in the past, "we aint seen nothin yet"

 

Enjoy.

 

Assets and Scotland has a share of the Bank of England(UK). Real politik will occur, if Westminster grow up and if Scotland becomes self governing. 

[David McCaig]

2 hours ago, strappingjock said:

Cards on Table

 

I am from Pollock but my accountant other half is English - I duck - she actually is a Budgie fan.  She was from Northumberland and day trips to Eyemouth were a norm. She  loved Scotland and has lived in Moray and Glasgow. Her mother was stationed in Gareloch in the war.  She was all for Scotland having its say in 2014 but all that has changed due to the constant banging by SNP about one topic.  She and her family ( me included) now refuse to buy anything Scottish. Lifetime of scotch replaced with Irish and even checks for the Saltire on goods to be sure not to buy them. Scottish banks and energy companies blacklisted ..............................................  no need to go further. And I have come to agree with her.  Its shaming. But before anyone derides me, I am surprised, and also dismayed, by the number of English people who take the same view.  It's easy to tell then to F O  but if we leave and and not in the EU will will be at their mercy.  Does anyone see Canada pissing off the USA ? No, and for good reason. If your neighbour has ten times your population you do not antagonise him.

 

The accountant has reminded me that Nicola has stated Scotland will take on its fair share of debt. Anyone know about the Equivalent ? In 1707 English debt was about £14M. Scotland was paid £400k ( the equivalent ) as compensation. That was 1/35 of total or 2.86%. Now Scots are about  8.5% of UK population so they will now have to take on that part of UK debt when they leave. However, that will need to be weighted as Scotland gets enhanced public money under Barnet, some 17% above UK average, so the 8.5% will have to become 9.94% to reflect the extra benefit Scotland obtains from the Union.

 

UK national debt in 2018 was £1.78 trillion. So Scotland would have to stump up between £151-177 billion or £18.21k for every single living person in the country. A whole year’s income plus a bit, or double the per-head-amount England gets every year. And all that under the thumb of the Bank of England.

 

It's not that Scotland cannot go it alone, its merely a question of how many starve to prove it. Obviously it will not be paid as a lump sum, but if you think we have suffered austerity in the past, "we aint seen nothin yet"

 

Enjoy.

 

 

Pollock!!!

 

You must have been away some number years if you've forgotten how to spell where you come from?

 

And if we have 9.94% of the debt, do we get 9.94% of the assets then?

Edited January 6, 2021 by David McCaig

[Francis Albert]

On 16/12/2020 at 12:34, John Findlay said:

I personally blame the individuals.

Their life choice. No government regardless of political persuasion to blame here. 

Personal responsibility here, or total lack of it.

 

 

Sorry just noticed the date of the post I replied to. It popped up for some reason. No doubt discussed at the time.

Edited January 6, 2021 by Francis Albert

[Justin Z]

1 hour ago, strappingjock said:

In other words, the headlong rush for indy is being done with absolutely zero thought for the actual mechanics and unintended consequences.

 

More whole cloth spun from who knows what (or where).

 

The rest of the post is heavy on jargon, light on fact. The fact is that the people of Scotland bear zero responsibility for a debt that was taken on while they had no independent, sovereign role in deciding that debt.

 

1 hour ago, strappingjock said:

Indy ref, if it comes, is going to need a lot more than a yes/no answer.

 

Some of the finest legal minds in Scotland worked on the referendum from the word ‘go’, including the wording of the ballot paper, and somehow they and their English counterparts agreed Yes/No was perfectly fine...

 

8 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

Pollock!!!

 

You must have been away some number years if you've forgotten how to spell where you come from?

...so forgive us if an internet poster who might only be playing at being a ‘jock’ has zero credibility.

 

8 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

And if we have 9.94% of the debt, do we get 9.94% of the assets then?

 

A highly relevant question, but union propagandists only paint it in one direction. Again, it's all up for negotiation.

 

If the starting point is that Scotland takes on 10% of the debt, then consistency dictates it likewise takes on 10% of the military, 10% of the rUK tax receipts for X number of years in transition, all sorts of things. It is far simpler, and indeed, rooted in international legal precedent, to start afresh, with any taking on of debt negotiated.

[XB52]

21 hours ago, strappingjock said:

jack D

 

No. Not a hearts fan. Just worried about my country. Rampant unthinking nationalism is always a concern.

 

People forget that Adolf was voted into power.

 

What sort of person signs on to a rival team's forum just to slag off the government? Taking loony Britnat to a whole new level 

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, strappingjock said:

Justin Z

 

If you look at the Geneva conventions, Scotland could not be a successor state unless the Queen is dropped as it has to be a SOVEREIGN successor state to qualify.  CANAUSNZ are out of scope as they became dominions so long ago they are not covered.  Scotland would also have to apply to be a member of the UN, never mind the EU, as a successor state. The more you dig, the more complicated it gets. It is not simply "Q - do you want independence from Westminster"  it is

 

Q1            do we leave UK 

Q2           Q1 answer is YES  do you agree to renounce the Crown

 

If either answer is NO then do nothing.

 

In other words, the headlong rush for indy is being done with absolutely zero thought for the actual mechanics and unintended consequences.  There is a lot of resentment in the Czech Republic and Slovakia that the people themselves were never asked if they wanted Czechoslovakia to be partitioned, or in Greece where they woke up one morning and found themselves in the eurozone without consultation.

 

I've said it before, be careful what you wish for, but in this case it might be more of "beware what you let SNP get away with".

 

If anyone is proposing Scotland could become independent and simply walk away from its obligations I would be even more ashamed to be a Scot. I am a bit woolly on some things like there being no specific definition of dependent territory. As a component part of the UK, I could hardly fit Scotland into the description of a dependent territory  as mentioned in conventions.  Its getting a lot more involved is it not ?  Indy ref, if it comes, is going to need a lot more than a yes/no answer.

This is like saying to a dominated housewife "you know you'll need to get a house and back account and pay rent and sign up for leccy and gas? Can you really do all that on your own? Best stay with your man hen"

 

We know there are logistics to be sorted but nothing you've said trumps the concept that Scotland's future and governance should be decided by the people of Scotland and no one else.

[Auld Reekin']

1 hour ago, XB52 said:

What sort of person signs on to a rival team's forum just to slag off the government? Taking loony Britnat to a whole new level 

 

That's if SJ is a football fan at all...