Jump to content

The fall of unionism.


Roxy Hearts

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

This isn't accurate. We've done it to death in another thread but I can dig it up if you really want me to. The basic legal gist is, Scotland hasn't had the sovereign power to create debt, therefore it's not responsible for debt. This is settled. The basic negotiating gist then becomes, Scotland can agree to take on some debt as a bargaining chip post-independence but has no obligation to do so.

 

We also looked at the white paper in some detail, and the newer Sustainable Growth Commission report and concluded neither goes as far as you claim when it comes to oil.

 

For what it's worth, I think you're bringing up reasonable concerns. I have gotten into it with indy supporters who aren't willing to answer legitimate concerns and just want to get abusive, because it not only does no favours to their cause, it actively harms the likelihood that what they want will come to pass.

 

Ok, so let's say Scotland factually has no debt (I'm not convinced as it's not like they don't make up part of the government).  Scotland walks away with no debt then. Nicola sticks her middle finger up to Westminster.

 

It's a bit moot really. Scotland wants to trade with England and Wales as it makes up something like 64% of their trade. Scotland wants a share of public buildings and real estate worth hundreds of millions. Scotland wants to use the pound. For me, Scotland absolutely needs their own currency in independence or they aren't truly independent (not the Euro!).

 

Scotland won't get any of this without taking a fair share of their rightful debt. EU membership won't happen overnight and even then it won't bring the same amount of trade that Scotland already has with England.

 

I'd love to see ideas that make sense. If Scotland breaks away I want it to be a success. Half of the answers seem to be "we'll leave Westminster behind and then give everything we took back to Brussels".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 369
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Space Mackerel

    43

  • Justin Z

    40

  • GinRummy

    40

  • IronJambo

    35

3 minutes ago, IronJambo said:

It's a bit moot really. Scotland wants to trade with England and Wales as it makes up something like 64% of their trade. Scotland wants a share of public buildings and real estate worth hundreds of millions. Scotland wants to use the pound. For me, Scotland absolutely needs their own currency in independence or they aren't truly independent (not the Euro!).

 

It's not moot at all. And a lot of countries peg their own currencies to those of other countries, because it makes economic sense for them to do so. They are then free to unpeg as makes economic sense. Far from an argument for or against "true independence", it is a red herring.

 

3 minutes ago, IronJambo said:

Scotland won't get any of this without taking a fair share of their rightful debt. EU membership won't happen overnight and even then it won't bring the same amount of trade that Scotland already has with England.

 

Because this will subsequently be negotiated. However, the point is, and continues to be, Scotland will be starting negotiations with zero debt. Any debt it chooses to incur it will do because it has negotiated to do so with conditions/concessions. This is a strong  bargaining position.

 

Furthermore, England rely heavily on Scottish imports. They will be incentivised to make such trade easy.

 

5 minutes ago, IronJambo said:

I'd love to see ideas that make sense. If Scotland breaks away I want it to be a success. Half of the answers seem to be "we'll leave Westminster behind and then give everything we took back to Brussels".

 

Your post is the first time I've ever seen such a sentiment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Mysterion said:

I have a feeling that English nationalism may end up with a press for a federal UK which will eventually result in eventual end of the Union. 

 

The rise of arrogance and general stupidity in the South will see a push to "let those Jocks get on with it" resulting in a change.

 

Good insight. Think this is a very real possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

It's not moot at all. And a lot of countries peg their own currencies to those of other countries, because it makes economic sense for them to do so. They are then free to unpeg as makes economic sense. Far from an argument for or against "true independence", it is a red herring.

 

 

Because this will subsequently be negotiated. However, the point is, and continues to be, Scotland will be starting negotiations with zero debt. Any debt it chooses to incur it will do because it has negotiated to do so with conditions/concessions. This is a strong  bargaining position.

 

Furthermore, England rely heavily on Scottish imports. They will be incentivised to make such trade easy.

 

 

Your post is the first time I've ever seen such a sentiment.

You can't just peg on and peg off. It's pointless being independent without your own currency and being unable to control the economy.

 

England has a tiny percentage of their trade with England which will be reflective in the population being around 12x the size.

 

I'm not sure where I've ever posted and made it look like I would want Scotland to fall on its knees. Being against independence doesn't mean I want it to fail should it happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Mysterion said:

I have a feeling that English nationalism may end up with a press for a federal UK which will eventually result in eventual end of the Union. 

 

The rise of arrogance and general stupidity in the South will see a push to "let those Jocks get on with it" resulting in a change.

I doubt it. Not many in England really pay much attention. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, IronJambo said:

You can't just peg on and peg off.

 

I wouldn't imagine Scotland would peg on and peg off repeatedly or willy nilly. It would peg for as long as it needed to, post-independence, for the sake of stability and to get a good, evidence- and data-driven picture of its financial situation, then peg off as the economies of the two countries continued to diverge and when the needs of the new Scottish economy dictated.

 

9 minutes ago, IronJambo said:

It's pointless being independent without your own currency and being unable to control the economy.

 

See above. The implication of this statement, that a Scotland which could control its own currency and economy would see significant benefits is a difficult one to escape indeed, so thanks for pointing it out.

 

9 minutes ago, IronJambo said:

England has a tiny percentage of their trade with England which will be reflective in the population being around 12x the size.

 

With Scotland, I assume you mean. This is just flat out wrong. Scottish exports to the rest of the UK amount to £50 billion from a total of around £80 billion, while its imports from the UK come to about £65 billion. Total UK international exports are £500 billion. Not a bad ratio for the Jocks considering that 12x difference in population. :smuggy:

 

Also when I said this:

 

21 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

Your post is the first time I've ever seen such a sentiment.

 

I was referring to this:

 

29 minutes ago, IronJambo said:

"we'll leave Westminster behind and then give everything we took back to Brussels".

 

I'd never seen this said anywhere except in your inverted commas attributing it to independence supporters.

 

Edited by Justin Z
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel
10 minutes ago, IronJambo said:

You can't just peg on and peg off. It's pointless being independent without your own currency and being unable to control the economy.

 

England has a tiny percentage of their trade with England which will be reflective in the population being around 12x the size.

 

I'm not sure where I've ever posted and made it look like I would want Scotland to fall on its knees. Being against independence doesn't mean I want it to fail should it happen.

 

New Zealand pegged to the US dollar for years before setting up its own NZ dollar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SpruceBringsteen
8 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

With Scotland, I assume you mean. This is just flat out wrong. Scottish exports to the rest of the UK amount to £50 billion from a total of around £80 billion, while its imports from the UK come to about £65 billion. Total UK international exports are £500 billion. Not a bad ratio for the Jocks considering that 12x difference in population. :smuggy:

 

It goes without saying that trade talks between an independent Scotland and the then rUK should be essential and extremely cordial, but it's - at best - utterly foolish to believe that the lads down south somehow hold all of the cards given how much water and electricity is imported to them from north of the border. We're not pitching "please buy our Fair Isle jumpers and shortbread" here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SpruceBringsteen said:

 

It goes without saying that trade talks between an independent Scotland and the then rUK should be essential and extremely cordial, but it's - at best - utterly foolish to believe that the lads down south somehow hold all of the cards given how much water and electricity is imported to them from north of the border. We're not pitching "please buy our Fair Isle jumpers and shortbread" here.

 

Exactly. I have never seen the strength of the Scottish bargaining position overstated on this forum. I have on numerous occasions seen the English one vastly overinflated, without any concrete reason or evidence; taken for granted as fact, "just so".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jack D and coke
1 hour ago, Mysterion said:

I have a feeling that English nationalism may end up with a press for a federal UK which will eventually result in eventual end of the Union. 

 

The rise of arrogance and general stupidity in the South will see a push to "let those Jocks get on with it" resulting in a change.

I’ve thought it for a long time. Scotland will get its independence when England decides. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

I’ve thought it for a long time. Scotland will get its independence when England decides. 

 

If they concede the need for federalism, the effectively concede the existence of the Union. And very quickly.

Edited by jambogaza
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

I wouldn't imagine Scotland would peg on and peg off repeatedly or willy nilly. It would peg for as long as it needed to, post-independence, for the sake of stability and to get a good, evidence- and data-driven picture of its financial situation, then peg off as the economies of the two countries continued to diverge and when the needs of the new Scottish economy dictated.

 

 

See above. The implication of this statement, that a Scotland which could control its own currency and economy would see significant benefits is a difficult one to escape indeed, so thanks for pointing it out.

 

 

With Scotland, I assume you mean. This is just flat out wrong. Scottish exports to the rest of the UK amount to £50 billion from a total of around £80 billion, while its imports from the UK come to about £65 billion. Total UK international exports are £500 billion. Not a bad ratio for the Jocks considering that 12x difference in population. :smuggy:

 

Also when I said this:

 

 

I was referring to this:

 

 

I'd never seen this said anywhere except in your inverted commas attributing it to independence supporters.

 

You have your exports and imports back to front. England buys £50b from Scotland, Scotland buys £65b from rUK.

The question is why Scotland buys so much, yet rUK buys so little. 

Sorry, my bad, read it wrong.

 

£11000 per head from Scotland with Under £1000 coming the other way. Now does that seem fair. Double sales somewhere. 

Edited by ri Alban
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

I wouldn't imagine Scotland would peg on and peg off repeatedly or willy nilly. It would peg for as long as it needed to, post-independence, for the sake of stability and to get a good, evidence- and data-driven picture of its financial situation, then peg off as the economies of the two countries continued to diverge and when the needs of the new Scottish economy dictated.

 

 

See above. The implication of this statement, that a Scotland which could control its own currency and economy would see significant benefits is a difficult one to escape indeed, so thanks for pointing it out.

 

 

With Scotland, I assume you mean. This is just flat out wrong. Scottish exports to the rest of the UK amount to £50 billion from a total of around £80 billion, while its imports from the UK come to about £65 billion. Total UK international exports are £500 billion. Not a bad ratio for the Jocks considering that 12x difference in population. :smuggy:

Erm. Scotland selling £50b out of £80b to England/Wales is in the ballpark of the percentage I suggested. England/Wales selling a whole £65b out of £420m to Scotland is insignificant in comparison.

Quote

Also when I said this:

 

 

I was referring to this:

 

 

I'd never seen this said anywhere except in your inverted commas attributing it to independence supporters.

 

The rhetoric is that Scotland will join the EU. Somehow avoid the Euro. Inevitably, Scotland would probably give up more than they took back from Westminster. Brussels would soon become the new baddie.

Edited by IronJambo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IronJambo said:

Erm. Scotland selling £50b out of £80b to England/Wales is in the ballpark of the percentage I suggested. England/Wales selling a whole £65b out of £420m to Scotland is insignificant in comparison.

 

Ah okay, so just a dolled up version of the "too wee" refrain. I was operating under the assumption you were attempting to look at this with a bit more complexity and nuance than that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pasquale for King
1 hour ago, Justin Z said:

 

This isn't accurate. We've done it to death in another thread but I can dig it up if you really want me to. The basic legal gist is, Scotland hasn't had the sovereign power to create debt, therefore it's not responsible for debt. This is settled. The basic negotiating gist then becomes, Scotland can agree to take on some debt as a bargaining chip post-independence but has no obligation to do so.

 

We also looked at the white paper in some detail, and the newer Sustainable Growth Commission report and concluded neither goes as far as you claim when it comes to oil.

 

For what it's worth, I think you're bringing up reasonable concerns. I have gotten into it with indy supporters who aren't willing to answer legitimate concerns and just want to get abusive, because it not only does no favours to their cause, it actively harms the likelihood that what they want will come to pass.

 

Well said. Cue the ill informed MSM reading economists trot out the same old nonsense that’s been debunked many times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Justin Z said:

 

Ah okay, so just a dolled up version of the "too wee" refrain. I was operating under the assumption you were attempting to look at this with a bit more complexity and nuance than that.

 

I'm pragmatic. Scotland would miss £50b out of £80b than the other side would miss £65b of £420b surely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, IronJambo said:

I'm pragmatic. Scotland would miss £50b out of £80b than the other side would miss £65b of £420b surely?

Add it to the £300b from Europe, then what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel
13 minutes ago, IronJambo said:

Erm. Scotland selling £50b out of £80b to England/Wales is in the ballpark of the percentage I suggested. England/Wales selling a whole £65b out of £420m to Scotland is insignificant in comparison.

The rhetoric is that Scotland will join the EU. Somehow avoid the Euro. Inevitably, Scotland would probably give up more than they took back from Westminster. Brussels would soon become the new baddie.

 

You can be in the EU and not use the Euro. Take the UK, you know, for example. I can't see any Euro's in my pocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IronJambo said:

I'm pragmatic.

 

Perhaps. But to call 15% "insignificant", even without taking into account the context of all of this, strikes me as less "pragmatic" and more "committed to holding onto my preconceived notions".

 

4 minutes ago, IronJambo said:

Scotland would miss £50b out of £80b than the other side would miss £65b of £420b surely?

 

28 minutes ago, SpruceBringsteen said:

 

It goes without saying that trade talks between an independent Scotland and the then rUK should be essential and extremely cordial, but it's - at best - utterly foolish to believe that the lads down south somehow hold all of the cards given how much water and electricity is imported to them from north of the border. We're not pitching "please buy our Fair Isle jumpers and shortbread" here.

 

Pragmatism involves taking into account relative value of trade and the nature of the traded goods, as Spruce has mentioned here. Scotland's natural resources--particularly its water--are vital to the rest of the UK. Colman's mustard? Eh, not so much.

 

15 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

£11000 per head from Scotland with Under £1000 coming the other way. Now does that seem fair. Double sales somewhere. 

 

Pragmatism also involves looking at things in context and proportion, rather than just at raw numbers. ri Alban may be clearly on one side of this debate, but he has the right idea in breaking these numbers down and getting at what they really mean, what their impact per head of population is, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JackLadd said:

Aye2 is totally dead in the water. Somebody has been sniffing melted plastic. 

Said plastic will take the form of the inside of your nose, Jack. Just some friendly advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

You can be in the EU and not use the Euro. Take the UK, you know, for example. I can't see any Euro's in my pocket.

I'm not sure you can. I don't recall there being a single currency when we joined the EU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, jambogaza said:

 

If they concede the need for federalism, the effectively concede the existence of the Union. And very quickly.

Conceding federalism only concedes that the UK is currently dominated by England. Federalism could be the solution to keeping the UK, but the consequences to the current political system are unpalatable to both the Tories and Labour. 

 

Union of equals? Do me a favour...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Perhaps. But to call 15% "insignificant", even without taking into account the context of all of this, strikes me as less "pragmatic" and more "committed to holding onto my preconceived notions".

 

I'd be more worried about losing 60% of trade than the guy that was losing 15%

 

Pragmatism involves taking into account relative value of trade and the nature of the traded goods, as Spruce has mentioned here. Scotland's natural resources--particularly its water--are vital to the rest of the UK. Colman's mustard? Eh, not so much.

Aye, we've goat water ye ken.

 

Pragmatism also involves looking at things in context and proportion, rather than just at raw numbers. ri Alban may be clearly on one side of this debate, but he has the right idea in breaking these numbers down and getting at what they really mean, what their impact per head of population is, etc.

Yep. 60% versus 15%. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, IronJambo said:

I'd be more worried about losing 60% of trade than the guy that was losing 15%

 

Forgive me then if when I am dictator that I don't choose you for my Scottish Indy negotiation team. :thumbsup:

 

  

10 minutes ago, IronJambo said:

Aye, we've goat water ye ken.

 

Also this is just silly, being dismissive like this. I come from a desert and literally studied water law in two different classes in law school, while my dad spent the better part of a 35+ year legal career litigating on water regulation. You taking it for granted, and even mocking the idea that it's extremely important as a fundamental resource--far more than the likes of manufactured goods--really only demonstrates your ignorance of the big picture. This attitude also would seem to indicate you're not actually here to learn anything, contrary to what you've been saying about having "concerns" you'd like "addressed", and that's disappointing.

 

Edited by Justin Z
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, IronJambo said:

Yep. 60% versus 15%. 

You're missing the point, either Scottish imports are too high or exports are too low.

Going by exports to rUK, Scottish imports from rUK should be about between £4.5/£6b. Why exactly are we spending so much on rUK? I'm pretty sure we could get or produce the products cheaper post independence, or exports should be £600b. What do u think. Something is quite right about Scotland spending so much.

Oh and can you give me your thoughts about the lost EU exports plus Scottish exports for rUK. Or is only Scotland who can't realign themselves post independence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Forgive me then if when I am dictator that I don't choose you for my Scottish Indy negotiation team. :thumbsup:

 

  

 

Also this is just silly, being dismissive like this. I come from a desert and literally studied water law in two different classes in law school, while my dad spent the better part of a 35+ year legal career litigating on water regulation. You taking it for granted, and even mocking the idea that it's extremely important as a fundamental resource--far more than the likes of manufactured goods--really only demonstrates your ignorance of the big picture. This attitude also would seem to indicate you're not actually here to learn anything, contrary to what you've been saying about having "concerns" you'd like "addressed", and that's disappointing.

 

I think he forgets that England and Wales are growing population wise and their water supply is already short and needs Scotland's water, which has hunners, we also have hunners of wind and waves and oil and gas and others of hunners. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, IronJambo said:

I'm not sure you can. I don't recall there being a single currency when we joined the EU.

You are showing your ignorance of the rules then. Go and read up on the facts or just go onto another incorrect argument, up to you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, XB52 said:

You are showing your ignorance of the rules then. Go and read up on the facts or just go onto another incorrect argument, up to you

I said I wasn't sure. That meant I didn't know for sure. There was no Euro when we joined the EU so space mackerels point was invalid. Are all new EU members not also joining the Euro though? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Forgive me then if when I am dictator that I don't choose you for my Scottish Indy negotiation team. :thumbsup:

 

  

 

Also this is just silly, being dismissive like this. I come from a desert and literally studied water law in two different classes in law school, while my dad spent the better part of a 35+ year legal career litigating on water regulation. You taking it for granted, and even mocking the idea that it's extremely important as a fundamental resource--far more than the likes of manufactured goods--really only demonstrates your ignorance of the big picture. This attitude also would seem to indicate you're not actually here to learn anything, contrary to what you've been saying about having "concerns" you'd like "addressed", and that's disappointing.

 

I really want to know a real currency plan, and why people think Scotland would be economically better off independent. That's what I question. That, and why the big bad monster of Westminster is worse than that of Brussels.

 

I'd quite like the benefit of dual citizenship with an EU passport without having to live in the EU. 

 

Edit: not at the cost of Scotland's downfall though.

Edited by IronJambo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IronJambo said:

why the big bad monster of Westminster is worse than that of Brussels.

 

This one is piss easy. It's because Westminster currently holds 100% of the sovereign power over Scotland. Yes, it has devolved some to Holyrood, but tomorrow it could decide to take all of it back on a whim and a single majority vote and there's not a damn thing anyone could do about it. It is already showing designs on doing exactly that, but even if it didn't, the constitutional order that's supposed to devolve real power is irreparably broken. We have discussed this extensively here too, and I've even written a master's level paper about it.

 

The EU has nowhere near that much power. It's not even the beginning of a comparison. You've gone on about "insignificant" imports and exports, and yet . . . the comparison of the power of each would be properly described by all the words of this sentence (Westminster) versus the full stop at the end of it (EU).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nucky Thompson
1 hour ago, Hunky Dory said:

 

You support a party that choose a leader who can't/won't confirm how many children he has.

At least his advances were welcome. As far as I can see he hasn't been labeled a sleazy sex pest 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

East Lothian Jambo
17 minutes ago, Nucky Thompson said:

At least his advances were welcome. As far as I can see he hasn't been labeled a sleazy sex pest 

Boris presumably allowed to work alone with women 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

This one is piss easy. It's because Westminster currently holds 100% of the sovereign power over Scotland. Yes, it has devolved some to Holyrood, but tomorrow it could decide to take all of it back on a whim and a single majority vote and there's not a damn thing anyone could do about it. It is already showing designs on doing exactly that, but even if it didn't, the constitutional order that's supposed to devolve real power is irreparably broken. We have discussed this extensively here too, and I've even written a master's level paper about it.

 

The EU has nowhere near that much power. It's not even the beginning of a comparison. You've gone on about "insignificant" imports and exports, and yet . . . the comparison of the power of each would be properly described by all the words of this sentence (Westminster) versus the full stop at the end of it (EU).

I doubt Westminster would ever try to take back the devolved powers, that would be insane.

 

Nicola currently blames all her failings on Westminster, do you think she'd stand up to be counted after independence or would she be more likely to blame Brussels? 

 

Westminster clearly has more power over Scotland than Brussels would. Although Brussels policy can be very damaging with its one size fits all rhetoric. Brussels power is also growing, which I find quite disturbing. I see it evolving into a United States of Europe type model and it's an ugly picture. It'll only benefit the richest of countries and trod the poorer ones further into the ground. I'll be honest, I'm not interested in being part of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IronJambo said:

I doubt Westminster would ever try to take back the devolved powers, that would be insane.

 

A lot of things I would've considered insane even one year ago now seem entirely within the realm of possibility with these ever more fascism-minded governments all around, and especially on both sides of the pond.

 

4 minutes ago, IronJambo said:

Nicola currently blames all her failings on Westminster, do you think she'd stand up to be counted after independence or would she be more likely to blame Brussels?

 

I don't consider this a fair characterisation.

 

5 minutes ago, IronJambo said:

Westminster clearly has more power over Scotland than Brussels would. Although Brussels policy can be very damaging with its one size fits all rhetoric. Brussels power is also growing, which I find quite disturbing. I see it evolving into a United States of Europe type model and it's an ugly picture. It'll only benefit the richest of countries and trod the poorer ones further into the ground. I'll be honest, I'm not interested in being part of that.

 

Agree with a lot of this--I am also euroskeptical for a lot reasons. Then again, it's a matter to be debated and voted on in an independent Scotland. It's neither a foregone conclusion nor a necessary consequence of independence, so as a result, it's a bit of a sideline in this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel
1 hour ago, Nucky Thompson said:

At least his advances were welcome. As far as I can see he hasn't been labeled a sleazy sex pest 


Have you asked his ex wife? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was born in London but moved to Wales when I was a toddler so have no memory of it. I left Wales at 17 and have lived in Edinburgh since. I've never felt English or Scottish. Always classed meself as Welsh and the Union/Britain doesn't really mean anything to me. Quite happily move abroad and wouldn't miss UK. I envy The Scots I know their bagpipes, haggis, whisky and tartan and stuff though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pasquale for King
1 hour ago, IronJambo said:

I said I wasn't sure. That meant I didn't know for sure. There was no Euro when we joined the EU so space mackerels point was invalid. Are all new EU members not also joining the Euro though? 

Nope, Poland joined in 2005 and still use the Zloty, you have to promise to join at a later date. Next myth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

Nope, Poland joined in 2005 and still use the Zloty, you have to promise to join at a later date. Next myth?

It's not a myth if you have to promise to join it 🤣 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pasquale for King
2 minutes ago, IronJambo said:

It's not a myth if you have to promise to join it 🤣 

You said have to join it, there’s a difference in promising and actually doing something . Ask BJ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nucky Thompson
31 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

Couldn't give a flying duck what you think. It's a fact that the SNP have more seats in Westminster than all the Scots unionists put together and are in charge in Holyrood and have been for years. 

:rofl:What good are their seats in Westminster when they are have less clout now than they did before the GE.

Fat hibby Blackford and Cherry look raging now that they can stop the government passing through any legislation that they want.

In fact Cherry now wants to scuttle back to Holyrood with her tail between her legs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pasquale for King
5 minutes ago, Hunky Dory said:

 

He's a solid citizen, bar the affairs, divorces, unknown numbers of love-children, lies, and groping allegations.

 

Not to forget:

 

Earlier this year, on June. 21, neighbours called police to the home of Boris Johnson and his partner, Carrie Symonds, after they heard screaming, shouting and banging. A neighbour alleged that they heard Symonds telling Johnson to “get off me” and “get out of my flat”

He lived there, he doesn’t even own a house of his own?!?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

You said have to join it, there’s a difference in promising and actually doing something . Ask BJ.

I didn't state you have to join it. I thought you possibly did but didn't state that you do. I thought my posts made that clear. 

It seems my thoughts were half correct. 

 

It's the wrong time to be joining the the EU in any case and even having to promise to take the Euro is as big a reason as any to run in the opposite direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pasquale for King
Just now, IronJambo said:

I didn't state you have to join it. I thought you possibly did but didn't state that you do. I thought my posts made that clear. 

It seems my thoughts were half correct. 

 

It's the wrong time to be joining the the EU in any case and even having to promise to take the Euro is as big a reason as any to run in the opposite direction.

The next referendum won’t be run on joining the EU, that is a different question altogether. Once again, the SNP position is not that of the movement en masse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

The next referendum won’t be run on joining the EU, that is a different question altogether. Once again, the SNP position is not that of the movement en masse. 

Joining the EU has to be a big part of an indy ref campaign. Leaving the EU is the excuse that's being used for Independence being Nicola's every other word. They can't gain independence and not try and join the EU immediately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, IronJambo said:

Joining the EU has to be a big part of an indy ref campaign. Leaving the EU is the excuse that's being used for Independence being Nicola's every other word. They can't gain independence and not try and join the EU immediately.

 

Think that's right, but she's been careful to always couch it in terms of democratic will--that Scotland's was not respected. Accordingly, putting it to a vote would be absolutely fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pasquale for King
1 minute ago, IronJambo said:

Joining the EU has to be a big part of an indy ref campaign. Leaving the EU is the excuse that's being used for Independence being Nicola's every other word. They can't gain independence and not try and join the EU immediately.

It’s being used as a reason not an excuse, a material change in circumstances. It will obviously be inferred that if the SNP are in charge after independence that they will try to get Scotland readmitted. The focus has to be on independence first and foremost, making our own decisions, one of which is whether we want to ask to be rejoin the EU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Think that's right, but she's been careful to always couch it in terms of democratic will--that Scotland's was not respected. Accordingly, putting it to a vote would be absolutely fine.

Scotland's will was not respected?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roxy Hearts
39 minutes ago, Nucky Thompson said:

:rofl:What good are their seats in Westminster when they are have less clout now than they did before the GE.

Fat hibby Blackford and Cherry look raging now that they can stop the government passing through any legislation that they want.

In fact Cherry now wants to scuttle back to Holyrood with her tail between her legs

It means people aren't voting as much for the unionists, hence my OP. SNP have obliterated Labour. Tories are a different challenge as they have the weight of the media behind them. They are also getting the hard core unionist vote and a mix of others, shall we say. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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




×
×
  • Create New...