Jump to content

Scottish Referendum thread ( Merged )


Zlatanable

Recommended Posts

NANOJAMBO
1 hour ago, JackLadd said:

 

Does a £14bn deficit sound like drivel to you, nano brain?

Good night , bud.

I'm not getting provoked into your nonsense. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Ainsley Harriott

    118

  • Pans Jambo

    99

  • Justin Z

    78

  • manaliveits105

    72

NANOJAMBO
5 hours ago, JackLadd said:

Sadly it's time to take the power back, Boris. If you don't it will be neverendums till the wretched SNP destroy Scotland and the Union. 1999 was a mistake even worse than joining the then EEC in 1973. Take the power back!

*****************************

But it was OK to have a 2016 referendum on brexit when the UK had already stated its intentions on EU membership IN 1975 ? 

 

That kind of "neverendum" ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusk_Till_Dawn
Just now, NANOJAMBO said:
5 hours ago, JackLadd said:

Sadly it's time to take the power back, Boris. If you don't it will be neverendums till the wretched SNP destroy Scotland and the Union. 1999 was a mistake even worse than joining the then EEC in 1973. Take the power back!

*****************************

But it was OK to have a 2016 referendum on brexit when the UK had already stated its intentions on EU membership IN 1975 ? 

 

That kind of "neverendum" ? 


Tbf, 1975 is almost 50 years ago. The Ned waited for about two before banging the drum for another Scottish ref

Link to post
Share on other sites
NANOJAMBO
1 hour ago, JackLadd said:

 

You think servicing a 200bn share of national debt and current deficit of 14bn is not debt?  :cornette_dog:

 

Good luck meeting the payments with no central bank and credit rating. Maybe the snp could go to Wonga?

On what basis would Scotland take on the UK's national debts (as a share) ? 

Where does that come from ? What legal instrument/convention says this is so ?

Or is this just your assumption ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
NANOJAMBO
16 minutes ago, jambos are go! said:

I am a ardent Unionist but want another Referendum to settle the issue. Don't be fooled the SNP  will welcome any device to avoid a second/final referendum that they might not win.

Even better if they can foster grievance politics till they think the time is right. 

Re my post just a few minutes ago : UK had a 1975 referendum on EU membership  but brexiters didn't like the outcome so had another one in 2016.

SO it's already been established  in principle, it's fine to have referendums until you get what you want ? No ? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
NANOJAMBO
1 hour ago, JackLadd said:

 

That annual 14bn deficit will double when Scotland is wrested from its 52bn annual trading partner. I can tell you that. That's aside from the start up costs, likely flight of people and money over the border.  The taxation base will reduce significantly in my opinion and whatever intermediate currency the snp put in place before they meet eu entry criteria will weaken instantly against sterling. 

The rich put their money offshore decades ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Konrad von Carstein
7 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:


Tbf, 1975 is almost 50 years ago. The Ned waited for about two before banging the drum for another Scottish ref

 

Jesus H Christ...

 

:jj_facepalm:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusk_Till_Dawn
2 minutes ago, Konrad von Carstein said:

 

Jesus H Christ...

 

:jj_facepalm:


Say what you see Roy

Edited by Dusk_Till_Dawn
Link to post
Share on other sites
Konrad von Carstein
3 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:


Say what you see Roy

 

:lol: 

 

Well played...

Link to post
Share on other sites
NANOJAMBO
10 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:


Tbf, 1975 is almost 50 years ago. The Ned waited for about two before banging the drum for another Scottish ref

So what ? 

The principle has been established - referendums can be changed , peoples opinions can change over time, fundamental political changes can happen  ? But not in Scotland ? Who gets to pick & chose ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusk_Till_Dawn
6 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

So what ? 

The principle has been established - referendums can be changed , peoples opinions can change over time, fundamental political changes can happen  ? But not in Scotland ? Who gets to pick & chose ? 


No-one gets to decide but two years is basically looking for the first excuse

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maroon Sailor
1 minute ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:


No-one gets to decide but two years is basically looking for the first excuse

 

First thing she did was fly to Brussels to beg for them to keep a light on for Scotland.

 

She's an embarrassment at times

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusk_Till_Dawn
1 minute ago, Maroon Sailor said:

 

First thing she did was fly to Brussels to beg for them to keep a light on for Scotland.

 

She's an embarrassment at times


As we’ll discover shortly, she has no career or purpose outside of this. A lot of empty years ahead of her

Link to post
Share on other sites
NANOJAMBO
2 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:


No-one gets to decide but two years is basically looking for the first excuse

Well someone gets to pick & chose because it's one rule for the UK (and the question of EU membership) and the facts are there : the UK voted to stay in the EU and then changed their minds via two referendums. But you're obviously not going to acknowledge that because it's so uncomfortable for you. 

There's no legal timeframe for 2nd referendums  : that's a fact. 

 

The two years you mention has nothing to do with Scottish indy and everything to do with what the Scottish electorate was told (better together, vote for the union to stay in the EU).

That's another uncomfortable truth for unionists. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
jack D and coke
2 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:


As we’ll discover shortly, she has no career or purpose outside of this. A lot of empty years ahead of her

Well you can’t say she’ll get make money out it or titles, a peerage and probably contracts from the British government going forward. 
Davidson et all will be looked after. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
NANOJAMBO
6 minutes ago, Maroon Sailor said:

 

First thing she did was fly to Brussels to beg for them to keep a light on for Scotland.

 

She's an embarrassment at times

Your deliberately misquoting a speech by a Scottish MEP in Brussels that had nothing to do with NS.

 

PS I'm not a fan of NS or the SNP. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
NANOJAMBO
7 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:


As we’ll discover shortly, she has no career or purpose outside of this. A lot of empty years ahead of her

So what ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maroon Sailor
Just now, NANOJAMBO said:

Your deliberately misquoting a speech by a Scottish MEP in Brussels that had nothing to do with NS.

 

PS I'm not a fan of NS or the SNP. 

 

No I'm not

 

That's what she did after the Brexit result was announced

Link to post
Share on other sites
NANOJAMBO
Just now, Maroon Sailor said:

 

No I'm not

 

That's what she did after the Brexit result was announced

You are.

 

"Keep the lights on" speech was made by a Scottish MEP , it had nothing to do with NS. She wasn't even there when he made it. 

Do some research. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maroon Sailor
Just now, NANOJAMBO said:

You are.

 

"Keep the lights on" speech was made by a Scottish MEP , it had nothing to do with NS. She wasn't even there when he made it. 

Do some research. 

 

That might be the case ref that quip but she was over to Brussels and up Barnier's arse as soon as she could. That's the point I was trying to make

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Maroon Sailor said:

 

First thing she did was fly to Brussels to beg for them to keep a light on for Scotland.

 

She's an embarrassment at times

 

1 hour ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:


Tbf, 1975 is almost 50 years ago. The Ned waited for about two before banging the drum for another Scottish ref

 

I don't get this argument at all. I'm no lover of Nicola (for reasons entirely different to yours I'd think)

 

But she was doing exactly what I (and many many others) voted for her to do.

 

I'm not about to criticise her for that. It's what she was mandated to do. That's how it works 🤷‍♂️

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusk_Till_Dawn
26 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Well someone gets to pick & chose because it's one rule for the UK (and the question of EU membership) and the facts are there : the UK voted to stay in the EU and then changed their minds via two referendums. But you're obviously not going to acknowledge that because it's so uncomfortable for you. 

There's no legal timeframe for 2nd referendums  : that's a fact. 

 

The two years you mention has nothing to do with Scottish indy and everything to do with what the Scottish electorate was told (better together, vote for the union to stay in the EU).

That's another uncomfortable truth for unionists. 

 

 

 


I’m not saying you can’t have another referendum :rofl:I’m just saying that the Brexit one waited for 50 years. No comparison whatsoever. What percentage of the population who voted in 2016 were eligible to vote in 1975?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusk_Till_Dawn
2 minutes ago, Alan_R said:

 

 

I don't get this argument at all. I'm no lover of Nicola (for reasons entirely different to yours I'd think)

 

But she was doing exactly what I (and many many others) voted for her to do.

 

I'm not about to criticise her for that. It's what she was mandated to do. That's how it works 🤷‍♂️


I’m not so sure. If I lived in Scotland I’d probably vote SNP because of the state of the other parties. But that doesn’t mean I support independence. She likes to make that assumption because it suits her agenda*
 

*although one thing I am noticing is a lot of people (Indy supporters) who aren’t convinced that she actually wants to push independence through 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:


I’m not so sure. If I lived in Scotland I’d probably vote SNP because of the state of the other parties. But that doesn’t mean I support independence. She likes to make that assumption because it suits her agenda*
 

*although one thing I am noticing is a lot of people (Indy supporters) who aren’t convinced that she actually wants to push independence through 

 

She's been kicking the can down the road for 4 years. With apparently very little ground work.

 

Whatever people's opinions about Brexit, that was a real opportunity to hammer home Westminster going against scotlands wishes. There was a real opportunity for a strong campaign there that wasn't really capitalised on.

 

I guess I'd be the opposite of you, I'm (obviously) pro indy and they are really the only show in town. 

 

They do considerably better than the other major parties, generally I'm not unhappy with their politics. Don't fully trust any politician or party but they mostly do a good job (especially in comparison to other options).

Link to post
Share on other sites
NANOJAMBO
13 minutes ago, Alan_R said:

 

 

I don't get this argument at all. I'm no lover of Nicola (for reasons entirely different to yours I'd think)

 

But she was doing exactly what I (and many many others) voted for her to do.

 

I'm not about to criticise her for that. It's what she was mandated to do. That's how it works 🤷‍♂️

Unionists  tell Scottish electorate  to vote for the union in order to stay in the EU - and did so.

Scottish first minister gets pelters from same unionists for  strengthening potential future relationship with EU after same unionists take Scotland out of EU membership. 

Fours legs good etc. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maroon Sailor
18 minutes ago, Alan_R said:

 

 

I don't get this argument at all. I'm no lover of Nicola (for reasons entirely different to yours I'd think)

 

But she was doing exactly what I (and many many others) voted for her to do.

 

I'm not about to criticise her for that. It's what she was mandated to do. That's how it works 🤷‍♂️

 

No she wasn't

 

Brexit was a UK vote

Link to post
Share on other sites
NANOJAMBO
16 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:


I’m not saying you can’t have another referendum :rofl:I’m just saying that the Brexit one waited for 50 years. No comparison whatsoever. What percentage of the population who voted in 2016 were eligible to vote in 1975?

That's the message for Scotland ; no 2nd ref. :rofl:

What happened over 50 years to justify the 2nd referendum on EU membership ? 

Or is it simply OK to have a 2nd ref after 50 years ? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
NANOJAMBO
2 minutes ago, Maroon Sailor said:

 

No she wasn't

 

Brexit was a UK vote

She represents Scotland and she was speaking for Scotland, representing Scotland's interests - the same Scotland that was told to vote for the union in order to maintain its EU membership.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusk_Till_Dawn
6 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

That's the message for Scotland ; no 2nd ref. :rofl:

What happened over 50 years to justify the 2nd referendum on EU membership ? 

Or is it simply OK to have a 2nd ref after 50 years ? 

 


It was your boys and girls who coined the once in a lifetime slogan

Link to post
Share on other sites
NANOJAMBO
1 minute ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:


It was your boys and girls who coined the once in a lifetime slogan

You're not reading this too well .

Once again , I am no fan of NS or the SNp so they're not my boys.

 

And once again, 

What happened over 50 years to justify the 2nd referendum on EU membership ? 

Or is it simply OK to have a 2nd ref after 50 years ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maroon Sailor
Just now, NANOJAMBO said:

She represents Scotland and she was speaking for Scotland, representing Scotland's interests - the same Scotland that was told to vote for the union in order to maintain its EU membership.

 

The UK voted to leave the EU

Link to post
Share on other sites
NANOJAMBO
Just now, Maroon Sailor said:

 

The UK voted to leave the EU

Night ,  night bud.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusk_Till_Dawn
1 minute ago, NANOJAMBO said:

You're not reading this too well .

Once again , I am no fan of NS or the SNp so they're not my boys.

 

And once again, 

What happened over 50 years to justify the 2nd referendum on EU membership ? 

Or is it simply OK to have a 2nd ref after 50 years ? 


I think once in a generation seems reasonable. Then the electorate has changed significantly. You’re not asking exactly the same people exactly the same question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
NANOJAMBO
2 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:


I think once in a generation seems reasonable. Then the electorate has changed significantly. You’re not asking exactly the same people exactly the same question.

What's the definition of a "generation" ? 

And why is that reasonable - eg circumstances/public opinion  only change after a generation ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusk_Till_Dawn
2 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

What's the definition of a "generation" ? 

And why is that reasonable - eg circumstances/public opinion  only change after a generation ? 


Just have one every day man, I don’t even live there

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maroon Sailor
1 minute ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Night ,  night bud.

 

 

Are you saying a UK vote should only count if Scotland are satisfied with the outcome?

Link to post
Share on other sites
NANOJAMBO
3 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:


Just have one every day man, I don’t even live there

:rofl:

 

So we're done then ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
NANOJAMBO
3 minutes ago, Maroon Sailor said:

 

Are you saying a UK vote should only count if Scotland are satisfied with the outcome?

I'm saying I'm not wasting any more time on someone with your level of debating skills. 

 

Night, night. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Justin Z

@NANOJAMBO Here is a good article tangentially related to what you were asking about, the share of debt question. But it deals more with the silly claims that Scotland couldn't survive without subsidy from the UK. The reality is the opposite—the UK is a drag on the Scottish economy.

 

The most incisive couple of points:

 

If being a part of the UK offered Scotland some form of economic advantage, how come other smaller independent nations in Europe who don't possess Scotland's natural wealth and economic advantages have economics that out perform not just Scotland, but the UK as a whole on a per head basis?

 

Scotland's economy (its GDP) over the last few years has averaged around £32,000 per head. To put that into context, that's larger than the per capita economy of wealthy independent nations such as France, Spain, Italy, even Japan, and our revenues, although downplayed by Westminster accounting practices, are more than enough to run a successful nation.

 

Link

 

I fully expect this sort of data and analysis to be ignored by the usual suspects, but hopefully undecided lurkers will gain some valuable insights.

 

Scotland's economy, when benchmarked against similar-sized independent nations, paints a vivid but miserable picture of the impact of Westminster's continued economic mismanagement. Scotland as part of the UK suffers from that lost opportunity, but still managed to economically out-perform the UK on a per head basis for 38 years—despite the Westminster cooking-the-books.
. . .
Scotland's chance to become a wealthier nation sits with independence and not with staying tied to the self-destructing UK economy, and a disastrous Brexit that we didn't vote for.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusk_Till_Dawn
17 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

@NANOJAMBO Here is a good article tangentially related to what you were asking about, the share of debt question. But it deals more with the silly claims that Scotland couldn't survive without subsidy from the UK. The reality is the opposite—the UK is a drag on the Scottish economy.

 

The most incisive couple of points:

 

If being a part of the UK offered Scotland some form of economic advantage, how come other smaller independent nations in Europe who don't possess Scotland's natural wealth and economic advantages have economics that out perform not just Scotland, but the UK as a whole on a per head basis?

 

Scotland's economy (its GDP) over the last few years has averaged around £32,000 per head. To put that into context, that's larger than the per capita economy of wealthy independent nations such as France, Spain, Italy, even Japan, and our revenues, although downplayed by Westminster accounting practices, are more than enough to run a successful nation.

 

Link

 

I fully expect this sort of data and analysis to be ignored by the usual suspects, but hopefully undecided lurkers will gain some valuable insights.

 

Scotland's economy, when benchmarked against similar-sized independent nations, paints a vivid but miserable picture of the impact of Westminster's continued economic mismanagement. Scotland as part of the UK suffers from that lost opportunity, but still managed to economically out-perform the UK on a per head basis for 38 years—despite the Westminster cooking-the-books.
. . .
Scotland's chance to become a wealthier nation sits with independence and not with staying tied to the self-destructing UK economy, and a disastrous Brexit that we didn't vote for.

 

 


You won’t mind me pointing out the lack of impartiality :rofl:

Link to post
Share on other sites
NANOJAMBO
27 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

@NANOJAMBO Here is a good article tangentially related to what you were asking about, the share of debt question. But it deals more with the silly claims that Scotland couldn't survive without subsidy from the UK. The reality is the opposite—the UK is a drag on the Scottish economy.

 

The most incisive couple of points:

 

If being a part of the UK offered Scotland some form of economic advantage, how come other smaller independent nations in Europe who don't possess Scotland's natural wealth and economic advantages have economics that out perform not just Scotland, but the UK as a whole on a per head basis?

 

Scotland's economy (its GDP) over the last few years has averaged around £32,000 per head. To put that into context, that's larger than the per capita economy of wealthy independent nations such as France, Spain, Italy, even Japan, and our revenues, although downplayed by Westminster accounting practices, are more than enough to run a successful nation.

 

Link

 

I fully expect this sort of data and analysis to be ignored by the usual suspects, but hopefully undecided lurkers will gain some valuable insights.

 

Scotland's economy, when benchmarked against similar-sized independent nations, paints a vivid but miserable picture of the impact of Westminster's continued economic mismanagement. Scotland as part of the UK suffers from that lost opportunity, but still managed to economically out-perform the UK on a per head basis for 38 years—despite the Westminster cooking-the-books.
. . .
Scotland's chance to become a wealthier nation sits with independence and not with staying tied to the self-destructing UK economy, and a disastrous Brexit that we didn't vote for.

 

 

Thanks for this.

I've started to educate myself about the bigger picture of possible Scottish indy (and that starts by ignoring the doom mongers and playground antics of the trolls on here).

 

I've been following the blogger Wee Ginger Dug (bought his book, some very interesting insights) and also read the book Scotland the ( ?, can't remember the title , duh) so I'm aware of the Scottish economy out performing the UK on a consistent basis and the higher GDP even on a global comparison - so much for being just a wee country. More so that Scotland grows a food surplus and generates a power surplus that goes to, guess where. Oh, and the fish that are so beloved by brexiters reside in UK territorial waters that are 65% Scottish.  

 

The fixation with "debt" is one that fascinates me : even in the last few days there's been numerous posts on here warning  that Scotland can't be independent when it has "its share" of the UK national debt to manage. And yet, when I ask where this idea comes from , said posters clam up. So I'm curious to find out where this idea emanates from and on what legal basis/convention  an independent country must assume the debts of the "old country". 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SectionDJambo

Whatever the arguments for or against Scottish independence, or whether or not we should have another referendum, it was said by the unionist side, during the referendum campaign, that Scotland had to vote against independence to remain within the EU. 

At least a good number of those people who told us that, then proceeded to campaign to take the UK, including Scotland, out of the EU.

Unfortunately, like the people who paraded and supported the big red bus slogan of the millions of £s that would be diverted from the EU into the NHS, nobody seems to be able to own up to have either said it, or at least not discredited it at the time.

What is probably worse is that many of their supporters see nothing wrong with that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Maroon Sailor said:

 

The UK voted to leave the EU

 

Yep, and Scotland voted to be part of the UK.

 

Pretty simple stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
NANOJAMBO
2 minutes ago, SectionDJambo said:

 

Unfortunately, like the people who paraded and supported the big red bus slogan of the millions of £s that would be diverted from the EU into the NHS, nobody seems to be able to own up to have either said it, or at least not discredited it at the time.

What is probably worse is that many of their supporters see nothing wrong with that.

I agree. 

"Stay in the UK if you want to stay in the EU."

Now it's " Tough, you can't have EU membership because the UK doesn't want it any more".

Hypocrisy doesn't even get close. 

That was the turning point for me - the realisation that Scotland will never be free to pursue what Scots want to pursue because it's no longer in a political union but being held hostage and constantly being told what is best for Scotland . Also the notion that the UK isn't too small to go its own way (ditch EU membership and do its own trade deals, etc, etc, etc ) but Scotland apparently cannot have the same freedom & opportunities even when it's economy performs demonstrably well in comparisons with the UK & globally. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Konrad von Carstein
41 minutes ago, 151 said:

 

Yep, and Scotland voted to be part of the UK.

 

Pretty simple stuff.

Many voted to remain in the UK due to, in significant part, being told our membership of the EU would be under threat otherwise.

 

Also pretty simple stuff.

Edited by Konrad von Carstein
Link to post
Share on other sites
Justin Z
1 hour ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

You won’t mind me pointing out the lack of impartiality :rofl:

 

'Course I won't, especially since I chose to post this in direct response to not just non-impartial chat, but outright delusional doom mongering (imo).

 

Rarely are you ever going to get a truly impartial source of information, especially on a political issue, and independence isn't any different. The key is in weighing sources of information appropriately. To me, it seems the economic evidence available in favour of independence is quite overwhelming, and the economic evidence available which favours unionism has a pattern of being skewed.

 

Your mileage may vary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maroon Sailor

This was 2 years ago but still stands up today 

 

 

 

ps Don't get bent out of shape about it - it's quite funny

Link to post
Share on other sites
Zlatanable
2 hours ago, Maroon Sailor said:

This was 2 years ago but still stands up today 

 

 

 

ps Don't get bent out of shape about it - it's quite funny

It reminds me of the appearance of NS before a 'meets the audience' event , I can't recall if it was 2015/20162017, but NS said something and she got booed. Last time NS ever interacted with the people of Scotland. (Because the narrative is more important than the reality)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cairneyhill Jambo
5 minutes ago, Zlatanable said:

It reminds me of the appearance of NS before a 'meets the audience' event , I can't recall if it was 2015/20162017, but NS said something and she got booed. Last time NS ever interacted with the people of Scotland. (Because the narrative is more important than the reality)

You really need to take a break from posting on this forum mate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Zlatanable
7 minutes ago, Cairneyhill Jambo said:

You really need to take a break from posting on this forum mate. 

Everyone is allowed their opinion.

Link to post
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...