Should Scotland be an independent country?

[Roxy Hearts]

1 hour ago, HartleyLegend3 said:

 

Good for England. Hope they get it.

[manaliveits105]

2 hours ago, HartleyLegend3 said:

 

They look as weird as our smurfs 

[manaliveits105]

7 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Well well well 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Tortoise 

 

@BBCbreakingNewt

· 15h

Replying to @MccartneyLes

Let’s keep that private firm busy and ensure council tax payers continue to get what they pay for. How? Simple- deliver all rubbish to Bute House. Bag your rubbish Edinburgh, put it in the car and deliver it to Bute House. It’s an act of civic responsibility. @ScotGovFM

[That thing you do]

https://pontifex.substack.com/p/scott-and-chapmans-censored-article?utm_campaign=post

 

LSE (London School of Economics) suggests Scotland would do better than westminster want to admit if independent.

 

LSE received pressure to remove said paper. Wonder why! But copy found above.

[The Mighty Thor]

6 hours ago, Roxy Hearts said:

Good for England. Hope they get it.

I hope they get it too. 

 

Imagine being a unionist up here when they turn round and tell you you're not wanted because you're not English?

 

I genuinely hope this happens in my lifetime. 

[Unknown user]

4 hours ago, That thing you do said:

https://pontifex.substack.com/p/scott-and-chapmans-censored-article?utm_campaign=post

 

LSE (London School of Economics) suggests Scotland would do better than westminster want to admit if independent.

 

LSE received pressure to remove said paper. Wonder why! But copy found above.

Very interesting indeed

[The Real Maroonblood]

59 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

I hope they get it too. 

 

Imagine being a unionist up here when they turn round and tell you you're not wanted because you're not English?

 

I genuinely hope this happens in my lifetime. 

The village idiot will be suicidal.

[The Mighty Thor]

50 minutes ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

The village idiot will be suicidal.

We need to see their GERS numbers as I don't think they can afford to be independent. They've got nowt. 

[Ainsley Harriott]

On 26/08/2022 at 13:10, jack D and coke said:

Who was whining about anything being said about NS? They’re happy our city is full of rats. 
And the tories are utter filth.
Change my mind. 

If someone called the SNP utter filth. Which they are the mods would remove them 

[Konrad von Carstein]

13 minutes ago, Ainsley Harriott said:

If someone called the SNP utter filth. Which they are the mods would remove them 

No they wouldn't 

[Dazo]

12 minutes ago, Konrad von Carstein said:

No they wouldn't 

Prove it. 

[Don Dan]

Council tax freeze: Higher earners in Scotland facing a new SNP tax threat

Strikes leave rubbish piled in city streets as ministers seek to ease public spending crisis

August 28 2022, The Sunday Times

Higher earners are facing the threat of another tax increase as Nicola Sturgeon’s government struggles to plug a public spending gap amid rising wage costs.

Under the SNP/Green administration, Scots earning £50,000 already pay about £1,500 per year more than those elsewhere in the UK, and individuals on £100,000 pay £2,000 more.

Senior nationalists believe they should be targeted again to help maintain public services and ease the burden on lower earners hit hardest by the cost of living crisis.

The potential tax rises emerged as a third day of talks to resolve the bin strike across Scotland ended without a resolution as councils and unions discussed terms for the lowest-paid workers. Negotiations are expected to continue today.

Yesterday Scotland’s national public health agency warned that people could be at risk from the build-up of food, animal and human waste, including nappies.

Meanwhile Liz Truss, the frontrunner for the Conservative leadership, is considering cutting income tax and VAT as part of an emergency package to reduce the pain millions of households will feel from soaring energy bills. Cutting the sales tax formed part of Gordon Brown’s response to the financial crash. Truss’s team is weighing up the idea alongside a more targeted cut to VAT on energy bills. Her plans could affect the size of the block grant the UK government gives to Scotland.

SNP ministers have been preparing for cuts of more than £1 billion to budgets for schools, police and fire services, with the block grant that the devolved administration receives from Westminster forecast to barely increase in real terms until 2025-26.

Strike action across the public sector, including in schools, cleansing departments and the health service, has prompted some senior SNP figures to warn that tax rises in Scotland are now inevitable. Changes that could take effect from next April would be expected to hit those on the higher rate of 41 per cent, currently earning £43,663 to £150,000, and those on the top rate of 46 per cent earning above £150,000.

The SNP’s 2021 election manifesto said that the party would “aim” to freeze income tax rates and bands but also warned that all governments needed “flexibility to respond to a change in circumstances”. One senior SNP source said: “Manifesto commitments are made in good faith but unforeseen events like the current economic crisis are off the scale, meaning commitments will have to be revisited.”

Another said: “With inflation at these levels, all bets are off. A fundamental rethink will be required. There will be some things we simply cannot do, and things we may have to stop. It’s inevitable [taxes] will go up for those who can afford to pay.”

Green MSP Ross Greer said that changed economic circumstances “throw previous calculations out of the window”. He said: “The Greens reformed income tax in 2018 to raise more for public services by having the highest paid contribute a bit more. We are open to further changes there and to other devolved areas, as well as the creation of new local tax powers.”

Waste workers at Edinburgh city council walked out August 18, with their action due to continue until Tuesday. Cleaning staff at other local authorities are also taking action, with cities including Glasgow and Aberdeen among those affected.

Energy Action Scotland, a charity, warned yesterday that almost three quarters of households in Scotland could end up suffering from fuel poverty as a result of the latest increase in the energy price cap.

One local government leader, Inverclyde Labour councillor Stephen McCabe, warned of potentially huge cuts in jobs and services. He said: “It is absolutely unprecedented. Councils face a perfect storm and horrendous choices.” He said that it was a consequence of “years of Scottish government underfunding, a resources review that slashes spending, pay pressures which will not be completely compensated for and energy costs which will rocket when there is no price cap for local authorities. All at a time when demands for local services are rising.”

The Scottish government is undertaking an emergency budget review to examine ways to direct additional resources to those most in need, reduce burdens on business and stimulate the Scottish economy.

A Scottish government source signalled that the administration would consider any further steps to take after the new prime minister sets out detailed plans to tackle the cost of living crisis. Sources in both the SNP’s Holyrood and Westminster groups spoke of the need for a reset and revision of priorities as they prepare for a meeting on Friday to discuss the key objectives ahead of the new parliamentary sessions.

Boris Johnson warned last night that energy bills would be “eye-watering” and “frightening” but insisted that his successor would provide “another huge package of financial support”. “We have more than enough resilience to get through tough months ahead,” he wrote in the Mail on Sunday. “We have shown that before.”

Discover more from The Times

Download our app

Visit our website

Times Money Mentor

Times Radio

Times Travel

[Konrad von Carstein]

38 minutes ago, Dazo said:

Prove it. 

[Dazo]

2 minutes ago, Konrad von Carstein said:

😂😢

[jack D and coke]

33 minutes ago, Imaman said:

Council tax freeze: Higher earners in Scotland facing a new SNP tax threat

Strikes leave rubbish piled in city streets as ministers seek to ease public spending crisis

August 28 2022, The Sunday Times

Higher earners are facing the threat of another tax increase as Nicola Sturgeon’s government struggles to plug a public spending gap amid rising wage costs.

Under the SNP/Green administration, Scots earning £50,000 already pay about £1,500 per year more than those elsewhere in the UK, and individuals on £100,000 pay £2,000 more.

Senior nationalists believe they should be targeted again to help maintain public services and ease the burden on lower earners hit hardest by the cost of living crisis.

The potential tax rises emerged as a third day of talks to resolve the bin strike across Scotland ended without a resolution as councils and unions discussed terms for the lowest-paid workers. Negotiations are expected to continue today.

Yesterday Scotland’s national public health agency warned that people could be at risk from the build-up of food, animal and human waste, including nappies.

Meanwhile Liz Truss, the frontrunner for the Conservative leadership, is considering cutting income tax and VAT as part of an emergency package to reduce the pain millions of households will feel from soaring energy bills. Cutting the sales tax formed part of Gordon Brown’s response to the financial crash. Truss’s team is weighing up the idea alongside a more targeted cut to VAT on energy bills. Her plans could affect the size of the block grant the UK government gives to Scotland.

SNP ministers have been preparing for cuts of more than £1 billion to budgets for schools, police and fire services, with the block grant that the devolved administration receives from Westminster forecast to barely increase in real terms until 2025-26.

Strike action across the public sector, including in schools, cleansing departments and the health service, has prompted some senior SNP figures to warn that tax rises in Scotland are now inevitable. Changes that could take effect from next April would be expected to hit those on the higher rate of 41 per cent, currently earning £43,663 to £150,000, and those on the top rate of 46 per cent earning above £150,000.

The SNP’s 2021 election manifesto said that the party would “aim” to freeze income tax rates and bands but also warned that all governments needed “flexibility to respond to a change in circumstances”. One senior SNP source said: “Manifesto commitments are made in good faith but unforeseen events like the current economic crisis are off the scale, meaning commitments will have to be revisited.”

Another said: “With inflation at these levels, all bets are off. A fundamental rethink will be required. There will be some things we simply cannot do, and things we may have to stop. It’s inevitable [taxes] will go up for those who can afford to pay.”

Green MSP Ross Greer said that changed economic circumstances “throw previous calculations out of the window”. He said: “The Greens reformed income tax in 2018 to raise more for public services by having the highest paid contribute a bit more. We are open to further changes there and to other devolved areas, as well as the creation of new local tax powers.”

Waste workers at Edinburgh city council walked out August 18, with their action due to continue until Tuesday. Cleaning staff at other local authorities are also taking action, with cities including Glasgow and Aberdeen among those affected.

Energy Action Scotland, a charity, warned yesterday that almost three quarters of households in Scotland could end up suffering from fuel poverty as a result of the latest increase in the energy price cap.

One local government leader, Inverclyde Labour councillor Stephen McCabe, warned of potentially huge cuts in jobs and services. He said: “It is absolutely unprecedented. Councils face a perfect storm and horrendous choices.” He said that it was a consequence of “years of Scottish government underfunding, a resources review that slashes spending, pay pressures which will not be completely compensated for and energy costs which will rocket when there is no price cap for local authorities. All at a time when demands for local services are rising.”

The Scottish government is undertaking an emergency budget review to examine ways to direct additional resources to those most in need, reduce burdens on business and stimulate the Scottish economy.

A Scottish government source signalled that the administration would consider any further steps to take after the new prime minister sets out detailed plans to tackle the cost of living crisis. Sources in both the SNP’s Holyrood and Westminster groups spoke of the need for a reset and revision of priorities as they prepare for a meeting on Friday to discuss the key objectives ahead of the new parliamentary sessions.

Boris Johnson warned last night that energy bills would be “eye-watering” and “frightening” but insisted that his successor would provide “another huge package of financial support”. “We have more than enough resilience to get through tough months ahead,” he wrote in the Mail on Sunday. “We have shown that before.”

Discover more from The Times

Download our app

Visit our website

Times Money Mentor

Times Radio

Times Travel

The way it’s all framed. 
Snp tax “threat”

Meanwhile Liz Truss is “considering” cutting taxes.

Labour gobshite “absolutely unprecedented and years of SG underfunding”

All finished off with words from that man who got all the big calls right Johnson who says we’re all going to be fine.
 
 

 

[Konrad von Carstein]

Scott and Chapman's censored article on Scottish Independence

The full article, republished

Pontifex Minimus 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

Apr 3, 2021

15

29

 

Recently two UK government advisors -- Richard Mackenzie-Gray Scott and Geoffrey Chapman -- wrote an article on Scottish independence, saying that Scotland would do better as an independent country than the UK government likes to imply, and that Scotland could conceivably become independent without receiving the UK government's permission. The article was picked up by the Scottish press and then hastlily deleted from the LSE website where it was hosted.

Paul Kavanagh takes up the story:

Earlier this week the London School of Economics published on its blog an article by two academics, Dr Geoffrey Chapman and Dr Richard Mackenzie-Gray Scott. Dr Chapman is currently employed by the British Government as an economics advisor to the Department of International Trade. Dr Mackenzie-Gray Scott is a research fellow Research fellow at the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, the British Institute of International and Comparative Law.. Naturally the views expressed in their article are their own and not those of the Conservative Government for which Dr Chapman is an advisor.

The article details ways in which Scotland could become independent and achieve international recognition as an independent state even if Westminster were to refuse to accept the result of a referendum held without Downing Street’s express consent. The authors point out the considerable political and legal difficulties and dangers which would arise for the British Government if it attempted to block a referendum in the courts [my emphasis -- PM] once the Scottish Parliament had decided to proceed with one after receiving an unarguable democratic mandate from the Scottish electorate to do so.

I have decided to republish the article in full. Here it is:

---

While Scottish independence would have immediate economic costs, history suggests there are long-term benefits

 

By contrasting Scotland and England to the Slovak Republic and Czech Republic’s ‘Velvet Divorce’, Richard Mackenzie-Gray Scott and Geoffrey Chapman suggest that an independent Scotland will continue growing real GDP per capita despite higher trade costs.

In light of the ongoing challenges facing the UK, the idea of Scottish independence seems unpalatable to many, but the news implies strong support. The Scottish government has recently published draft legislation for the holding of another referendum. Numerous polls suggest that a majority vote for independence would occur should this referendum go ahead. Although polls do not necessarily reflect what people will actually vote for at a particular moment in time, the political momentum for another referendum is growing. This pressure will be amplified should the SNP win a majority in the upcoming Scottish Parliamentary elections.

While this question remains unclear, the Scottish Parliament may have the constitutional authority to legislate for another referendum without the involvement of the UK government and Parliament. This can only be definitively settled with a ruling from the UK Supreme Court, one that might not come. Litigating this matter is not necessarily desirable. The courts afford deference to the Scottish Parliament, and there are reasons for being hesitant towards becoming entangled with, and potentially hindering, the legislative process of a democratically elected parliament.

If the current UK government opposes such a course of action, the ways in which the law may prevent the Scottish Parliament alone from legislating for a (non-binding) referendum will need to be clearly articulated. This would be a challenging case to make, because arguing that holding another referendum affects the UK assumes the potential result, which cannot be known in advance. The result of a referendum cannot retroactively determine the legality of holding it. And even if favouring independence, the force of such a result would be more political than legal. This is because the UK Parliament would need to become involved in order to give legal effect to that result, similar to how it was necessary in order to give legal effect to the EU referendum result.

Scotland could also attempt unilateral secession from the UK, which would arguably flout constitutional law and make the applicable international law more relevant. At present, Scotland satisfies all the international legal criteria for statehood, with one exception: it lacks the formal authority to enter into foreign relations, even though it has the literal ability to do so. Consequently, if Scotland demonstrated independence from UK authority in the course of conducting international relations, Scotland would be more likely recognised as a state by other states and international organisations. Furthermore, if voting at the UN General Assembly is anything to go by, we see no immediate reasons why other states would side with a UK position (assuming it opposed secession).

While becoming independent would have immediate economic costs, the long-term view suggests there are benefits. By contrasting Scotland and England to the Slovak Republic and Czech Republic’s ‘Velvet Divorce’, our research suggests that an independent Scotland will continue growing real GDP per capita despite higher trade costs. Following the ‘Velvet Divorce’ in 1993, the Czech and Slovak Republics faced additional border costs in their bilateral trade, not least because the Czech Republic kept the Czech Koruna, whereas the Slovak Republic adopted the Euro. By analysing the bilateral comprehensive trade costs from the ESCAP-World Bank Trade Cost Database, we note that for the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic’s trade costs have always been lower than Germany’s (which becomes the largest trading partner for both states post-independence). In 1995, trade costs between the Czech Republic and Slovak Republic were equivalent to 35%, whereas between the Czech Republic and Germany, trade costs were equivalent to 56%. The Slovak Republic presents with similar patterns in that trade costs between the Slovak Republic and Czech Republic have always been lower than trade costs between the Slovak Republic and Germany.

In the years post-independence, it is apparent that the Czech Republic substituted their exports and imports away from the Slovak Republic; the Slovak Republic did the same, substituting their exports and imports away from the Czech Republic, both in favour of Germany. Despite international trade rebalancing in favour of Germany, a trade partner with higher trade costs, real GDP per capita continued growing. It is contextually important to note that for the economically smaller state, the Slovak Republic quite quickly (over six or so years) substituted away from what was its much larger, more significant, export partner to what was a much smaller partner. That is to say, the Slovak Republic’s exports to Germany were nearly three times less than to the Czech Republic in 1993, but as of 2019, the Slovak Republic’s exports to Germany were nearly two times greater than to the Czech Republic. While the change was less significant regarding the Slovak Republic’s imports, the same shift occurred.

Extrapolating the above to England and Scotland, we look at key indicators of macroeconomic policy for Scotland (see Table 1) compared to the Czech and Slovak Republics. Where Scottish estimates could not be found or calculated, we include UK data as a proxy, included in square brackets. According to official statistics, Scotland’s current GDP increased steadily between 1998 and 2019, climbing from £85,204 million to £177,106 million (equivalent to 107.9% growth for the period, or 5% annually).

 

 

Regarding the available trade data between 2002 and 2018, Scotland’s export shares are relatively stable. In 2002, Scotland exported 23% to the EU, 18% to non-EU, and 58% to the rest of the UK. The rest of the UK’s share peaked in 2007 at 67%, when the EU received 16% and non-EU 17%. However, the rest of the UK’s share has tapered off since and as of 2018, was standing at 60% (with the EU receiving 19% and non-EU 21%). Since 2007, counterbalancing the downward trajectory of the rest of the UK’s share has been an increasing trend in Scotland’s non-EU trade, rising from 17% to 21% in 2018. Scotland’s top five international export destinations accounted for £15.1 billion of all exports in 2018, with the top five markets being the US, France, Netherlands, Germany and Belgium. The US remains Scotland’s top international export destination, accounting for an estimated £5.5 billion in 2018.

Moreover, Scotland’s exports to the EU grew by an average of 4% per year over the last five years, and since 2010, growth to the EU outpaced growth to the rest of the world and the rest of the UK by a significant margin. Scotland is not only becoming more economically integrated with the EU (see here), but seemingly also with non-EU partners. Scotland’s historic economic performance has been strong, which bodes well for a small, open and independent Scotland. With modest population growth alongside good GDP growth, supported by stable participation in international trade, it seems Scotland is in a far better initial condition than either the Czech or Slovak Republics, and can therefore expect similar (if not better) post-independence outcomes.

In light of long-run economic growth and stability, it might be worthwhile for Scotland to attempt entering into foreign relations with other states and international organisations if there was no cooperation from the UK to take forward another referendum result favouring independence. A key factor is that if the UK did not respect any future referendum result favouring independence, unilateral Scottish secession would become more legitimate, meaning international recognition of Scotland as an independent state would arguably be more likely. Although the UK currently respects the right of Scots to self-determination, this would no longer be the case if the UK did not take the appropriate steps to implement a referendum result favouring independence.

With regional stability in the interests of all parties, any referendum favouring Scottish independence should be enacted through a staged approach to secession in compliance with constitutional law to minimise the economic cost on the UK and Scotland. The rule of law should be at the heart of any Scottish secession to allow for the best possible economic outcomes for people in Scotland and the UK. Such a process also depends on the politics between the UK and Scottish governments being cooperative, open-minded, and transparent. Nevertheless, although political amicability between the UK and Scotland is preferable, it is not indispensable for Scotland to become independent and continue prospering thereafter, particularly if Scotland negotiates access to the EU single market.

Considering Scotland has all the necessary machinery in place to become an independent state, we see no obvious reasons why Scotland would not succeed economically if it were to do so, especially if achieved within the bounds of the law. Although our findings might be controversial to some, we hope to show that Scottish independence, while not inevitable, is far more nuanced a matter than many have claimed. There exist several options worth pursuing for the parties to this debate.

Note: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, the Department for International Trade, or the UK Government.

About the Authors

• Richard Mackenzie-Gray Scott is a Research Fellow at the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, British Institute of International and Comparative Law.

• Geoffrey Chapman is an Economic Adviser at the Department for International Trade, UK Government.

[Don Dan]

@Konrad von Carstein

i can see no downside to not going for independence. With good and shrewd fiscal management we can successfully tap back into the EU market for Labour and Trade which will undoubtably work in our favour. 

[Don Dan]

52 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

All finished off with words from that man who got all the big calls right Johnson who says we’re all going to be fine.
 

I have given up a long time ago believing anything that lying Tory Scum says. 
All the so called big calls he has been attributed with were never his in the first place. 

[That thing you do]

1 hour ago, Konrad von Carstein said:

Scott and Chapman's censored article on Scottish Independence

The full article, republished

Pontifex Minimus 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

Apr 3, 2021

15

29

 

Recently two UK government advisors -- Richard Mackenzie-Gray Scott and Geoffrey Chapman -- wrote an article on Scottish independence, saying that Scotland would do better as an independent country than the UK government likes to imply, and that Scotland could conceivably become independent without receiving the UK government's permission. The article was picked up by the Scottish press and then hastlily deleted from the LSE website where it was hosted.

Paul Kavanagh takes up the story:

Earlier this week the London School of Economics published on its blog an article by two academics, Dr Geoffrey Chapman and Dr Richard Mackenzie-Gray Scott. Dr Chapman is currently employed by the British Government as an economics advisor to the Department of International Trade. Dr Mackenzie-Gray Scott is a research fellow Research fellow at the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, the British Institute of International and Comparative Law.. Naturally the views expressed in their article are their own and not those of the Conservative Government for which Dr Chapman is an advisor.

The article details ways in which Scotland could become independent and achieve international recognition as an independent state even if Westminster were to refuse to accept the result of a referendum held without Downing Street’s express consent. The authors point out the considerable political and legal difficulties and dangers which would arise for the British Government if it attempted to block a referendum in the courts [my emphasis -- PM] once the Scottish Parliament had decided to proceed with one after receiving an unarguable democratic mandate from the Scottish electorate to do so.

I have decided to republish the article in full. Here it is:

---

While Scottish independence would have immediate economic costs, history suggests there are long-term benefits

 

By contrasting Scotland and England to the Slovak Republic and Czech Republic’s ‘Velvet Divorce’, Richard Mackenzie-Gray Scott and Geoffrey Chapman suggest that an independent Scotland will continue growing real GDP per capita despite higher trade costs.

In light of the ongoing challenges facing the UK, the idea of Scottish independence seems unpalatable to many, but the news implies strong support. The Scottish government has recently published draft legislation for the holding of another referendum. Numerous polls suggest that a majority vote for independence would occur should this referendum go ahead. Although polls do not necessarily reflect what people will actually vote for at a particular moment in time, the political momentum for another referendum is growing. This pressure will be amplified should the SNP win a majority in the upcoming Scottish Parliamentary elections.

While this question remains unclear, the Scottish Parliament may have the constitutional authority to legislate for another referendum without the involvement of the UK government and Parliament. This can only be definitively settled with a ruling from the UK Supreme Court, one that might not come. Litigating this matter is not necessarily desirable. The courts afford deference to the Scottish Parliament, and there are reasons for being hesitant towards becoming entangled with, and potentially hindering, the legislative process of a democratically elected parliament.

If the current UK government opposes such a course of action, the ways in which the law may prevent the Scottish Parliament alone from legislating for a (non-binding) referendum will need to be clearly articulated. This would be a challenging case to make, because arguing that holding another referendum affects the UK assumes the potential result, which cannot be known in advance. The result of a referendum cannot retroactively determine the legality of holding it. And even if favouring independence, the force of such a result would be more political than legal. This is because the UK Parliament would need to become involved in order to give legal effect to that result, similar to how it was necessary in order to give legal effect to the EU referendum result.

Scotland could also attempt unilateral secession from the UK, which would arguably flout constitutional law and make the applicable international law more relevant. At present, Scotland satisfies all the international legal criteria for statehood, with one exception: it lacks the formal authority to enter into foreign relations, even though it has the literal ability to do so. Consequently, if Scotland demonstrated independence from UK authority in the course of conducting international relations, Scotland would be more likely recognised as a state by other states and international organisations. Furthermore, if voting at the UN General Assembly is anything to go by, we see no immediate reasons why other states would side with a UK position (assuming it opposed secession).

While becoming independent would have immediate economic costs, the long-term view suggests there are benefits. By contrasting Scotland and England to the Slovak Republic and Czech Republic’s ‘Velvet Divorce’, our research suggests that an independent Scotland will continue growing real GDP per capita despite higher trade costs. Following the ‘Velvet Divorce’ in 1993, the Czech and Slovak Republics faced additional border costs in their bilateral trade, not least because the Czech Republic kept the Czech Koruna, whereas the Slovak Republic adopted the Euro. By analysing the bilateral comprehensive trade costs from the ESCAP-World Bank Trade Cost Database, we note that for the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic’s trade costs have always been lower than Germany’s (which becomes the largest trading partner for both states post-independence). In 1995, trade costs between the Czech Republic and Slovak Republic were equivalent to 35%, whereas between the Czech Republic and Germany, trade costs were equivalent to 56%. The Slovak Republic presents with similar patterns in that trade costs between the Slovak Republic and Czech Republic have always been lower than trade costs between the Slovak Republic and Germany.

In the years post-independence, it is apparent that the Czech Republic substituted their exports and imports away from the Slovak Republic; the Slovak Republic did the same, substituting their exports and imports away from the Czech Republic, both in favour of Germany. Despite international trade rebalancing in favour of Germany, a trade partner with higher trade costs, real GDP per capita continued growing. It is contextually important to note that for the economically smaller state, the Slovak Republic quite quickly (over six or so years) substituted away from what was its much larger, more significant, export partner to what was a much smaller partner. That is to say, the Slovak Republic’s exports to Germany were nearly three times less than to the Czech Republic in 1993, but as of 2019, the Slovak Republic’s exports to Germany were nearly two times greater than to the Czech Republic. While the change was less significant regarding the Slovak Republic’s imports, the same shift occurred.

Extrapolating the above to England and Scotland, we look at key indicators of macroeconomic policy for Scotland (see Table 1) compared to the Czech and Slovak Republics. Where Scottish estimates could not be found or calculated, we include UK data as a proxy, included in square brackets. According to official statistics, Scotland’s current GDP increased steadily between 1998 and 2019, climbing from £85,204 million to £177,106 million (equivalent to 107.9% growth for the period, or 5% annually).

 

 

Regarding the available trade data between 2002 and 2018, Scotland’s export shares are relatively stable. In 2002, Scotland exported 23% to the EU, 18% to non-EU, and 58% to the rest of the UK. The rest of the UK’s share peaked in 2007 at 67%, when the EU received 16% and non-EU 17%. However, the rest of the UK’s share has tapered off since and as of 2018, was standing at 60% (with the EU receiving 19% and non-EU 21%). Since 2007, counterbalancing the downward trajectory of the rest of the UK’s share has been an increasing trend in Scotland’s non-EU trade, rising from 17% to 21% in 2018. Scotland’s top five international export destinations accounted for £15.1 billion of all exports in 2018, with the top five markets being the US, France, Netherlands, Germany and Belgium. The US remains Scotland’s top international export destination, accounting for an estimated £5.5 billion in 2018.

Moreover, Scotland’s exports to the EU grew by an average of 4% per year over the last five years, and since 2010, growth to the EU outpaced growth to the rest of the world and the rest of the UK by a significant margin. Scotland is not only becoming more economically integrated with the EU (see here), but seemingly also with non-EU partners. Scotland’s historic economic performance has been strong, which bodes well for a small, open and independent Scotland. With modest population growth alongside good GDP growth, supported by stable participation in international trade, it seems Scotland is in a far better initial condition than either the Czech or Slovak Republics, and can therefore expect similar (if not better) post-independence outcomes.

In light of long-run economic growth and stability, it might be worthwhile for Scotland to attempt entering into foreign relations with other states and international organisations if there was no cooperation from the UK to take forward another referendum result favouring independence. A key factor is that if the UK did not respect any future referendum result favouring independence, unilateral Scottish secession would become more legitimate, meaning international recognition of Scotland as an independent state would arguably be more likely. Although the UK currently respects the right of Scots to self-determination, this would no longer be the case if the UK did not take the appropriate steps to implement a referendum result favouring independence.

With regional stability in the interests of all parties, any referendum favouring Scottish independence should be enacted through a staged approach to secession in compliance with constitutional law to minimise the economic cost on the UK and Scotland. The rule of law should be at the heart of any Scottish secession to allow for the best possible economic outcomes for people in Scotland and the UK. Such a process also depends on the politics between the UK and Scottish governments being cooperative, open-minded, and transparent. Nevertheless, although political amicability between the UK and Scotland is preferable, it is not indispensable for Scotland to become independent and continue prospering thereafter, particularly if Scotland negotiates access to the EU single market.

Considering Scotland has all the necessary machinery in place to become an independent state, we see no obvious reasons why Scotland would not succeed economically if it were to do so, especially if achieved within the bounds of the law. Although our findings might be controversial to some, we hope to show that Scottish independence, while not inevitable, is far more nuanced a matter than many have claimed. There exist several options worth pursuing for the parties to this debate.

Note: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, the Department for International Trade, or the UK Government.

About the Authors

• Richard Mackenzie-Gray Scott is a Research Fellow at the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, British Institute of International and Comparative Law.

• Geoffrey Chapman is an Economic Adviser at the Department for International Trade, UK Government.

When I mentioned Czech Rep and Slovakia earlier as examples some Yoons on here said claimed it was cherry picking as they had come out of communism so mustve done well.

 

Yet here we are with prominent professors at LSE using it and pointing out Scotland should do even better.

 

Its almost like I knew what I was talking about The inescapable truth is the facts are on the yes side.

 

That leaves Yoons with "Shut up, I like the union" and defending the fiddling of figures as literally the only argument they have.

 

Not a strong argument but that is where they are.

 

 

[Ray Gin]

3 hours ago, Ainsley Harriott said:

If someone called the SNP utter filth. Which they are the mods would remove them 

 

Yet weirdly you haven't been removed for doing exactly that.

[manaliveits105]

4 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Yet weirdly you haven't been removed for doing exactly that.

Because its true probably 

[jack D and coke]

13 minutes ago, That thing you do said:

That leaves Yoons with "Shut up, I like the union" and defending the fiddling of figures as literally the only argument they have.

 

Not a strong argument but that is where they are.

 

 

That’s a perfectly acceptable stance to have by the way. Some people just want it to remain I don’t have problem with that. 
When and if it comes along just vote No. 
It’s the doom and gloom and running the place and the people down all the time that I take issue with. 
 

[Konrad von Carstein]

9 hours ago, That thing you do said:

https://pontifex.substack.com/p/scott-and-chapmans-censored-article?utm_campaign=post

 

LSE (London School of Economics) suggests Scotland would do better than westminster want to admit if independent.

 

LSE received pressure to remove said paper. Wonder why! But copy found above.

 

2 hours ago, Konrad von Carstein said:

Scott and Chapman's censored article on Scottish Independence

The full article, republished

Pontifex Minimus 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

Apr 3, 2021

15

29

 

Recently two UK government advisors -- Richard Mackenzie-Gray Scott and Geoffrey Chapman -- wrote an article on Scottish independence, saying that Scotland would do better as an independent country than the UK government likes to imply, and that Scotland could conceivably become independent without receiving the UK government's permission. The article was picked up by the Scottish press and then hastlily deleted from the LSE website where it was hosted.

Paul Kavanagh takes up the story:

Earlier this week the London School of Economics published on its blog an article by two academics, Dr Geoffrey Chapman and Dr Richard Mackenzie-Gray Scott. Dr Chapman is currently employed by the British Government as an economics advisor to the Department of International Trade. Dr Mackenzie-Gray Scott is a research fellow Research fellow at the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, the British Institute of International and Comparative Law.. Naturally the views expressed in their article are their own and not those of the Conservative Government for which Dr Chapman is an advisor.

The article details ways in which Scotland could become independent and achieve international recognition as an independent state even if Westminster were to refuse to accept the result of a referendum held without Downing Street’s express consent. The authors point out the considerable political and legal difficulties and dangers which would arise for the British Government if it attempted to block a referendum in the courts [my emphasis -- PM] once the Scottish Parliament had decided to proceed with one after receiving an unarguable democratic mandate from the Scottish electorate to do so.

I have decided to republish the article in full. Here it is:

---

While Scottish independence would have immediate economic costs, history suggests there are long-term benefits

 

By contrasting Scotland and England to the Slovak Republic and Czech Republic’s ‘Velvet Divorce’, Richard Mackenzie-Gray Scott and Geoffrey Chapman suggest that an independent Scotland will continue growing real GDP per capita despite higher trade costs.

In light of the ongoing challenges facing the UK, the idea of Scottish independence seems unpalatable to many, but the news implies strong support. The Scottish government has recently published draft legislation for the holding of another referendum. Numerous polls suggest that a majority vote for independence would occur should this referendum go ahead. Although polls do not necessarily reflect what people will actually vote for at a particular moment in time, the political momentum for another referendum is growing. This pressure will be amplified should the SNP win a majority in the upcoming Scottish Parliamentary elections.

While this question remains unclear, the Scottish Parliament may have the constitutional authority to legislate for another referendum without the involvement of the UK government and Parliament. This can only be definitively settled with a ruling from the UK Supreme Court, one that might not come. Litigating this matter is not necessarily desirable. The courts afford deference to the Scottish Parliament, and there are reasons for being hesitant towards becoming entangled with, and potentially hindering, the legislative process of a democratically elected parliament.

If the current UK government opposes such a course of action, the ways in which the law may prevent the Scottish Parliament alone from legislating for a (non-binding) referendum will need to be clearly articulated. This would be a challenging case to make, because arguing that holding another referendum affects the UK assumes the potential result, which cannot be known in advance. The result of a referendum cannot retroactively determine the legality of holding it. And even if favouring independence, the force of such a result would be more political than legal. This is because the UK Parliament would need to become involved in order to give legal effect to that result, similar to how it was necessary in order to give legal effect to the EU referendum result.

Scotland could also attempt unilateral secession from the UK, which would arguably flout constitutional law and make the applicable international law more relevant. At present, Scotland satisfies all the international legal criteria for statehood, with one exception: it lacks the formal authority to enter into foreign relations, even though it has the literal ability to do so. Consequently, if Scotland demonstrated independence from UK authority in the course of conducting international relations, Scotland would be more likely recognised as a state by other states and international organisations. Furthermore, if voting at the UN General Assembly is anything to go by, we see no immediate reasons why other states would side with a UK position (assuming it opposed secession).

While becoming independent would have immediate economic costs, the long-term view suggests there are benefits. By contrasting Scotland and England to the Slovak Republic and Czech Republic’s ‘Velvet Divorce’, our research suggests that an independent Scotland will continue growing real GDP per capita despite higher trade costs. Following the ‘Velvet Divorce’ in 1993, the Czech and Slovak Republics faced additional border costs in their bilateral trade, not least because the Czech Republic kept the Czech Koruna, whereas the Slovak Republic adopted the Euro. By analysing the bilateral comprehensive trade costs from the ESCAP-World Bank Trade Cost Database, we note that for the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic’s trade costs have always been lower than Germany’s (which becomes the largest trading partner for both states post-independence). In 1995, trade costs between the Czech Republic and Slovak Republic were equivalent to 35%, whereas between the Czech Republic and Germany, trade costs were equivalent to 56%. The Slovak Republic presents with similar patterns in that trade costs between the Slovak Republic and Czech Republic have always been lower than trade costs between the Slovak Republic and Germany.

In the years post-independence, it is apparent that the Czech Republic substituted their exports and imports away from the Slovak Republic; the Slovak Republic did the same, substituting their exports and imports away from the Czech Republic, both in favour of Germany. Despite international trade rebalancing in favour of Germany, a trade partner with higher trade costs, real GDP per capita continued growing. It is contextually important to note that for the economically smaller state, the Slovak Republic quite quickly (over six or so years) substituted away from what was its much larger, more significant, export partner to what was a much smaller partner. That is to say, the Slovak Republic’s exports to Germany were nearly three times less than to the Czech Republic in 1993, but as of 2019, the Slovak Republic’s exports to Germany were nearly two times greater than to the Czech Republic. While the change was less significant regarding the Slovak Republic’s imports, the same shift occurred.

Extrapolating the above to England and Scotland, we look at key indicators of macroeconomic policy for Scotland (see Table 1) compared to the Czech and Slovak Republics. Where Scottish estimates could not be found or calculated, we include UK data as a proxy, included in square brackets. According to official statistics, Scotland’s current GDP increased steadily between 1998 and 2019, climbing from £85,204 million to £177,106 million (equivalent to 107.9% growth for the period, or 5% annually).

 

 

Regarding the available trade data between 2002 and 2018, Scotland’s export shares are relatively stable. In 2002, Scotland exported 23% to the EU, 18% to non-EU, and 58% to the rest of the UK. The rest of the UK’s share peaked in 2007 at 67%, when the EU received 16% and non-EU 17%. However, the rest of the UK’s share has tapered off since and as of 2018, was standing at 60% (with the EU receiving 19% and non-EU 21%). Since 2007, counterbalancing the downward trajectory of the rest of the UK’s share has been an increasing trend in Scotland’s non-EU trade, rising from 17% to 21% in 2018. Scotland’s top five international export destinations accounted for £15.1 billion of all exports in 2018, with the top five markets being the US, France, Netherlands, Germany and Belgium. The US remains Scotland’s top international export destination, accounting for an estimated £5.5 billion in 2018.

Moreover, Scotland’s exports to the EU grew by an average of 4% per year over the last five years, and since 2010, growth to the EU outpaced growth to the rest of the world and the rest of the UK by a significant margin. Scotland is not only becoming more economically integrated with the EU (see here), but seemingly also with non-EU partners. Scotland’s historic economic performance has been strong, which bodes well for a small, open and independent Scotland. With modest population growth alongside good GDP growth, supported by stable participation in international trade, it seems Scotland is in a far better initial condition than either the Czech or Slovak Republics, and can therefore expect similar (if not better) post-independence outcomes.

In light of long-run economic growth and stability, it might be worthwhile for Scotland to attempt entering into foreign relations with other states and international organisations if there was no cooperation from the UK to take forward another referendum result favouring independence. A key factor is that if the UK did not respect any future referendum result favouring independence, unilateral Scottish secession would become more legitimate, meaning international recognition of Scotland as an independent state would arguably be more likely. Although the UK currently respects the right of Scots to self-determination, this would no longer be the case if the UK did not take the appropriate steps to implement a referendum result favouring independence.

With regional stability in the interests of all parties, any referendum favouring Scottish independence should be enacted through a staged approach to secession in compliance with constitutional law to minimise the economic cost on the UK and Scotland. The rule of law should be at the heart of any Scottish secession to allow for the best possible economic outcomes for people in Scotland and the UK. Such a process also depends on the politics between the UK and Scottish governments being cooperative, open-minded, and transparent. Nevertheless, although political amicability between the UK and Scotland is preferable, it is not indispensable for Scotland to become independent and continue prospering thereafter, particularly if Scotland negotiates access to the EU single market.

Considering Scotland has all the necessary machinery in place to become an independent state, we see no obvious reasons why Scotland would not succeed economically if it were to do so, especially if achieved within the bounds of the law. Although our findings might be controversial to some, we hope to show that Scottish independence, while not inevitable, is far more nuanced a matter than many have claimed. There exist several options worth pursuing for the parties to this debate.

Note: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, the Department for International Trade, or the UK Government.

About the Authors

• Richard Mackenzie-Gray Scott is a Research Fellow at the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, British Institute of International and Comparative Law.

• Geoffrey Chapman is an Economic Adviser at the Department for International Trade, UK Government.

Well, I look like total div now eh  

 

[Dazo]

1 hour ago, Imaman said:

@Konrad von Carstein

i can see no downside to not going for independence. With good and shrewd fiscal management we can successfully tap back into the EU market for Labour and Trade which will undoubtably work in our favour. 

No downside ? None whatsoever ? 😂

[Unknown user]

9 minutes ago, Konrad von Carstein said:

 

Well, I look like total div now eh  

 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

49 minutes ago, That thing you do said:

When I mentioned Czech Rep and Slovakia earlier as examples some Yoons on here said claimed it was cherry picking as they had come out of communism so mustve done well.

 

Yet here we are with prominent professors at LSE using it and pointing out Scotland should do even better.

 

Its almost like I knew what I was talking about The inescapable truth is the facts are on the yes side.

 

That leaves Yoons with "Shut up, I like the union" and defending the fiddling of figures as literally the only argument they have.

 

Not a strong argument but that is where they are.

 

 

I don’t see much reason why Scotland would be worse off if it went independent. Reality is, life and society probably wouldn’t change that much - and might well change for the better. Increasingly worth a punt in that sense.

 

I just think that if you believe you’re going to get better politicians or governments then you’re going to be disappointed. Because the standard of Scottish politicians is staring you in the face.

[Unknown user]

7 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

I don’t see much reason why Scotland would be worse off if it went independent. Reality is, life and society probably wouldn’t change that much - and might well change for the better. Increasingly worth a punt in that sense.

 

I just think that if you believe you’re going to get better politicians or governments then you’re going to be disappointed. Because the standard of Scottish politicians is staring you in the face.

 

A government we can vote out will do.

[Boof]

8 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

I just think that if you believe you’re going to get better politicians or governments then you’re going to be disappointed. Because the standard of Scottish politicians is staring you in the face.

 

Now, I'm not necessarily suggesting they'll be any better, but there are 59 folk sitting in Westminster who might think they could do a better job than our current crop of MSPs. Not counting those with a dual role - ineffective in 2 houses *cough* that sleekit wee useless-at-refereeing prick.

[Konrad von Carstein]

10 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

I don’t see much reason why Scotland would be worse off if it went independent. Reality is, life and society probably wouldn’t change that much - and might well change for the better. Increasingly worth a punt in that sense.

 

I just think that if you believe you’re going to get better politicians or governments then you’re going to be disappointed. Because the standard of Scottish politicians is staring you in the face.

That's a  bit of a sweeping statement, there are committed hard working fair minded MSP/MP's across all parties.

However, the career politicos have a talent for self promotion and polarise opinion and manage to make people think that "they're all the same" they're not, imo

[Roxy Hearts]

59 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

I don’t see much reason why Scotland would be worse off if it went independent. Reality is, life and society probably wouldn’t change that much - and might well change for the better. Increasingly worth a punt in that sense.

 

I just think that if you believe you’re going to get better politicians or governments then you’re going to be disappointed. Because the standard of Scottish politicians is staring you in the face.

I think it would be more attractive working for an independent Scotland for those folk studying politics and economics at Uni.

 

Thought process would change as they would be working for Scotland and trying to make a difference instead of getting caught up in the current circumstances. IMO.

 

Some of the current bunch may stop their bickering and work towards better ideals. There are some bright people out there amongst the tribal politics.

 

We only see the party numpties not the administrators and economists working behind the scenes. Difficult job for any SG at the moment working with one hand tied behind your back and the constant state propaganda.

 

New Scotland, New parties, new ideas, etc. Change is needed.

[jambos are go!]

It's great to see the independence movement breaking apart in the face of financial reality and unrealized fantasy.

[Roxy Hearts]

31 minutes ago, jambos are go! said:

It's great to see the independence movement breaking apart in the face of financial reality and unrealized fantasy.

Is it? That's the UK you're talking about. Absolute clusterf... of a place at the moment.

[Unknown user]

33 minutes ago, jambos are go! said:

It's great to see the independence movement breaking apart in the face of financial reality and unrealized fantasy.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

3 hours ago, Dazo said:

No downside ? None whatsoever ? 😂

We'd hold all the cards.

 

Sunlit uplands.

 

That's how it works right?

[Pans Jambo]

OVEN READY!!!!!!

[Don Dan]

3 hours ago, Dazo said:

No downside ? None whatsoever ? 😂

After what we have been fed from the Westminster Spives over the past 12 years or so the only way is up

[Dazo]

27 minutes ago, Imaman said:

After what we have been fed from the Westminster Spives over the past 12 years or so the only way is up

Yep not disputing that but it’s pretty folly  to think there is no downside. Imo of course. 😊

[Unknown user]

8 minutes ago, Dazo said:

Yep not disputing that but it’s pretty folly  to think there is no downside. Imo of course. 😊

 

Well it's been 5 hours since the lad said it and there hasn't been one mentioned yet, feel free!

[Konrad von Carstein]

20 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Well it's been 5 hours since the lad said it and there hasn't been one mentioned yet, feel free!

Loss of blue passport, Union flag no more and of course all those accumulated Brexit benefits will have to be relinquished!

[manaliveits105]

Unfortunately the LSE guy only said in his opinion obviously that Scotland would do  better than the UK Gov implies - doesnt say we woud do better full stop.

 

Confirms the kiddy on referendum which will be ignored by all but smurfs and our new resident snp bot is useless in reality - needs the Supreme Court approval .The guid Scottish people will stay legal . 

 

Keep clutching dem straws though  it keeps you off the streets and saves on face paint  

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

5 hours ago, Boof said:

 

Now, I'm not necessarily suggesting they'll be any better, but there are 59 folk sitting in Westminster who might think they could do a better job than our current crop of MSPs. Not counting those with a dual role - ineffective in 2 houses *cough* that sleekit wee useless-at-refereeing prick.

Like Fatty Blackford? Hope springs eternal.

 

Like I say, Scotland would do fine but you’d still be run by knobs. They’d just speak with Scottish accents. Smithee’s point is a fair one though - it becomes your prerogative to vote them out 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

5 hours ago, Konrad von Carstein said:

That's a  bit of a sweeping statement, there are committed hard working fair minded MSP/MP's across all parties.

However, the career politicos have a talent for self promotion and polarise opinion and manage to make people think that "they're all the same" they're not, imo

The career politicos rise to the top though and always will. Scotland is proof of that, as is the UK government. 

[Konrad von Carstein]

26 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

The career politicos rise to the top though and always will. Scotland is proof of that, as is the UK government. 

The point I was failing to make was that this has to change, and I apologise for the next bit in advance, the current WM government have taken incompetence, and criminality to many levels above what was the norm before the thankfully short era of BJ and will continue under LT until, finally they are eviscerated at the next GE.

This will hopefully turn the tide of a now failed ideology that promotes greed, selfishness and cavalier disregard for the people who they are supposed to protect and make their lives easier.

At this point hopefully we will have MSP/MPs who are there to do just that and aren't there to line thier own or their friends pockets.

 

And breathe

 

[Boof]

3 hours ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

Like Fatty Blackford? Hope springs eternal.

 

Like I say, Scotland would do fine but you’d still be run by knobs. They’d just speak with Scottish accents. Smithee’s point is a fair one though - it becomes your prerogative to vote them out 

 

I did have more the likes of Joanna Cherry, Mhairi Black, Ian Murray in mind...

[jack D and coke]

It seems to be on twitter quite a bit today. Not sure if anything starting to grow. I’m amazed it never has to be perfectly honestly. All the dafty unionists up here constantly shouting how much money we take off them and how skint we are without their tax dollars. 
Wouldn’t it be amusing if all the ones who rip Scotland to shreds end up getting emptied anyway when England gets their chance to have a say  

[Dazo]

13 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

Well it's been 5 hours since the lad said it and there hasn't been one mentioned yet, feel free!

My downsides mean nothing to you Smithee it’s a personal thing for everyone so utterly pointless. Regardless you are already baw deep into it so it would be wasting both our times. 

[Boab]

8 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

It seems to be on twitter quite a bit today. Not sure if anything starting to grow. I’m amazed it never has to be perfectly honestly. All the dafty unionists up here constantly shouting how much money we take off them and how skint we are without their tax dollars. 
Wouldn’t it be amusing if all the ones who rip Scotland to shreds end up getting emptied anyway when England gets their chance to have a say  

Yea, it would be a nice irony if a push for English Independence furthered the Scottish cause.

👍

[Unknown user]

3 hours ago, Dazo said:

My downsides mean nothing to you Smithee it’s a personal thing for everyone so utterly pointless. Regardless you are already baw deep into it so it would be wasting both our times. 

 

It is a personal thing! But after nearly 24 hours of an open goal sitting, waiting - nothing from any of you.

 

[Dazo]

7 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

It is a personal thing! But after nearly 24 hours of an open goal sitting, waiting - nothing from any of you.

 

Open goal ? It’s a personal opinion/preference that this thread is full off, no right or wrong really. 
 

Old ground no one can be arsed going over. I’ve moved to just wanting a referendum now, it needs to be settled. Again. 🙄

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, Dazo said:

Open goal ? It’s a personal opinion/preference that this thread is full off, no right or wrong really. 
 

Old ground no one can be arsed going over. I’ve moved to just wanting a referendum now, it needs to be settled. Again. 🙄

 

We're at the stage where unionist arguments are so blatantly weak, you'd rather avoid talking about them.

 

-"Ha, there are no downsides to independence?"

-"What are the downsides of Scottish independence?"

-"Em, it's a personal opinion/ preference"

 

I mean, it was you who brought up the downsides of independence 🤷‍♂️