Should Scotland be an independent country?

[frankblack]

6 minutes ago, That thing you do said:

Brussells wouldnt rule Scotland. Thats the HUGE difference. EU law is designed for consistency accross the bloc so a widget in poland is the same as a widget in Scotland. To do that, certain rules are agreed by all via voting ie working time directives, employment law, tax oversight

 

Their courts can overrule your highest court.

 

Brussells dictates what other countries can do with your territory e.g. fishing quotas, freedom of movement.  

 

You cannot undo legislation previous administrations agreed to.

 

6 minutes ago, That thing you do said:

But, its done with a voice to vote against. If the EU was so bad, why did the UK either a) author alot of its reforms that it now criticises and b) rarely veto anything that got passed into legislation?

 

Where it did opt out, ie schengen, it could. 

 

Different UK governments agreed over time.  Harder to undo things when they are agreed to.

 

6 minutes ago, That thing you do said:

The UK didnt need a section 30 equivalent for Brexit vote from the EU it just did it.

 

Nonsense argument.

 

6 minutes ago, That thing you do said:

Did Denmark need permission to reinstate borders during covid? No, it just did it.

 

Don't know and don't really care as its irrelevant to me.

 

6 minutes ago, That thing you do said:

There is so much misinformation about how the EU works. It is not Brussells rule. 

 

This from people in a country where an unelected second chamber in the shape of the House of Lords is part of its system.

 

Sometimes they keep the commons in check.  Its not all bad.

 

6 minutes ago, That thing you do said:

As for the cutting ties part. Brexit is cutting ties because the UK chose to walk away from those ties by refusing to be in the common market and creating hostility. Scotland is not going to refuse to trade with England,  or vice versa.

 

The UK electorate voted.  The EU ****ed up by refusing to give David Cameron any concessions before he called a referendum.  It may have been preventable.

 

6 minutes ago, That thing you do said:

We would be cutting ties of being governed by London, not economic or social ties. 

 

Those details haven't been published by the SNP.  You are speculating.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

7 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

Their courts can overrule your highest court.

 

Brussells dictates what other countries can do with your territory e.g. fishing quotas, freedom of movement.  

 

You cannot undo legislation previous administrations agreed to.

 

 

Different UK governments agreed over time.  Harder to undo things when they are agreed to.

 

 

Nonsense argument.

 

 

Don't know and don't really care as its irrelevant to me.

 

 

Sometimes they keep the commons in check.  Its not all bad.

 

 

The UK electorate voted.  The EU ****ed up by refusing to give David Cameron any concessions before he called a referendum.  It may have been preventable.

 

 

Those details haven't been published by the SNP.  You are speculating.

This bit is actually crap as Tusk had a lot of concessions offered to Cameron. The problem was that Europe never tried to pass them before the referendum.

[jambomjm74]

1 hour ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

While I agree with your point, the money being spent on the Referendum won't be huge tbf but it will divert the attention of a lot of people who could otherwise be focused on improving the economy and making lives better for people. That's the part that bothers me.  The FM has made a deliberate choice on timing because she wants to capitalise on the shambles running WM. 

There currently isn’t a referendum.

The Scottish Govt has written a letter to Boris. It seems to state the the U.K. govt isn’t willing to engage in a conversation about a referendum and that the scot parliament doesn’t have the right to hold one … so it’s going to raise this at the high court….

Spending money on something that currently is not happening, isn’t that a waste of money ?

You can argue the Democratic right vs the already settled will view .. but the facts are there is no referendum and progress is not looking likely. 
That neverendum we are in suits the Nationalists and it is very very clear that this is being played out as a long term game… that the latest cards being played are all about increasing the feelings of grievance and division in the hope of increasing popularity… this is needed as nationalism still remains the minority view.

[Sarah O]

"Now is not the time" wail the unionists. 

 

Ok, that's fine. When will/would you be happy or even amicable to have the vote then? 

 

Don't say now's not the time when you offer no alternative. 

 

[i wish jj was my dad]

The Referendum will happen. They have a mandate for it and if UKG prevents it now they will guarantee a yes vote when it finally happens. 

[jambomjm74]

1 minute ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

The Referendum will happen. They have a mandate for it and if UKG prevents it now they will guarantee a yes vote when it finally happens. 

 

Simple fact is Boris doesn’t need to say yes… with polls in favour of a No vote and against a referendum next year it’s all political noise with no substance.
Now if by a miracle they won the court case, that changes things.. otherwise it’s a no “not now” and kick the can down the road. 

 

[jambomjm74]

8 minutes ago, Sarah O said:

"Now is not the time" wail the unionists. 

 

Ok, that's fine. When will/would you be happy or even amicable to have the vote then? 

 

Don't say now's not the time when you offer no alternative. 

 

According to polls, the majority of Scots don’t want a referendum next year. It’s simply not the majority of Scots priority currently. 

[pablo]

5 minutes ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

The Referendum will happen. They have a mandate for it and if UKG prevents it now they will guarantee a yes vote when it finally happens. 

 

It won't happen to the timescale set out by Nicola Sturgeon.

 

The awkward truth for those who support Independence, is there just isn't enough support for a referendum next year. That's the only reason it's not going to happen. 

[Sarah O]

22 minutes ago, jambomjm74 said:

According to polls, the majority of Scots don’t want a referendum next year. It’s simply not the majority of Scots priority currently. 

The polls that voted the SNP in with calling a referendum as one of their major manifesto promises? 

 

 

[Unknown user]

18 minutes ago, pablo said:

 

It won't happen to the timescale set out by Nicola Sturgeon.

 

The awkward truth for those who support Independence, is there just isn't enough support for a referendum next year. That's the only reason it's not going to happen. 

 

There is an awkward truth, but it's for unionists, and it's that the arguments for the union are sounding pretty tired. We've heard them before and they turned out to be bull.

 

They've admitted they want Scotland for our natural resources. If taking our resources makes subsidising us worthwhile, we don't need them taking our resources and subsidising us.

 

Scotland's a rich country.

[pablo]

2 minutes ago, Sarah O said:

The polls that voted the SNP in with calling a referendum as one of their major manifesto promises? 

 

 

 

Is that the same one as the fast track cancer diagnosis, free laptops and bikes?

[manaliveits105]

37 minutes ago, jambomjm74 said:

 

Simple fact is Boris doesn’t need to say yes… with polls in favour of a No vote and against a referendum next year it’s all political noise with no substance.
Now if by a miracle they won the court case, that changes things.. otherwise it’s a no “not now” and kick the can down the road. 

 

Indeed 

it’s all just wind and pish from the separatists 

[jambomjm74]

13 minutes ago, Sarah O said:

The polls that voted the SNP in with calling a referendum as one of their major manifesto promises? 

 

 

It’s a manifesto promise for the ruling party .. that’s not the majority of Scottish opinion on a referendum. 

I’m pretty sure that Boris has a manifesto to keep the U.K. together and has the democratic mandate as well. 
 

[manaliveits105]

40 minutes ago, jambomjm74 said:

According to polls, the majority of Scots don’t want a referendum next year. It’s simply not the majority of Scots priority currently. 

Absolutely 

14 minutes ago, pablo said:

 

Is that the same one as the fast track cancer diagnosis, free laptops and bikes?

The one she said vote for me to get you through covid and the hard of thinking fell for it 

[jambomjm74]

2 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

Indeed 

it’s all just wind and pish from the separatists 

I wouldn’t have put it that way, but you are correct in that this is “wind and pish” without much chance of success … other than to stir up more grievance, it might work or it might backfire as folk get sick of hearing the same old record played again and again and again .. and just want to get on with life.  It seems like all politics at the moment, being played out for the hard liners for the left and right… that’s not a great place to be 

[Malinga the Swinga]

3 hours ago, That thing you do said:

Thats a fair point. 

 

The argument you could make is indy Scotland as a smaller nation can be more agile in responding to those issues. Nimble economies have adaptability and bounceback ability compared to larger nations.

 

Or will be left behind as larger nations with bigger industrial and financial basis will recover quicker due to ability to borrow at cheaper rates and a newly indy Scotland will pay higher rates of interest on borrowing and be forced to undergo a deeper recession as it won't be able to flex as much muscle as larger countries.

 

Basically, you can argue point either way, depending on your political beliefs and you can't be proven wrong.

Its difficult to know who to believe as all politicians lie and those 'experts' they bring in on either side are being paid to write evidence to back up their paymasters view. Either that or they stand to gain/lose money and power themselves and want to protect their own wealth & investment.

There are very few, if any, truly neutral parties who can be trusted.

[Unknown user]

7 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Or will be left behind as larger nations with bigger industrial and financial basis will recover quicker due to ability to borrow at cheaper rates and a newly indy Scotland will pay higher rates of interest on borrowing and be forced to undergo a deeper recession as it won't be able to flex as much muscle as larger countries.

 

Basically, you can argue point either way, depending on your political beliefs and you can't be proven wrong.

Its difficult to know who to believe as all politicians lie and those 'experts' they bring in on either side are being paid to write evidence to back up their paymasters view. Either that or they stand to gain/lose money and power themselves and want to protect their own wealth & investment.

There are very few, if any, truly neutral parties who can be trusted.

While you'd think that as one of the richest countries on the planet, the UK would have a great credit rating, it has a chequered credit history and a credit rating that reflects that.

 

There's no reason to assume borrowing will be more expensive for Scotland than the uk, especially with the massive natural resources we have which give confidence we can meet our obligations.

Edited July 1, 2022 by Smithee

[Malinga the Swinga]

Just now, jambomjm74 said:

 It seems like all politics at the moment, being played out for the hard liners for the left and right… that’s not a great place to be 

Definitely the case all over world. A dedicated 10% who live and breath a policy, be it pro,anti independence, pro/anti immigration, religion whatever simply push and push their case 24x7, 365 days a year until they take over union, party and government because of the indifference of the vast majority of rest of us. 

As a result, polarisation between that small number divides country, nations and people.

Social media has made things worse as they flood all avenues with the same relentless spam turning all discussion into an us/them situation allowing grievance politics to dominate and bitterness/resentfulness to grow.

Don't know how to stop it though as genie out of bottle.

[ri Alban]

People using the absolute state of the UK economy as a reason we should continue with it .  

 

Resources stolen and sold back at multiple times the cost. 👍 Let's vote for this.

[Shooter McGavin]

1 minute ago, ri Alban said:

People using the absolute state of the UK economy as a reason we should continue with it .  

 

Resources stolen and sold back at multiple times the cost. 👍 Let's vote for this.

I do find this rather interesting, 

 

“You can’t go it alone! It would be an economical disaster!”
 

In the last 12 years, hasn’t the UK more than doubled it’s national debt?

[LarrysRightFoot]

Not going to pretend to be an expert but on the face of it a federal UK sounds like the optimal solution.

[Nookie Bear]

5 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

I do find this rather interesting, 

 

“You can’t go it alone! It would be an economical disaster!”
 

In the last 12 years, hasn’t the UK more than doubled it’s national debt?

 

An economic disaster kicked off by a Scottish bank, lest we forget.

[jack D and coke]

8 minutes ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

Not going to pretend to be an expert but on the face of it a federal UK sounds like the optimal solution.

Keir Hardie formed the Labour Party all those years ago with this in mind or home rule and still they won’t give us it. 
I don’t think anyone will be fooled if they start saying they’re going to offer us a federal arrangement this time. 
I mean we’re told we have the most powerful devolved parliament in the world but the WM govt can turn round and say but your no doing that unless we say. 
They put holes in their own boat there. 

[Shooter McGavin]

12 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

 

An economic disaster kicked off by a Scottish bank, lest we forget.

I’ll possibly need educated on the matter, but are you alluding to the 2008 financial crisis?

 

or the RBS bail-out of £46 billion?

[jack D and coke]

12 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

 

An economic disaster kicked off by a Scottish bank, lest we forget.

Yeah they were heavily involved in the casino banking of the time. Barclays got billions from the us fed too. If RBS are a Scottish bank are Barclays an English bank? Or are they both British banks that needed billions from govts? French banks bailed out Belgian ones etc it was a real shitshow.
Your not one of the people who still think the people of Scotland would’ve been on the hook for the RBS bailout too are you? You know like Gordon Brown lied about? 
Ever read Rishi Sunak’s role in RBS’s doomed buyout of ABN? 
Made an absolute fortune out of it. 

[LarrysRightFoot]

32 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Keir Hardie formed the Labour Party all those years ago with this in mind or home rule and still they won’t give us it. 
I don’t think anyone will be fooled if they start saying they’re going to offer us a federal arrangement this time. 
I mean we’re told we have the most powerful devolved parliament in the world but the WM govt can turn round and say but your no doing that unless we say. 
They put holes in their own boat there. 

I just think it’s sounds like the best solution for the whole UK. There’s no point in pretending a centralised Scottish Gov in Edinburgh would best represent the whole of Scotland anymore than a Westminster Gov in London best represents the whole UK. 
 

Im sure I read Gordon Brown is leading some feasibility study into it. 
 

FWIW it’s worth my view is Anas Sarwar seems the most in touch with reality of the top politicians with the least bravado. 

[jack D and coke]

Just now, LarrysRightFoot said:

I just think it’s sounds like the best solution for the whole UK. There’s no point in pretending a centralised Scottish Gov in Edinburgh would best represent the whole of Scotland anymore than a Westminster Gov in London best represents the whole UK. 
 

Im sure I read Gordon Brown is leading some feasibility study into it. 
 

FWIW it’s worth my view is Anas Sarwar seems the most in touch with reality of the top politicians with the least bravado. 

Tbh I’d agree that home rule or a federal agreement would be best now but it won’t happen. They’ve had over a century and if anything they’re looking to remove powers not give more. Don’t forget the day after the referendum and “THE VOW” David Cameron introduced EVEL and promises began to be broken. 
Gordon Brown can look into whatever he wants he has no power whatsoever and I’m not sure who’s going to believe him this time. 
You like Sarwar that’s fair enough but he’s a rich public schoolboy and his family is mired in dodgy dealings, they wouldn’t even pay the living wage and that’s a labour man? He’s the best one they’ve had for years but the bar was so incredibly low I’m not sure they could’ve sank much further. 
Labour are pretty much done imo. They don’t know who to play to anymore. Just last week there was talk of 4 or 5 Tory mp’s defecting to labour, how can that be? It hasn’t happened yet but it shouldn’t even be possible should it? They should be completely incompatible with each other. 
 

[The Mighty Thor]

1 hour ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Or will be left behind as larger nations with bigger industrial and financial basis will recover quicker due to ability to borrow at cheaper rates and a newly indy Scotland will pay higher rates of interest on borrowing and be forced to undergo a deeper recession as it won't be able to flex as much muscle as larger countries.

The UK will be left behind thanks to the self imposition of economic sanctions. A deeper and longer recession is baked in thanks to the half baked ideology of the people you want us to continue to be hitched to. 

 

 

[LarrysRightFoot]

35 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Tbh I’d agree that home rule or a federal agreement would be best now but it won’t happen. They’ve had over a century and if anything they’re looking to remove powers not give more. Don’t forget the day after the referendum and “THE VOW” David Cameron introduced EVEL and promises began to be broken. 
Gordon Brown can look into whatever he wants he has no power whatsoever and I’m not sure who’s going to believe him this time. 
You like Sarwar that’s fair enough but he’s a rich public schoolboy and his family is mired in dodgy dealings, they wouldn’t even pay the living wage and that’s a labour man? He’s the best one they’ve had for years but the bar was so incredibly low I’m not sure they could’ve sank much further. 
Labour are pretty much done imo. They don’t know who to play to anymore. Just last week there was talk of 4 or 5 Tory mp’s defecting to labour, how can that be? It hasn’t happened yet but it shouldn’t even be possible should it? They should be completely incompatible with each other. 
 

Yes I’m aware of Sarwar’s background and the living wage scandal - utterly shocking. I do like him however and believe he’s getting Labour back on track. 
 

My main issue with independence is it’s the unknown and it most certainly won’t be anything like the utopia those in favour of it suggest. Especially I’m the early years it is likely to lead to more hardship - something especially at this point in time we could all do without. We are already the highest taxed part of the UK, my instincts tell we would only be taxed more as an independent nation.
 

I also wouldn’t trust Sturgeon as far as I could throw her. Now I completely accept all politicians are liars - however people seek to think they can trust her for some reason.
 

The SNP pray on the (ridiculous) ingrained Scottish hate of the English to get a lot (not all) of their votes - there’s people even less politicially switched on than me and the SNP know being be seen to be anti-English can secure them votes when people don’t even know what they are voting for. 
 

I’m not a political expert (obviously) or economist but as I’ve said on the face of it federalism sounds the best way to go forward.
 

I also genuinely believe now is not the time for an independence debate - Scotland, the UK and the World needs to get back on its feet first. 

[i wish jj was my dad]

3 hours ago, pablo said:

 

It won't happen to the timescale set out by Nicola Sturgeon.

 

The awkward truth for those who support Independence, is there just isn't enough support for a referendum next year. That's the only reason it's not going to happen. 

If they win the legal argument it will happen. If they don't there will be civil unrest. I dread to think how the hardliners will use that because  they will have an argument that UKG is effectively acting as an occupying power.

Even worse if they use the GE and win the necessary % of votes. 

 I really didn't want this right now but if UKG stop it then I dread to think how bad it could get. 

A plague on all their houses. 

[TheOak88]

13 minutes ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

If they win the legal argument it will happen. If they don't there will be civil unrest. I dread to think how the hardliners will use that because  they will have an argument that UKG is effectively acting as an occupying power.

Even worse if they use the GE and win the necessary % of votes. 

 I really didn't want this right now but if UKG stop it then I dread to think how bad it could get. 

A plague on all their houses. 

Do you really think there will be civil unrest if the legal argument isn’t won? I just cannot see it, but could be wrong.

 

What sort of method do you think this civil unrest would take?

[pablo]

1 minute ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

If they win the legal argument it will happen. If they don't there will be civil unrest. I dread to think how the hardliners will use that because  they will have an argument that UKG is effectively acting as an occupying power.

Even worse if they use the GE and win the necessary % of votes. 

 I really didn't want this right now but if UKG stop it then I dread to think how bad it could get. 

A plague on all their houses. 

 

Of course if she win the legal challenge to hold one without Westminster consent, there will nothing to stop them pressing ahead.

 

But she already knows that she can't win the legal argument. That's why she's went straight to the Supreme Court rather than admitting the advice she's had from The Lord Advocate, that would be embarrassing.

 

The Supreme Court might not even rule on it as it's clearly a political project.

 

The GE route is almost too funny for words. 

 

This is about (re)toxifying the debate and keeping her wagtails on side.

 

It's desperate stuff. 

[jack D and coke]

43 minutes ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

Yes I’m aware of Sarwar’s background and the living wage scandal - utterly shocking. I do like him however and believe he’s getting Labour back on track. 
 

My main issue with independence is it’s the unknown and it most certainly won’t be anything like the utopia those in favour of it suggest. Especially I’m the early years it is likely to lead to more hardship - something especially at this point in time we could all do without. We are already the highest taxed part of the UK, my instincts tell we would only be taxed more as an independent nation.
 

I also wouldn’t trust Sturgeon as far as I could throw her. Now I completely accept all politicians are liars - however people seek to think they can trust her for some reason.
 

The SNP pray on the (ridiculous) ingrained Scottish hate of the English to get a lot (not all) of their votes - there’s people even less politicially switched on than me and the SNP know being be seen to be anti-English can secure them votes when people don’t even know what they are voting for. 
 

I’m not a political expert (obviously) or economist but as I’ve said on the face of it federalism sounds the best way to go forward.
 

I also genuinely believe now is not the time for an independence debate - Scotland, the UK and the World needs to get back on its feet first. 

I accept you don’t want it man and that’s fine but you’re going down the old tired routes of hating the English, now is not the time etc. 

Ive said it to a few people do you think we should just hang around the now cos it’s a bit dodgy and we’re told we’re a bit skint and then say to the WM govt right ok maybe in a few years then if there’s  nothing going on in the world and hopefully we’re minted with the renewables then turn round and say right we’ll have one cos we fancy leaving now? 

[The Mighty Thor]

20 minutes ago, pablo said:

 

Of course if she win the legal challenge to hold one without Westminster consent, there will nothing to stop them pressing ahead.

 

But she already knows that she can't win the legal argument. That's why she's went straight to the Supreme Court rather than admitting the advice she's had from The Lord Advocate, that would be embarrassing.

 

The Supreme Court might not even rule on it as it's clearly a political project.

 

The GE route is almost too funny for words. 

 

This is about (re)toxifying the debate and keeping her wagtails on side.

 

It's desperate stuff. 

I find it interesting that one government can't seek advice on the right of their people to hold a referendum, which is the ideology of the party elected, whilst another can openly break international law and agreements to follow it's ideology. It's staggering levels of hypocrisy.

 

The GE will be the next opportunity for the people of Scotland to express their will in a democratic election, having cleaned up in every single democratic election for the last 10 years or so. 

 

There's absolutely nothing toxic about the SNP seeking to achieve the very thing the SNP was created for. Anyone that can't process that probably shouldn't get involved in a discussion about politics. 

 

There's desperation in the air alright. 

[i wish jj was my dad]

27 minutes ago, TheOak88 said:

Do you really think there will be civil unrest if the legal argument isn’t won? I just cannot see it, but could be wrong.

 

What sort of method do you think this civil unrest would take?

I don't know and I'm certainly not encouraging it but folk are getting increasingly pissed off with way the way the country is run and there are enough bampots around who are looking for a cause to kick off about. UkG are doing a good job finding one for them. SNP are playing their part too. 

I hope you are right btw.  

[The Mighty Thor]

30 minutes ago, TheOak88 said:

Do you really think there will be civil unrest if the legal argument isn’t won? I just cannot see it, but could be wrong.

 

What sort of method do you think this civil unrest would take?

The only civil unrest around this whole discussion came from the winning side in Glasgow on the night of the last referendum. 

 

True story. 

[i wish jj was my dad]

28 minutes ago, pablo said:

 

Of course if she win the legal challenge to hold one without Westminster consent, there will nothing to stop them pressing ahead.

 

But she already knows that she can't win the legal argument. That's why she's went straight to the Supreme Court rather than admitting the advice she's had from The Lord Advocate, that would be embarrassing.

 

The Supreme Court might not even rule on it as it's clearly a political project.

 

The GE route is almost too funny for words. 

 

This is about (re)toxifying the debate and keeping her wagtails on side.

 

It's desperate stuff. 

See my response to Oak88

[LarrysRightFoot]

Just now, jack D and coke said:

I accept you don’t want it man and that’s fine but you’re going down the old tired routes of hating the English, now is not the time etc. 

Ive said it to a few people do you think we should just hang around the now cos it’s a bit dodgy and we’re told we’re a bit skint and then say to the WM govt right ok maybe in a few years then if there’s  nothing going on in the world and hopefully we’re minted with the renewables then turn round and say right we’ll have one cos we fancy leaving now? 

I genuinely don’t think independence is the solution. I also don’t think rejoins the EU is long term solution either. 
 

Do I know what’s best? Not really, however, neither does anyone and the SNP talking as though they will deliver utopia just isn’t true. 
 

You deny they play on anti English sentiment and that it strongly influences a lot of people (not just the less educated) but i think that’s burying your head in the sand. 

Theres also no getting away from the world be in a state of turmoil at present and there are more pressing issues than independence just now. 

 

I don’t think independence or the status quo are long term solutions. I think that the status quo cannot continue is accepted by most in politics and I’d say within the next 20 years we will see change, what that will look like i don’t know. 
  

I think there will be a time in the not too distant future when proper grown up properly thought through solutions can be brought to the Scottish and UK public and we can have meaningful discussions. 

[Spitonastranger]

3 hours ago, manaliveits105 said:

Indeed 

it’s all just wind and pish from the separatists 

You would know about that, you never stop spouting it 🤣

[Boab]

3 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

The only civil unrest around this whole discussion came from the winning side in Glasgow on the night of the last referendum. 

 

True story. 

Yea, in predictable fashion.

I can't see Nationalists hitting the streets tbh. Going by coverage of Indy marches !

[LarrysRightFoot]

6 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

I find it interesting that one government can't seek advice on the right of their people to hold a referendum, which is the ideology of the party elected, whilst another can openly break international law and agreements to follow it's ideology. It's staggering levels of hypocrisy.

 

The GE will be the next opportunity for the people of Scotland to express their will in a democratic election, having cleaned up in every single democratic election for the last 10 years or so. 

 

There's absolutely nothing toxic about the SNP seeking to achieve the very thing the SNP was created for. Anyone that can't process that probably shouldn't get involved in a discussion about politics. 

 

There's desperation in the air alright. 

Just to pick up on something that gets lost a lot of the time - not everyone who votes SNP wants independence, the SNP have even acknowledged that in the past (though they now seem to be conveniently forgetting it).  

[The Mighty Thor]

Just now, LarrysRightFoot said:

Just to pick up on something that gets lost a lot of the time - not everyone who votes SNP wants independence, the SNP have even acknowledged that in the past (though they now seem to be conveniently forgetting it).  

I'm sure there's folks that don't but the whole raison d'etre of the SNP is independence for Scotland. 

[jack D and coke]

13 minutes ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

I genuinely don’t think independence is the solution. I also don’t think rejoins the EU is long term solution either. 
 

Do I know what’s best? Not really, however, neither does anyone and the SNP talking as though they will deliver utopia just isn’t true. 
 

You deny they play on anti English sentiment and that it strongly influences a lot of people (not just the less educated) but i think that’s burying your head in the sand. 

Theres also no getting away from the world be in a state of turmoil at present and there are more pressing issues than independence just now. 

 

I don’t think independence or the status quo are long term solutions. I think that the status quo cannot continue is accepted by most in politics and I’d say within the next 20 years we will see change, what that will look like i don’t know. 
  

I think there will be a time in the not too distant future when proper grown up properly thought through solutions can be brought to the Scottish and UK public and we can have meaningful discussions. 

Im not having that bud I’m just not. It’s like the freedom and jimmy wigs pish and shortbread senate jibes it’s just to debase the people and try win the argument without even having to engage with it. Call people names etc.

I worked in England for about 12 years and if you think it’s a one way street of people not liking the English I’ve got news for you. I found most people to be great though and likewise I’m sure most English people find us to be great in return. There are dicks eveywhere but in general most people are friendly. 
If you think the uk govt will ever come to the table to speak openly and have meaningful discussions about it then I’m not the one with my head in the sand about that either. Muddying the waters to divide and rule people is their modus operandi. The British invented it. 
I don’t mean any of that that offensively either. 
Have a good one man. 
 

[pablo]

1 hour ago, The Mighty Thor said:

I find it interesting that one government can't seek advice on the right of their people to hold a referendum, which is the ideology of the party elected, whilst another can openly break international law and agreements to follow it's ideology. It's staggering levels of hypocrisy.

 

The GE will be the next opportunity for the people of Scotland to express their will in a democratic election, having cleaned up in every single democratic election for the last 10 years or so. 

 

There's absolutely nothing toxic about the SNP seeking to achieve the very thing the SNP was created for. Anyone that can't process that probably shouldn't get involved in a discussion about politics. 

 

There's desperation in the air alright. 

 

And I keep coming back to the same point. It's the numbers. If there was enough support for a referendum and/or Independence, then that's what would happen. But there isn't.

 

If the SNP try to use a GE to force through Independence, then that would be unconstitutional and illegal.

 

The General election is fought on a constituency basis over the 650 seats to elect the Westminster government. So presumably any constituency in Scotland which doesn't return a 50+% share vote SNP could opt out? See where this would go? It's a nonsense. 

 

Trust me, there's a lot of people out there who find the SNP abrasive, confrontational and quite frankly toxic.

 

 

[Brighton Jambo]

I’ve been quite open about being pro-union but will readily admit the status quo right now is not very appealing.  However, I really do want to know the answers to the big questions and not just to be difficult and to push ‘project fear’ I really want to know the potential impact for me and my family.  What currency will we use, what is the definitive position on pensions, what will happen with the border with England our biggest trade partner, what will be the cost of meeting EU joining obligations? I have a young family, in no world do I risk their futures on a wing and prayer.  After 8 years the fact I don’t know the answer to those big issues tells you why support doesn’t get above the 45%.  
 

In relation to the rather unexpected GE pledge from Nicola Sturgeon.  For me that’s simple, the message from Labour in Scotland would be to unite and finally remove the hated Tories.  Given there’s been no meaningful movement on Indy in years the SNP knew lots of their voters may be tempted on this occasion to side with Labour and give the hated Tories the heave ho.  It could have rendered the SNP almost irrelevant as the whole mandate for indy manifesto has been done to death.  It’s certainly a good move in that they won’t be irrelevant this time but, if they end up with less than 50% of the total vote, that will be thrown back at them for years as being the second decisive rejection of indy and gives UK govt even more power to say no to an official referendum.  It’s a bold gamble she’s gone for to be sure. 

[ri Alban]

2 hours ago, LarrysRightFoot said:

Just to pick up on something that gets lost a lot of the time - not everyone who votes SNP wants independence, the SNP have even acknowledged that in the past (though they now seem to be conveniently forgetting it).  

I'm sure labour, Libdems and Tory have independence voters amongst their vote. Especially Labour.

[Japan Jambo]

5 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

There is an awkward truth, but it's for unionists, and it's that the arguments for the union are sounding pretty tired. We've heard them before and they turned out to be bull.

 

They've admitted they want Scotland for our natural resources. If taking our resources makes subsidising us worthwhile, we don't need them taking our resources and subsidising us.

 

Scotland's a rich country.

 

Excellent news, just get rid of those pesky English thieves and we can double the benefits and give free rail passes all round. 

 

[The Mighty Thor]

50 minutes ago, pablo said:

 

And I keep coming back to the same point. It's the numbers. If there was enough support for a referendum and/or Independence, then that's what would happen. But there isn't.

 

If the SNP try to use a GE to force through Independence, then that would be unconstitutional and illegal.

So who determines when the numbers suit your argument and what is that number? 50%? 

 

Unfortunately we don't have a written constitution so being unconstitutional is a movable feast. 

53 minutes ago, pablo said:

The General election is fought on a constituency basis over the 650 seats to elect the Westminster government. So presumably any constituency in Scotland which doesn't return a 50+% share vote SNP could opt out? See where this would go? It's a nonsense. 

That's nonsense. It's FPTP. MPs are not returned on a 50% +1 basis so that argument doesn't stand up.

 

55 minutes ago, pablo said:

Trust me, there's a lot of people out there who find the SNP abrasive, confrontational and quite frankly toxic.

Trust me, there's a lot of people out there who find the lying, corruption and noncing quite frankly toxic. Hence the reason we want no part of it. 

[ri Alban]

I don't know why Scots bother with Hoose Jocks. They will always be traitors. Not long til we rid ourselves of them.

[Unknown user]

10 minutes ago, Japan Jambo said:

 

Excellent news, just get rid of those pesky English thieves and we can double the benefits and give free rail passes all round. 

 

Pesky English thieves are your words, not mine!

 

I'm just saying, Scotland's a rich country in the best way, with natural resources.