Forum menu
Anyone following Scottish politics wouldn't have been that surprised by the last Tory results. They teamed up with Labour in marginal seats in order to maximise the No vote and campaigned on the fact that if you didn't want another referendum vote Tory.
"and campaigned on the fact that if you didn’t want another referendum vote Tory. "
Wasn't just the Tories. Lib Dem Jo Swinson beat the incumbent SNP MP in East Dunbartonshire in part due to tactical voting by unionists.
I wasn't surprised when we got more tories last election, I'd been warning people about it for ages.
Similarly, I'd advise people not to be too upset if we ever get a labour/tory coalition running Scotland at some point. It's entirely possible.
Not bitter 🙂
I’ve started using the phrase “Scottish exceptionalism” to describe the idea (conscious or unconscious) that people supporting independence express when they talk about how the people in Scotland are basically different from the people in e.g. England.For all that, there is definitely a slightly more left wing/centrist bent in Scotland, than overall in England, but that also applies to other parts of the UK of similar population.
So you agree if Scotland was independent the political make up of the parliament would be different? How come you can say that, but it's exceptionalism if we do?
(btw the term exceptionalism is based on a belief of superiority and the unfailing ability of your nation, ie like America/Britain, it does not apply to Scotland). I'm perfectly upfront, that an IS will be what the Scottish people make it, nothing more, nothing less, it's not a route to guaranteed success nor failure. I'm even pretty sure I'll disagree with plenty of independent Scottish governments. I'm not looking for my own personal political nirvana.
I'm also not looking for an insular Scotland, I see no reason why scotland can't work with the rest of the uk, europe and the world on things that are of mutual benefit.
Yes there's bluster, like with brexit at the moment, of closing borders extra and restrictions and a general hardfaced nature about things, but once the bluster goes away, people will just get on with the new realities however they fall.
But I think that barking up the nationalist tree and looking for separation is the wrong way forward (in indy as much as in brexit).
This i'm perfectly fine with, people are allowed different opinions.
“and campaigned on the fact that if you didn’t want another referendum vote Tory. ”
Wasn’t just the Tories. Lib Dem Jo Swinson beat the incumbent SNP MP in East Dunbartonshire in part due to tactical voting by unionists.
I read one analysis which presented a case that we have Kezia Dugdale to blame for Brexit. If she'd not suggested that folk vote Tory in order to defeat the SNP then it wouldn't have been possible for May to form a government. A bit harsh I thought....
"Immigration for starters. We have different needs and opinions over immigration. Student visas as well so students can stay and work for a while after graduation. Settled people either in secure jobs, business owners, young families being removed from the country by home office policy against wishes of Scottish officials.
Scotland should be asking why it is not targeted by immigrants in preference to some of the less savoury parts of England. Immigration policy is identical in both E and S.
In addition Scotland offers free degree tuition to EU citizens with the obvious ABE(&W) caveat. You should be flooded with graduates who after three/ four years of free education at the expense of the locals should be turning Scotland into a massive European powerhouse.
Or do they go home or down to London after they get their degree?
iS has a currency trap, either no EU membership and the pound and no say on interest rates etc, or EU membership, the Euro and interest rates etc set mainly for France and Germany. Until there is realistic clarity on the currency issue I don't see a Yes vote in IndyRef2 regardless of Brexit
Scotroutes - not far from the truth. those dozen Scots tory mps gave May her majority. Not just Dougdale tho. Ian Murray was also at it.
One of the most disgraceful things I have ever seen politically - Labour folk cheering tory wins.
I’m trying to remember what policy the Libdems influenced in Scotland that would have been different to their UK position?
Seriously? Free tuition fees, that was entirely Scottish Libs and a condition of the Lib/Lab coalition. The only credit the SNP can take is that they scrapped the short lived Student Endownment, to be fair though Labour before them previously took the credit.
an NHS run for profit?
C'mon, don't pretend you're stupid. NHS Scotland is entirely independent of the rest of the UK. The only way private companies can get in is if the Scottish Government let them.
Lib dems - their biggest achievement in Scotland was PR for councils. Totally changed the political landscape. Probably UK wide policy but only in Scotland did they make it happen
C’mon, don’t pretend you’re stupid. NHS Scotland is entirely independent of the rest of the UK. The only way private companies can get in is if the Scottish Government let them.
Your faith in the longevity of the current devolution arrangements obviously exceeds mine 🙂
As long as the Scottish government budget is calculated by the Barnett formula Scottish public expenditure on the NHS or anything else will be constrained by public expenditure in England. The small amounts that the Scottish government can raise by its own measures is nowhere near enough.
How would you change it?
But regardless of that anyhow, surely it's irrelevant to an IS? An IS can only be based on scottish revenue/spend figures, which is what the GERS figures show, as much as possible atleast, I don't think there is an alternative to those either?
If that's addressed to me Seosamh I would prefer to be independent . The only other thing I would consider regarding the Barnett formula is scrapping it for full fiscal autonomy and a seat on the monetary policy committee with a veto. Don't see that last happening any time soon
Jeebus, I look away for a day and people are saying Barnett is bad and asking for full fiscal autonomy with a straight face.
Its been established, (using statistics from the SNP government) that Barnett gives scotland 10Bn extra a year (out of a budget of just over 70Bn) above what we put in in taxes*.
Full fiscal autonomy would take that away, and be an order of magnitude greater than "austerity".
The only advantage (for some) would be that the pain of it would be caused directly by Westminster rather than as a result of Scottish independence (and then just blamed on Westminster).
Here is a graph of Scottish spending up to 2015. Note the drop in cash (70.2 to 68.4)Bn due to austerity.
I'm tiring of asking, but what sort of maniac would voluntarily drop that by another 10Bn?
And what would you stop paying for?
Yes, I know gordimhor would, but anyone else?
(graph from This Blog.)
* Getting extra from central government isn't unusual by the way. In the UK only London doesn't have a deficit**.
**Obviously not a real deficit, because, you know, U.K. exists.
EDIT: I can't believe you made me get the graph out again.
How much is Brexit likely to cost Scotland, eg the hit from loss of FOM, which would hurt Scotland more?
£10bn a year ?
(Assuming Scotland could leap straight into the EU & we end up with a workable NI border solution that could be used; in this case too)
No,
Its pretty clear that the (unnecessary, idiotic, self inflicted and serious) hit from Brexit on the UK economy will be considerably less than the effect scottish independence would have on Scotland.
Thats why I keep saying that brexit is bad but independence is brexit squared.
Even if I wanted it, Its not a solution to this problem.
You sound a bit like a disaster capitalist (with gordimhor).
"People are saying that indy would be an economic disaster...
But what if the economic disaster had already happened!!!!"
"Checkmate economics!"
really?
David Davis's & the SNPs brexit impact assessments reckon 12bn a year worse off for Scotland in a No Deal
obviously youd have to jump straight back into the EU to try & offset that, which may not be possible
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-42977080
I agree, a no deal scenario would change the scale of things.
If parliament lets that happen, then eff them all and theres not much left to hope for.
Just to be mischievous, another way to put that is that scottish independence could cause the same scale of economic grief as a no deal brexit.
Would any objectively sane person vote for either?
(Unless they felt they needed more "vitamin flag" in their diet?)
In any case even Nicola is talking down indyref 2 at the moment.
So we know the oil is running out and is worthless (and has been since devolution), but why do people like Jim Rodgers reckon England will be screwed if they lose the oil revenues after independence?
And if that scenario is right, then how come the oil revenue which has been a colossal benefit to the UK economy, will be of no benefit to Scotland having the whole of it?
So we know the oil is running out and is worthless
It's not worthless, just shouldn't be factored in the year to year accounts.
I’m tiring of asking, but what sort of maniac would voluntarily drop that by another 10Bn?
And what would you stop paying for?
I've said many times, I'm happy to wait till the books are balanced further. But it's disingenuous to claim scotland couldn't exist the way most of the world does at the moment, and borrows what is necessary and work does towards growing the economy and balancing the books over time.
So no need to stop paying for anything.
Even when we take 9% share of the uk current dept. that leaves us 160bn in the red, not ideal but it's not unworkable.
I'd expect that debt to grow is scotland went independent tomorrow.
seosamh
But it’s disingenuous to claim scotland couldn’t exist the way most of the world does at the moment, and borrows what is necessary and work does towards growing the economy and balancing the books over time.
So no need to stop paying for anything.
Now look at your statement from a different perspective.
If Rees-Mogg said of no deal brexit:
"Things will just go on as normal after a no deal brexit and we can just borrow what is necessary and work does towards growing the economy and balancing the books over time. So no need for any cuts anywhere."
Would you consider those the words of a calm economic genius or a deluded fool?
EDIT:
PS Hannah Bardell (SNP MP for Livingston) is getting roasted on twitter at the moment for denying that the SNP can top up pension credits (for WASPI women) in Parliament and online.
She then refused to correct herself and said that not learning what is reserved and devolved showed "disrespect to Scotland".
Talk about swallowing your own propaganda! :o)
I don't think a hard Brexit would be as catastrophic as people suggest either.
It's not like the brexit deal fails then the europeans will put up a wall and never talk to us again. Life will go on and further negotiation will happen..
You seem to think that no economic event can really makes any difference to the social fabric of a country!?
Do you think that the victims of austerity in the UK were all making things up?
Or do you just mean that it won't make much difference to you?
I think the victims of austerity are ideological victims, not really much to do with the economics, well apart from that's who the economics have been configured to target..
There's plenty to go around if the will is there to distribute the wealth in society correctly.
Or do you just mean that it won’t make much difference to you?
And as for this, you'd probably shit your pants if you seen my current predicament! 😆 I'm not sitting here saying I'm alright jack, not by a long shot!
So stop trying, as usual, to insinuate things that just aren't true.
If Scotland were independent 30 years ago there's no reason it wouldn't be sitting on a similar sized sovereign wealth fund to Norway's now.
If Scotland were independent 10 years ago it wouldn't have had to go through the rightwing ideological circle-jerk that is the Tory's concept of austerity.
If Scotland were independent 2 years ago... well, you get the idea.
Is there any combination of events you can think of that would make you say, 'Do you know what, this relationship just isn't working anymore'?
Or is Unionism more of a faith-based ideology?
If Scotland were independent 30 years ago there’s no reason it wouldn’t be sitting on a similar sized sovereign wealth fund to Norway’s now.
I'm not sure where you found that nugget, they've produce a lot more than us the last 20 years
https://resourcegovernance.org/blog/did-uk-miss-out-%C2%A3400-billion-worth-oil-revenue
Not sure what you're talking about. Over the years it's been roughly the same.
Edit: Ah, you said only the last twenty years. It does make your argument a bit better if you cherry pick which years to look at, I suppose, but I still suspect Scotland would have been better off it it had been managing it's own resources from the start.
Is this the plot for the next Back to the Future installment?
They never dealt with Baby Hitler but I guess Scotlands Oil could be a good tagine?
If you're going to fantasise why not have an independent Shetland?
Move there in your tardis.
Profit
PS the poo shower yesterday of Blackford wittering on about waspi women and Scotland powers in Parliament, plus the SNP tweeting his "victory" plus the Nat onal story today (about Scotland lacking the powers to help with pensions).
It's all a big stinky lie and they all know it.
Sad.
In 50 years time when we're fighting nuclear global resource wars, half the world is drowning due to rising sea levels, climate refugees are pandemic and we're all starving we'll look back at these petty boundary disputes and have a right good laugh.
Scotland shouldn't be independent because you don't approve of the quality of some of its politicians?
A HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Keep that thought in mind.
Is this the plot for the next Back to the Future installment?
They never dealt with Baby Hitler but I guess Scotlands Oil could be a good tagine?
If you’re going to fantasise why not have an independent Shetland?
Move there in your tardis.
Profit
So I'll take that as a 'No' to the question of whether there's any conceivable combination of circumstances that would make you support independence then, shall I?
BruceWee,
Are we saying that a "combination of circumstances" should include a time machine?
I'd prefer a situation like the one envisaged by the sdlp leader John Hulme during the NI peace process, where (I'm paraphrasing, probably badly, from 20 ish years ago) he said that the continuation of violence in NI was stupid because what would it look like from the future where we would all be Europeans and have whatever national identity we like. To all intents and purposes we would be part of the same country, and could think of ourselves as irish british european or any combination.
Brexit may have robbed me of being a European citizen and the rights that give me, but I'll not support another bunch of small minded nationalist hypocrites robbing me of more rights.
scotroutes
Not what I said.
But you seem to be implying that so long as they support independence, you don't care what lies they tell along the way?
That explains a lot, but not in a way I find particularly amusing.
Still not seeing the brexit/indyref parallels I assume?
"O wad some Power the giftie gie us. To see oursels as ithers see us!"
robbing me of more rights.
So you think a Tory dominated Westminster freed from European law is the way forward to gain more rights?
Are you f'ing mental? 😆
So no, then.
It's good to know there's not much point in trying to persuade you of anything.
Brexit squared is not brexit halved.
Do you think a Scotland outside the EU and outside the UK, with the deficit you've apparently now accepted, would be some sort of paradise.
Current trade something like 60% with the UK and 10% with Europe.
How far into the partition process would indy supporters be before they had to indysplain the decimation of services and pensions? How long before they start explaining that the "benefits" of big flag (or "returning to normal" as some might call it) might appear in 25 or 50 years (as the brexitters are now saying), and not be immediate.
You all claim to want independence for a better society, but your mates in power (whose job, you seem to be forgetting, is to insulate us from the worst excesses of the tories) haven't even got the balls to get behind their favourite slogans, and thats right now, when they have 10 or 20% more cash than they would then!
Offering the hope of a better society, without the means to deliver it is so much hogwash.
A true believer or movement, of any stripe, who doesn't consider the cost of their actions (not just the intentions but the actual consequences) isn't worth much to anyone, and is hardly a positive force for good.
Do you want independence regardless of the cost?
If not, what cost would be too high?
Any idea?
No?
If theres no number, then don't tell me you care about the ill, poor, old and disadvantaged.
You just care about independence.
Well good for you, but stop claiming your nationalism is "different" or "better" :o)
eat_the_pudding
...Do you want independence regardless of the cost?...
Whatever the cost, it will be less than we are about to get inflicted on us by the Brexiteer Tory govt and its handmaiden Corbyn.
If you polish that crystal ball you seem to be using, you'll see that too.
BruceWee
Why don't you answer the same question in reverse. (as above)
What potential cost in would be too high for you to knock indy on the head for now?
Or to think that its not worth the effort?
For me, for what its worth, an independent Scotland inside Europe with the rest of the UK, with the ability to financially support at least the social services we have now would be a start to convincing me its not flags all the way down.
I've been told thats available (in 2014 and since) but only by people with more faeries than brains fluttering between their ears.
Do you think a Scotland outside the EU
Scotland won't be outside the EU. Which kills off any fantasies you have about England shutting up shop(which won't happen either regardless.).
epicyclo
No cost would be too much? Really?
Well at least you've decided.
Although I see you've come straight back with a misleading economic argument, as if you know deep inside that economics* are more important to most people than to you.
I get it now.
I accept the (honestly frightening) predictions of the brexit hit to the UK.
But, also accept that, outside of a no deal, they would be considerably less than the hit to scotland of leaving the UK.
Thats fantasy.
But your claim that everything would be better after indy is what exactly?
I'm seeing people who simultaneously think that :
a) they have a good economic argument, and
b) refuse to accept the best economic information available, and
c) would take us all along for the roller coaster ride no matter what the consequences.
Are you smelling the "Eau de nationalism" radiating from yourselves yet.
Hope you enjoy trumpville when it comes. 😆
It's hilarious you claim nationalism when the UK can do no harm in your eyes. But nationalism does apply to the UK does it? 😆
Yes, I've definitely been saying that the UK/Brexit can do no harm. Thats the entirety of my argument. Nothing more for me to do here .........................................
Read back. I've been saying that both the UK and indy could do financial harm to the place where I live and the people I care about.
Looks like I might be getting the harm from one against my will, but I've potentially got a choice about whether I get the other (and I'll say no), you seem to be keen to get both?
The second isn't the cure for the first. <<< HINT Thats the point I've been making
For all that you guys love scotland you seem to have little faith in its parliament to use the money it has now to do any good?
You are also apparently sure it'll do better (for the people of scotland) with less money because. Why exactly?
Good luck with that (smells like brexit from here).
Anyway, don't worry I'm sure salmond will find a few more sand dunes to sell to his american chum to make up the shortfall.
I expect that pointing out any potential downside to indy makes me
a) a tory
b) trump supporter (?)
c) anything else?
ho hum.
In the meantime have a google for sesame street. I'm sure there must have been an episode where they explained the subtleties of "good, better and best", or "bad, worse and worst".
At the moment you seem to be stuck at the level of "independence is the answer, now what's the question."
Not sure what you’re talking about. Over the years it’s been roughly the same.
Edit: Ah, you said only the last twenty years. It does make your argument a bit better if you cherry pick which years to look at, I suppose, but I still suspect Scotland would have been better off it it had been managing it’s own resources from the start.
Lol, you have perfectly summed up the usual indy/brexit/trump type campaign claim. Your claim is:
If Scotland were independent 30 years ago there’s no reason it wouldn’t be sitting on a similar sized sovereign wealth fund to Norway’s now.
I'm not 'cherry picking' which years to look at, I'm saying for 2/3 of your quoted period which would have given us the above alleged glorious wealth, there could only have been much less glorious wealth generated than you claim, and even in the ten years at the start of your period we weren't producing much more.
It's the same as any of these £350million on side of buses or number of mexican gang members or whatever claims, it looks like a great statistic, it gets people riled up, but ultimately it's a lie. I think after three rounds of fact devoid campaigning in recent years, any future indy campaign is going to have to be a bit more truth based.