don't really understand resistance to offering scotland another referendum, immediately.
We gave you a legally binding once in a lifetime referendum (AS's own words) with 2 years to make your case. This is not golf, there are no Mulligans.
Scotland has more than enough tools to singificantly impact Economic policy, you put up stamp
duty and you decided against a 50% tax rate as it would be counterproductive.
jambalaya - MemberWe gave you
That's a good look. keep it up... 😕
you give it again now, and win it, or you give it in 15 year time and you will lose it.
We don't give it now - Scotland remains in UK
We don't give it in 15 years - Scotland remains in the UK
etc
UK politicians won't say this but I will. There will [b]never[/b] be another Referendum
[quote=jambalaya ]
UK politicians won't say this but I will. There will never be another Referendum
good thing you're an absolute ****ing nobody on an internet forum with zero influence on anything
Yup its a good look - we the Government of the whole of the UK. As you know I am not interested in political correctness. Its time for the SNP to shut up and get on with using the develoved powers they where given. Personally I think Cameron bottled it by offering more powers, they weren't necessary to win. No other PM will have the bravery of Cameron to offer another vote
More or less the next day was it not?
No it wasn't, but don't worry Joe these debates would die immediate if you guys stuck to the truth 😉
anyhow, regardless, i'm not getting into it, it's irrelevant.
Which bit the result or the lie??
Boarding lets look at my track record here, 4.5 years and on the winning side if every major political discussion to date
In the coming years we can check back on whether Scotland becomes independent. I'm
going for never
I think I smell shite. Yes I definitely smell shite.
Boarding lets look at my track record here, 4.5 years and on the winning side if every major political discussion to date
'kin ell, I never realised that you were Alex Salmond in disguise Jambas!?!
Km - soap, water and deodorant may help
Once in a lifetime would be fine if EVERY promise made during the campaign had been kept and if there was no significant change in circumstances like the EU referendum
We were told "vote no to stay in the EU" "Vote no and get meaningful extra powers in holyrood amounting to home rule" etc etc.
Jamba "devolved powers they were given" how patronising is that.
[quote=jambalaya ]Boarding lets look at my track record here, 4.5 years and on the winning side if every major political discussion to date
the really sad bit is you actually think you're on the "winning" side
Once in a lifetime would be fine if EVERY promise made during the campaign had been kept and if there was no significant change in circumstances like the EU referendumWe were told "vote no to stay in the EU" Vote no and get meaningful extra powers in holyrood amounting to home rule" etc etc.
Is this thread a variation on the R4 game only this time you have to slip at least one lie into every post. For a change, could we make it slip something true in, instead?
I'm beginning to wonder if all this political stuff that TJ claims to read has anything other than pictures in it?
yip.BoardinBob - Member
jambalaya » Boarding lets look at my track record here, 4.5 years and on the winning side if every major political discussion to date
the really sad bit is you actually think you're on the "winning" side
Is this the same Jamba who decided that in the event of a yes vote England would just keep 90% of the oil...despite international law? Or the one who [s]LIED[/s] [b]denied[/b] ever mentioning anything about the savings spelled out on the Brexit bus? Aye; he is always right!
Lots of examples on this. For example crossrail. Paid for with UK money ie scotland pays for part of it
When you claimed that yesterday I assumed you were claiming something different - because I've previously corrected you on it, and checking back you acknowledged my correction. It's not true, Scotland didn't pay for Crossrail.
It is aracer. for the purposes of working out the Barnet grant crossrail funding is considered UK strategic funding so is not included in spending for the purposes of Barnett. But its paid for out of UK funds - so Scotland pays 9% of crossrail but does not get the cost of crossrail included in the Barnett grant.
However A9 dualling is not considered UK strategic spending so that is totally paid for out of Scotlands budget.
the previous disagreement was about considering Scotland actually paid twice - and we agreed to differ as iut depends on how you look at it.
Thm I also posted a link to an independent source Reform Scotland who disagrees with your argument. Yet according to you I like everyone else who disagrees with you am a liar.(edit)
Of course not aracer, but dont forget where posttruth politics were born
And you seem to missing the point of this thread - its a humorous attempt to recycle old mis-truths (Joe doesnt like the word lie) that were falsified back in 2014, to see if they can be slipped past the next generation now. As above its as appalling as it amusing, but always interested to see who want to match Gove for telling the biggest and most consistent porkies. There is a clear leader so far although Jambas is coming up strongly on the far right side,
edit: my bad
for the purposes of working out the Barnet grant crossrail funding is considered UK strategic funding so is not included in spending for the purposes of Barnett
No it isn't, and yes it is.
Did it get changed then? Certainly was like that originally
aracer, Im confused now. Are we playing the post lies or post truth rules? Its hard to tell. I think we have just misunderstood the game all along
If it did get changed, that happened before we last discussed it - it's an easy Google, I'm finding stuff from 2007 about Scotland getting Barnett funding due to Crossrail
thm, wee question, given your arguments are largely based on the financial unsustainability of Scotland, at the moment. If Scotland was in surplus in 15 years time and out performing the UK, would you then support independence?
I remember now aracer - its was originally going to be considered UK strategic funding but after protest it was dropped. Trust you to prove me wrong 😉
I'm not THM, but I'll answer that in what may be a more grown up fashion. No, I don't support independence because it would be bad for both economies. That's not going to change. The current balance sheet problems are just an additional issue - clearly we need a crystal ball here, but the only way that's likely to significantly change is if the oil price picks up (though I guess current exchange rates do you no harm there)
thm, wee question, given your arguments are largely based on the financial unsustainability of Scotland, at the moment. If Scotland was in surplus in 15 years time would then support independence?
No Joe, that's a false premise. My starting point is how to maximise the interests of the people of Scotland (ok, and the UK). In that, you do assess the strengths and weaknesses of the Scottish economy and whether they are addressed better within a larger or smaller economic and political structure. The current financial situation is just one element of the debate, albeit a crucial on at the present time.
Like Keynes and Salmond (joke) I reserve the right to change my conclusions if the circumstances demand it. I hope that is grown up enough for you - aracer, still hasnt got the game yet. 😉
cheers, was just curious.
Not sure about the exchange rates helping at the moment aracer fuel prices at the pumps rising rapidly. Thanks Brexit
Its a pleasure as always Joe.
A good start would be for Salmond to be focusing on how to achieve better (note comment from IFS above on why), more sustainable and more diversified growth. Without that an independent currency (which is the only option) might become viable in time. Whether an anti-austerity (no really) government can/will deliver a surplus within that timeframe, we shall see. Our supposedly austerity version is struggling as we can all see.
It helps Scotland's balance sheet relative to the UK when the major difference is oil exports and oil is priced in dollars. Might still be a negative thing for Scotland, but we're interested in performance relative to the UK
I believe that independence would make a huge positive difference to Scotlands economy. But thats all it is - belief and crystal ball gazing. Remember Scotland has been in surplus for most of the last 40 years if oil is included but Scotlands non oil economy has suffered from having economic policies geared to the needs of londons financial centres rather than its own needs. Ie interest rates high suits London but not Scotland ( not recent years obviously)
The trouble is that even with independence you won't have full - or even much more - control of your economy. Lower interest rates for example would just result in capital flight. You'll still to some extent be dominated by England, but with no influence at all on their policies. Unfortunately geography means that you're in a different position to most small countries.
We would have a lot more control than the zero we have now. We have zero influence over westminster as well
One of the most telling things for me was in the independence debate when we were told - iS would have no more say in world affiars than Finland and we all went - thats morethan we have now and sounds about right for a small country on the edge of europe
There is a huge philosophical gulf between mainsteam English political thinking and Scotland. !5% of the vote here goes to tories / Ukip. 50% in England. Scotland has no desire to posture on the world stage etc etc.
You don't have zero now, thats the whole point. As much as you might complain, some account is taken of the interests of Scotland.
The irony of course is that some of the major issues I'm worried about may be significantly less of a problem if we're both outside the EU - we can just decide to have free trade!
Really aracer? [i]really?[/i] Examples please? We have no say in Europe, no say in how the UK is governed. Our fishing rights were traded away to the EU in exchange for a project in the west country. Last time the EU discussed fishing no representation from scotland was allowed by wqestminister
You don't have zero now, thats the whole point. As much as you might complain, some account is taken of the interests of Scotland.
Aracer, seriously, why attempt a serious or should I say grown up debate? Every response so far has been [s]a lie[/s] inaccurate. You might as well debate whether a tomato or a plank of wood is a better car. The premises for all the last few pages have been equally as false.
You have 6 MEPs, the same number as Luxembourg. Earlier in the year I might have even been able to name one of them. You have a say proportional to your population - I thought you favoured democracy?
If we were independent we would have more than 6 tho - mep numbers are weighted to smaller nations IIRc. Luxembourg has a much smaller population than Scotland - and we would be able to have trade delegations, someone on the council of ministers etc etc. We would have representation in government to government discussions
Ok to say we have Zero is wrong - call it minimal instead
Aracer, seriously, why attempt a serious or should I say grown up debate? Every response so far has been a lie inaccurate.
Just because you are attempting to belittle him do you have to appeal to aracer to join in? Can you actually deny his point about the impact horse trading fishing quotas has had on the North East coast of Scotland?
Though I was discussing economic things, and minimal is more than you'd have after independence on some of the most important economic drivers. Sure you could set exchange rates, taxes etc totally independently, but to do so ignoring the differential with rUK would do huge economic harm.
Edit: well I suppose you'd have flexibility to move in one direction and the tail might wag the dog, but my understanding is that you don't want to go in that direction
I read an article a while ago that talked about a triangle of sovereignty, openness, and democracy. Increasing one is always going to involve trade offs with the other two.
Deeper integration will therefore lead either to an erosion of democracy, as national leaders disregard the will of the public, or will cause the dissolution of the nation state, as authority moves to supranational bodies elected to create harmonised rules for everyone to follow. These trade-offs create a “trilemma”, in Mr Rodrik’s view: societies cannot be globally integrated, completely sovereign and democratic—they can opt for only two of the three
The UK is currently undemocratic. That is how we ended up with an internal party conflict becoming a spectacularly ill-informed referendum which led to an unelected quasi-president and some morons she found in a skip trying to make Britannia rule the waves again
The UK is relatively sovereign when compared to other countries in the EU while still enjoying the full benefits of openness. However, it has been decided that sovereignty is more important that democracy and openness so here we are.
Scotland has the chance to increase it's democracy not only by bringing governance to Scotland but using an election system that isn't based in the dark ages. We won't so much increase openness as keep it the same by making sure we stay in the single market.
That leaves the question of sovereignty. As has been mentioned Scotland will have to sacrifice a lot of sovereignty to maintain democracy and openness but compared to the amount of sovereignty it has now is that really such a huge loss?
The UK is currently undemocratic.
This is a good game if a little unchallenging now
