MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
BoardinBob - Member
seosamh77 » Can I complain? Just stop it with the wings site! please?
Why?Plenty of unionist or English biased media gets quoted.
Cause it's largely one mans biased opinion, it's not a reliable news source.
He really should just talk shite on forums like the rest of us. Why he needs his own site is beyond me.
Interesting reading on that wings blog - even allowing for cherrypicking of data and quotes.
It basically reinforces what I said. GERS does not show the whole picture and the numbers are questionable. iScotland would have a deficit but how big we don't know but we can assume it is less than the unionists say it would be given the history over this.
Any deficit is also going to be seriously affected by the negotiations over assets and liabilities
seosamh77
did you read it? Quotes from a bunch of respected economists
nope, I read enough of the site last ref to know it's dubious as hell. Yes there will be some valid point, awful lot of shit too. Don't go near it on that basis. Not about to start now.
Admittedly I'm only dipping in and out here, but going back to Scotland's share of the assets - around £110 billion of the total ~£1.3 trillion assets, if armchair postulation is how it will be determined.
What have I missed here?
Scotland's share of the liabilities, currently sat at around ~£1.35 trillion. Scotland's windfall from x% of assets is more than cancelled out by its obligation to also take the same % of liabilities.
The flying ox - correctish - it would seem the two figures scotlands assets share and debt are in similar regions although the assets is higher. My point is that only 1/4 of scotlands share of the asets is actually in Scotland so around 75 billion worth of assets is physically in england but belongs to scotland
some of those assets we don't want like aircraft carriers or we cannot use - like the houses of parliament or whitehall. So of this 75 Billion some of it could go to rUK in exchange for some of the debt? Seems fair? Or some horse trading over thiese two aspects.
Of course last time the tories told us no deal at all on this - in which case rUK keep both the 75 billion of assets and all the debt which saves scotland 2.5 billion a year in debt repayments or a good part of the deficit
Where are you getting your figures from TJ? I can only find UK Asset list from 2007, some kind of 2012-ish Government asset/liability report, and some slightly more recent BfS opinion on what's "fair".
From the net. IIRC it was from the last asset review in 2012 which basically updated the proper survey in 2007.
don't worry about the exact figures - they will be in the right ballpark and its the principle I am getting at not the exact sums
International law (as a starting point - it is all negotiation) is fairly clear on assets. Fixed assets (the Bank of England, Westminster, schools, hospitals) generally stay where they are - i.e. a geographical split. As do any assets purchased for local use (e.g. gritters in Inverness, dredgers on the Thames). Moveable assets for the benefit of the whole UK (aircraft carriers, bank reserves) get shared.
The idea the SNP mooted last time around that Scotland is entitled to 8% of the bricks in Harrogate High School has no place in the real world.
My point is that only 1/4 of scotlands share of the asets is actually in Scotland so around 75 billion worth of assets is physically in england but belongs to scotland
Not sure that's really accurate TJ as some of the assets owned by the foreign office, and the armed forces will be overseas. As with that part of expenditure which is attributed to Scotland but not spent in Scotland it may not be possible to clearly trace a particular amount of "Scottish Expenditure" to the ownership of an asset. Therefore you might want to attribute ownership on a per centage of population basis. My own preference would be to negotiate shared use of some embassies etc
Theres a lot of FUD* being cultivated (again) around the economics of independence.
There is certainly room for different perspectives on GERS deficit figures.
As I've stated, the GERS figures are estimates, but so are ALL such figures for all countries, even Greeces
(N.B. the size of the black economy in Greece after all the shennanigans might mean that the Greek economy is actually in a better state than it looks but the government can't see the money?).
But [again] if there was a clear magic bullet to make iScotlands economic picture look similar or positive compared to the current UK situation, where is Nic and her megaphone?
She creates (by proxy) and accepts the accuracy of the GERS figures.
So, ask yourself. Is she corrupting the true picture? and Why?
If not, then why is the FUD on Twitter Facebook and in online forums necessary?
(*Fear Uncertainty and Doubt)
Teresa may just been asked in PMQ's with the level of debt, could the UK afford to be an independent country? her face is priceless - dunno if this'll play on here: (edit, nope)
If not - [url=
this[/url]
mcj78 - Member
grumpysculler - Member
And now parliament will have to consider debating blocking another referendum:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/180642Democracy at work!
Yeah, that'll learn them pesky jocks eh - a load of predominantly English right wing tory punters telling Scotland they can't have a democratically decided vote on becoming an independent country, best pro-indy propaganda i've seen yet, well played
Democracy in action indeed
Funny you should mention that, but John Innes lives in my town (in Scotland), is Scottish, and now doesn't talk to his former best friend, who was pro-Indy.
Quotes from a bunch of respected economists
Quotes from a former government statistician, a journalist, an accounting firm, and a tax campaigner.
Eat the pudding - fuds indeed.
Fair enough mefty - its worth read but also worth noting the source
gordimhor
Again fair enough - yes some of it is overseas and its all subject to the negotiations.
How much is scotlands 9& of the bank of england worth? thats a really tricky one 'cos if westminster don't want us to use the £ then its going to have to buy us out in some way.
Funny you should mention that, but John Innes lives in my town (in Scotland), is Scottish, [b]and now doesn't talk to his former best friend, who was pro-Indy[/b].
Sounds like a reasonable chap eh? 😆 Most folk on here are complete strangers yet can have a bit of friendly banter over differing political opinions, shit - a good few of my close mates are rather staunchly unionist in their views, but I couldn't possibly imagine severing ties with my best friend over it... happily admit I jumped to the conclusion it would be someone south of the border that started the petition - still, it'll get the Yes2 campaigners riled up a bit, how many petitions are we going to see in the coming months?
Where I live in the Borders there are an awful lot of retired English folk (including myself in not too many years 🙂 ).
So in the future maybe Scotland could offer the same scheme as Portugal (Jamba mentioned it previously). This would bring plenty of cash in (plus obviously they'd also need to sort out their medical insurance).
b r - Member
Where I live in the Borders there are an awful lot of retired English folk (including myself in not too many years ).So in the future maybe Scotland could offer the same scheme as Portugal (Jamba mentioned it previously). This would bring plenty of cash in (plus obviously they'd also need to sort out their medical insurance).
Retired to Scotland ... 😯
Not cold enough in England? You want to freeze people to death? 😛
Ya, that Portugal scheme ... nobody wants to go there coz it's a dump.
I find it interesting to see people retire to foreign land (not talking UK or English speaking countries) where they have no connection with apart from being tourist. I mean do you really want to see the last day of your life away from home and your love ones?
mcj78 - Member
Sounds like a reasonable chap eh? Most folk on here are complete strangers yet can have a bit of friendly banter over differing political opinions, shit - a good few of my close mates are rather staunchly unionist in their views, but I couldn't possibly imagine severing ties with my best friend over it...
Agreed 1,000,000%
mcj78 - Member
... but I couldn't possibly imagine severing ties with my best friend over it...
You don't severe ties with best friend.
However, how can you(generally speaking) and best friend have so different views? Surely, both should be like minded otherwise they are far apart in thinking ...
Yup - I have one friend I cannot debate politics with - we just keep off it as he is a NO outie tory!
Losing friendships over this is simply stupid - as my (previously) unionist mother said after the last one - "if it goes the way I don't want I'll just have to thole it"
tjagain - Member
Yup - I have one friend I cannot debate politics with - we just keep off it as he is a NO outie tory!#Losing friendships over this is swimply stupid - as my (previously) unionist mother said after the last one - "if it goes the way I don't want I'll just have to thole it"
Politically we all think alike me and me mates but they are in the other part of the world. Religion might be slightly different but no big deal. i.e. our hell is deeper than your hell. 😆
[quote=seosamh77 ]BoardinBob - Member
seosamh77 » Can I complain? Just stop it with the wings site! please?
Why?
Plenty of unionist or English biased media gets quoted.
Cause it's largely one mans biased opinion, it's not a reliable news source.
He really should just talk shite on forums like the rest of us. Why he needs his own site is beyond me.
Is anything on WoS worse than this kind of biased mainstream media?
BoardinBob - Member
Is anything on WoS worse than this kind of biased mainstream media?
> http://archive.is/quTjx
Have you seen how the fake media portray President Trump? 😛
I mean he is the President of USA while Sturgeon is only a 1st Minister ... 😆
Can't say I get my info from the telegraph either.BoardinBob - Member
Is anything on WoS worse than this kind of biased mainstream media?
[quote=seosamh77 ]BoardinBob - Member
Is anything on WoS worse than this kind of biased mainstream media?Can't say I get my info from the telegraph either.
True, but it's still out there
seosamh77 - Member
...Same with epic, chill out on the freedom patter. It's * ridiculous. 120 years of resistance. Perhaps by 2 men and a dug. But no body really gave a * about it till the last 10 years. Take a reality check for * sake.
So you've never heard of the 1949 Scottish Covenant signed by 2 million people after WW2? They certainly gave a * about it. The Scottish Covenant Association was non-partisan and was very active in the 1950s and 1960s.
The process started in the 1850s backed by the Tories and then the Liberals. After a few false starts a Home Rule Bill was introduced in 1913, but WW1 got in the way, and then of course WW2.
The big problem was the SNP had lost credibility before WW2 because some of its nutters were admirers of the German state, and it's taken them this long to shake that off.
Meanwhile of course both Labour and the Liberals were purportedly supporters of Home Rule, so the SNP looked superfluous. In any case it was too busy with schisms - a bit like the Judean People's Front or was it the People's Front of Judea?
Doesn't mean you need to quote it.BoardinBob - Member
seosamh77 » BoardinBob - Member
Is anything on WoS worse than this kind of biased mainstream media?Can't say I get my info from the telegraph either.
True, but it's still out there
epicyclo - Member
seosamh77 - Member
...Same with epic, chill out on the freedom patter. It's * ridiculous. 120 years of resistance. Perhaps by 2 men and a dug. But no body really gave a * about it till the last 10 years. Take a reality check for * sake.
So you've never heard of the 1949 Scottish Covenant signed by 2 million people after WW2? They certainly gave a * about it. The Scottish Covenant Association was non-partisan and was very active in the 1950s and 1960s.The process started in the 1850s backed by the Tories and then the Liberals. After a few false starts a Home Rule Bill was introduced in 1913, but WW1 got in the way, and then of course WW2.
The big problem was the SNP had lost credibility before WW2 because some of its nutters were admirers of the German state, and it's taken them this long to shake that off.
Meanwhile of course both Labour and the Liberals were purportedly supporters of Home Rule, so the SNP looked superfluous. In any case it was too busy with schisms - a bit like the Judean People's Front or was it the People's Front of Judea?
Home rules a different thing from independence.
Regardless, it's your flag waving ultra nationalism I have a problem with, oh I'm so oppressed... For one I just don't understand it. And secondly. It's that type of nonsense that'll kill any second referendum stone dead.
Didnt know Guy Verhofstadt has prevuiously said this
“[b]If Scotland decides to leave the UK, to be an independent state, and they decide to be part of the EU, I think there is no big obstacle to do that[/b].”He said it would be “suicide” for the EU to refuse entry to people who are “sympathetic” to the EU’s aims.
Verhofstadt was also supportive of Scotland’s vote to remain in the EU following June’s referendum.
“It’s wrong that Scotland might be taken out of EU, when it voted to stay. Happy to discuss with Nicola Sturgeon,”
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/eus-chief-brexit-negotiator-agrees-8796253
kimbers - Member
Didnt know Guy Verhofstadt has prevuiously said this
Ya, we see him coming ...
He would be stoopid not to take the opportunity to create schism as presented to him on the plate by the SNP.
Look at the mess he created for his country ... what a tool.
The Telegraph should not have published with the original headline. I'm not a big fan of Stu Campbell, but wings comes up with some good stuff. Similarly I don't like the telegraph but it also gets some good stories. Yet it publishes headlines calling for the first minister to be beheaded. I believe it was in jest, but I'll advised given the reports of abuse and death threats received by all the female party leaders in The Sunday Herald. It would have been unacceptable from WOS it should also be unacceptable from The Telegraph. Fair play to Ruth Davidson for condemning the article
[quote=gordimhor ]The Telegraph should not have published with the original headline. I'm not a big fan of Stu Campbell, but wings comes up with some good stuff. Similarly I don't like the telegraph but it also gets some good stories. Yet it publishes headlines calling for the first minister to be beheaded. I believe it was in jest, but I'll advised given the reports of abuse and death threats received by all the female party leaders in The Sunday Herald. It would have been unacceptable from WOS it should also be unacceptable from The Telegraph. Fair play to Ruth Davidson for condemning the article
The metro had something about Sturgeon throwing a sporran in the works.
But I'm confused; I thought the abuse only came from the Indy supporters? I mean; a self appointed expert on constitutional matters said so on the last page.
Didnt know Guy Verhofstadt has prevuiously said this
There's a good chance this is actually a negotiation tool as much as anything
Regardless, it's your flag waving ultra nationalism I have a problem with, oh I'm so oppressed... For one I just don't understand it. And secondly. It's that type of nonsense that'll kill any second referendum stone dead.
Agree with this. To win the referendum it's the moderates that need to be won.
Screw that. I'm currently brewing up a particularly virulent Winter Vomiting Bug to kill off the old bastards that still have some sentimental attachment to the UK and empire.
and whats your date of birth Scotroutes? do you count as an old bastid yet? Be careful of backfires!
yip, needs a smarter and much more self critical approach too. There was an awful lot of naivety and over optimism about the last one.piemonster - Member
Agree with this. To win the referendum it's the moderates that need to be won.
Old Barstads!
Where's the line? In possession of a free bus pass?
Just catching up. BruceWee's long post earler had this as the final paragragh
Providing they don't cock up the currency question (own currency pegged to either the Pound or the Euro or a basket that includes both) and that they make it about access to the Single Market rather than membership of the EU then I struggle to see how Yes doesn't win this time around.
He is quite right about need for a sensible answer on the currency this time round but he was very prescient with the EU remark. By focusing on the EEA an iS would retain the ability to negotiate a trade deal with its most important partner. If it joined the EU is it would be entirely beholden to the deal the EU and UK negotiated and would be collateral damage to any attempt by the EU to "punish" the UK or the UK's decision to opt for WTO.
[quote=tjagain ]Nope - we want 8% 'cos we have less than 8% of the UKs assets in Scotland
Like the bank of England - how much is that worth? Its a uk asset so belongs in part to scotland - as does HS1 (and 2) as they were built with UK strategic funds not english only spending ( IIRC) under Barnett
I'm sure we've done this one - HS1 does appear to have been a UK strategic investment, however they changed their minds on HS2 (presumably when they decided it wasn't going to Scotland) and there is Barnett funding from it.
Though when I was checking my facts I came across this interesting article where WoS points out the huge hole in the Scottish budget with no oil money 😯
http://wingsoverscotland.com/how-scotland-will-be-robbed/
[quote=tjagain ]Trouble with that line of action eat the pudding is that that would mean rejoining the EU not continueing with membership - this is why leaving the EU is both an opportunity for Scotland and a trap. Proclaiming independence before the UK leaves the EU is the best chance of staying in the EU and making that part of the independence deal easier.
The trouble with that argument is that the UK "proclaimed independence from the EU" some time last year. As discussed earlier, the timescales simply don't work as there is no way Scotland can successfully become independent before the UK leaves the EU given the proposed referendum date. It would require some quite incredible political wrangling and completely new EU laws on secession to allow Scotland to continue with EU membership whilst still being a part of the UK which has just left. The comments of Verhofstadt et al are simply negotiating positions (TBH I'm tempted to include NS in the "et al" - I still think the main purpose of the announcement was to give her leverage in discussions).
p.s. what's your [b]exact[/b] DOB? 
I quite like Ruth Davidson. I disagree with her politically, but I think she is a good politician, not a game player and really believes what she's talking about. Can't say I feel that way about many other people from the Conservative party. Got a lot of time for Ken Clarke though.
Ruth is my MSP actually
aye, really admired the way she completely flip flopped on europe overnight, very principled! 😆yourguitarhero - Member
really believes what she's talking
[quote=seosamh77 ]
gaye, really admired the way she completely flip flopped on europe overnight, very principled!yourguitarhero - Member
really believes what she's talkin
* Cough *
Line in the Sand
* Cough *
I do wish folk would stop bigging up Ruth Davidson. She only says what she's been told to say - and even then seems to get it wrong.
Pushing boundaries again scotroutes?
I also don't understand how anybody can talk about a Tory resurgence either. One national MP and 6 in the Scottish elections, even Davidson needed the party list to get her seat. I cannot get her affiliation either;single parent family from the post industrial part of Fife where they used to dig coal and build things. Maybe being a Tory is an act of rebellion?
Duckman - there is a small increase in the tory vote in Scotland - but the tories need to be a bit open about the fact that the PR in scottish elections is the only reason the tories have any representation in scotland bar one MP that they might get under FPTP
[i]I quite like Ruth Davidson. I disagree with her politically, but I think she is a good politician, not a game player and really believes what she's talking about. Can't say I feel that way about many other people from the Conservative party. Got a lot of time for Ken Clarke though.[/I]
IMO the sheer number of SNP MP's actually distort Scottish politics, as at an MSP level (which is the parliament that would actually govern an independent Scotland) you've the following:
SNP 64
Labour 38
Conservative 15
LibDems 5
Greens 2
Independents 3
Speaker 1
Going forward each of the parties would actually be able to focus on Scotland and not what (for the UK-based parties) their centre is focused on. For me this would mean that the Conservatives would pick up more votes/seats as folk who in no way would vote for the more right-wing agenda and sentiment of the current Tory party would vote for a more liberal Scottish one.
Those are the previous parliament numbers, Tories now have 31, Labour 24
In fairness, the Tory vote was more than a small increase. From 2011 to 2016 they nearly doubled their vote in both votes. Some of that is down to Davidson. Some of it is down to the collapse of labour, some of it is due to larger turnout, alot of it is to down to the polarisation of British nationalist and Scottish nationalist. The snp also increased their vote share by a decent amount.
So aye she's done a good job. But i wouldn't got too mental. She's at peak Tory. Maybe a bit more to be won, but no much i don't think. Her star will wain, but recent events will probably help her in the short term.
I have a bit of time for Davidson. I prefer her predecessor Goldie tho.
I suspect she would quite like an independent scotland in some ways as there is clearly tension between the english and scottish parties as Davidson knows some UK tory policy simply is not on in Scotland
Joe, she has done an interesting job as the last results show but by her own admission a long way from power. Not bad for a Tory woman in a country of long memories! But she appeared pretty clear in Indy2
“We will fight you every step of the way,” she said. “Are you listening, Nicola Sturgeon? No. Second. Referendum.”
Not much ambiguity there. Most likely to lose the idea of no referendum. Just the timing now - its getting a bit like Italian politics of old 😉
Goddammit! It took me ages to suss out what you were getting at. I had to re-read what I'd posted several times.aracer - Member
Pushing boundaries again scotroutes?
[i]That's [/i] what happens when you don't have a quote function and you're editing on a phone!
So here is Scotland's problem with EU membership post Brexit. No control over its trading relationship with its largest partner and at the whim of the EU should it try and block financial services.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-uk-continues-to-be-scotlands-largest-market-for-trade
Video here
As I said an EEA arrangement allows Scotland to agree a further bespoke deal with the UK and as such is the most credible option. Budget contributions, freedom of movement and no EU representation or influence.
teamhurtmore - Member
Most likely to lose the idea of no referendum. Just the timing now
Tbh I'm pretty relaxed about that. More I think about it, more I think a referendum in the timeline the SNP set out is a really bad idea. I think it will lose, by worse than last time, the complication of Europe is a big complication for the Scot Nats. Although you can't predict how campaigning would affect things.
I think you are right, Tory plan is obviously to argue that there is no mandate and force the SNP to fight the next election on gaining a proper mandate(a wee sub clause slipped in there isn't really a mandate imo), which is interesting in itself. As it basically standardizes the right of the Scottish parliament to call a referendum, if it is properly campaigned on (as it should be).
All in all, a fairly smart play by the SNP if you look at it that way. I doubt they haven't thought of the tory reaction(and their likely rejection) before the went down this route.
Like the last ref(and the 3 question idea) the SNP are being manipulative here I think.
[quote=scotroutes ]Goddammit! It took me ages to suss out what you were getting at. I had to re-read what I'd posted several times.
That's what happens when you don't have a quote function and you're editing on a phone!
Completely accidental then? Aye right 😉 Quite an amusing accident admittedly (and I'm still left wondering if you got the careful phrasing of my post!) 🙂
In other news, I'm not quite sure if one of the other politics threads would be a better place to put this as Wilders has already been discussed on both of those:
[quote=seosamh77 ]All in all, a fairly smart play by the SNP if you look at it that way. I doubt they haven't thought of the tory reaction(and their likely rejection) before the went down this route.
I'm wondering if they're thinking even more plays ahead than we've imagined. I certainly doubt very much it's what it appears to be, or that the principle aim here is to have another referendum. Looking at it in that context I'm not even sure that TM's response is so daft - maybe she's not actually bothered about stirring up a little bit of pro indy sentiment as she knows it's not going to happen anyway and she's simply setting out her position for the real political game going on here.
I don't think so aracer - there is huge pressure on Sturgeon to hold another referendum and I will bet you a pint we have a referendum with or without Westminster support on the timeline Sturgeon has put forward
Joe...Manipulative, opportunistic and downright disingenuous 😉
As the attitudes survey indicate, Scots are naturally sceptical about some aspects of Europe and opposed to further control - all perfectly sensible. So the SNP have to paint the hard Brexshit scare narrative to overcome this OR as they seem to be doing now back peddle and start to favour soft Brexshit options. This is where May should be focusing on - deliver a sensible bespoke deal, show the SNP up, and get back to delivering effective devolved power withing a very successful Union. Of course, the latter requires those in the devolved assemblies to be properly focused on their day jobs not some fantastic folly that harms Scotland and rUK.
I reckon Sturgeon is hedging her bets,
If she helps force May into accepting a softer brexit or Norway EEA deal then she can claim victory
If May goes full hard she can go for Indy and push for a Norway option herself (its much more sellable to any Out voting Yesers)
If the bunglings of Johnson, Hammond, Fox, Davis etc continues into the negotiations, well Sexshit might well be the best thing anyway
depends on your point of view! 😉teamhurtmore - Member
Joe...Manipulative, opportunistic and downright disingenuous
[quote=tjagain ]I will bet you a pint
You're on 🙂
The question is whether the political pressure is to have a referendum, or simply to look like she's in favour of a referendum. She's a canny politician - far more so than Alex was IMHO - and could well be lining up the excuses in the background.
The EEA option is certainly an interesting one though, whether for iS or as a compromise position for UK somewhere down the line when people have woken up a bit. It's certainly one I'd be broadly in favour of which gives us most of the benefits of EU membership (and looking back at older EU threads when I was arguing for us leaving it's what I was always in favour of) without actually being impossible following A50 declaration.
I think Sturgeon is up to something, but who will blink first? Judging by the way the SNP is portrayed in the print beloved of her own voters, May can't been seen to give concessions/appear to lose. (any comments page in the mail or even the Telegraph talk about "treason" 🙄 ) Add in the fact that NS is being pushed by her party to call it and it will be an interesting wee while. I will also take the TJ bet on a pint. I suspect that she wouldn't call the ref without permission and would LOVE to have it refused.
😀 If she [b]does[/b] force the Government into a Norway deal, will THM be the first to congratulate the sterling work of the SNP of behalf of the UK? 😀
OK duckman - yer on!
I think if permission is refused she will use that to increase support and hold one anyway without Westminster permission.
😆If she does force the Government into a Norway deal, will THM be the first to congratulate the sterling work of the SNP of behalf of the UK?
Shes up to something all right.
[url= http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15158935.Sturgeon_may_not_offer_to_reverse_Brexit_in_referendum__says_Salmond/ ]Herald: First Minister Nicola Sturgeon may not offer to reverse Brexit in Scottish independence referendum, says Alex Salmond[/url]
That escalated quickly!
Good thing shes a principled politician with real values who sticks to her word.
Whats her "Priority" again .. oh Education?
[url= http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/school-in-swinney-s-constituency-asks-parents-for-maths-help-1-4391411 ]Scotsman: School in Swinney’s constituency asks parents for maths help[/url]
eat_the_pudding - Member
...Whats her "Priority" again .. oh Education?...
Simple enough to answer. If it isn't independence, what's the point of voting SNP?
As for Ruth Davidson, she reminds me of Tories before they became toxic, and if she bucked the party line a bit more on the peasant crushing she'd increase her vote. I suspect she'd make a great New Labour First Minister of Scotland. 🙂
No ducks, I want better than EFTA*. That is an incomplete solution to ensuring access to the single market in future. Perhaps in the desperation to back peddle on EU membership now that the wind has changed, the SNP has failed to so their homework. The EEA does not give full access in terms of goods only services (among other weaknesses*) - and I am sure that Scotland wants to be more than a service economy.
I am looking for May to deliver a more comprehensive solution than EFTA*alone - although that is (admittedly) better than WTO IMO. When she does, the sand that is the foundation of the SNP's argument now will be exposed.
Roll on....
* I asume she (?) or the real puppet master is talking about EFTA but leaving details aside,
it should also be noted that in contrast to the SNP falshoods about having a priori rights re membership of bodies like the EU and EFTA, that is not a given.
I can't speak for anyone else but for me personally the single market and freedom of movement are essential.
I would probably be back in Glasgow within the year if it wasn't for Brexit. I have an Italian girlfriend and two kids born in Norway. We were planning on moving back but the absolutely toxic attitudes towards foreigners means that I wouldn't feel comfortable bringing my family back.
It's one thing if the lunatic fringe of the governing party were making noises about forcing companies to disclose how many foreigners they have on the books or to make schools keep lists of children who were born abroad but this is the ****ing party leadership we're talking about.
I want to get back to Glasgow to be closer to my parents and my friends but until independence (or a radical change to mainstream attitudes in the UK as a whole) I'm not prepared to risk members of my family being singled out by law.
Overly dramatic? Maybe. But the way things are going I'm not taking any chances.
epicyclo,
I guess independence would be one reason to vote SNP but its a relatively widely held opinion that the SNP were also concerned with improving the lives of the people of Scotland using the powers an money at their disposal.
The reason of the day for independence used to be "rich" but now we have deficit so it's "brexit" but now shes back pedalling on reversing even that (to get votes for independence).
So have the tories on one side refusing to cost a no deal divorce from europe, and on the other the SNP who will say anything and ignore any reality to get their agenda.
A pox on all their houses.
That's a pity BW, how's the MTBing in Norway? I feel sorry for a lot of the foreigners I know having to put up with the ridiculous bigoted attitudes being shown by so many these days.
I think both sides on the debate have their bad sides, but whilst May could quite reasonably have agreed to limit the scope of Brexit, she's chosen not to and is looking at all possible reductions in the level of devolution she can implement, after those nice folks at Westminster told us we'd be getting huge increases in devolution (and staying in the EU) if we just voted to stay in the UK.
I don't really think independence is the answer, but it could be part of it.
What was the local conclusion Phil?
Analysts from the Scottish Parliament Information Centre concluded that the fiscal changes set out in the Smith Commission would mean [b]Holyrood was one of the most economically powerful devolved parliaments in the world, compared to federal systems like Germany and Switzerland[/b]
The [b]Scottish [/b] Parliament Information Centre....
Rule Britannia 8)
[b]WARNING: CONTAINS A LOT OF SWEARING[/b]
THM, I made no claims about the current level of devolution, but about the changes which were being sought.
Would Westminster not be better offering Devo Max in the next one and outflanking the SNP; or are they worried that the SNP would build their case for another ballot in a few years?
eat the pudding - the SNP governments have done a lot to improve the lives of Scots
We have no false internal market in the NHS saving 10% of costs
We have no one being evicted from their houses under the bedroom tax
Just two of many examples
Much of what the SNP would like to do they cannot because Holyrood does not have the power Things like making income tax and benefit tapers less regressive