Scotland Indyref 2

[quote=outofbreath ]

Take it from someone who worked on the first Scottish referendum: what Theresa May is doing is a big mistake

[quote=hels ]Gosh yes - all the land that had to be purchased, for a start. I was working at the National Museum while negotiations were ongoing to move out of the storage facility that was demolished for the on-ramps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queensferry_Crossing

the Forth Crossing Act received Royal Assent in January 2011

I disagree its a fallacious argument and [b]for it to be false you will need to convince me[/b] that RW [ or climate sceptics] read a broad spectrum of press reports from all sources to form their views. I doubt you can and therefore my argument is sound

Maybe I should skip the simple word definitions and instead start on the logical fallacies.

The Flying Ox - Member
Working in the NHS I can tell you its better in Scotland than in England

That sounds suspiciously like you have an opinion on something in a country you don't live in, and we all know your stance on that.
By any measure they have been basically competent IMO

By any measure? So Scotland's Education world ranking for instance.
"Overall, Scotland’s ranking has dropped from 11th to 23rd for reading since 2006, from 11th to 24th for maths and from 10th to 19 for science. A record number of nations are now doing better than Scotland, with the English education system boasting a significantly superior performance at science."

out of curiosity, where are you getting those results? I can only see the UK mentioned at 15th science, 21st reading and 27th maths..

and tbh, given there's not a great deal of difference in regards to points. I think people are being a little over concerned about the disparity, it's not that big.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2016/12/06/oecd-pisa-report-does-uk-rank-international-school-league-tables/

edit found it..

http://www.compareyourcountry.org/pisa/country/GBR3 plenty room for improvement all round, and in comparison to others, England doesn't have a great deal t shout about, need to improve themselves.

aye those generous tories moaning about the lack of spending by the government ...god I tire of them and their big spending government departments

@mjc78, agghh my eyes 😐

Angus Roberston is of course getting in onbthe broekn record act. Tory arrogance. No, thats what Prime Mnisters do, they kead and make decsions.

Anyway I suspect and its a long way off that it will be a Hard divorce with scotland taking the asetts in Scotland an leaving rUK with everything else but not taking any or much of the debt.

But you will end up with the public section pension fund laibilty which is bigger than the debt.

out of curiosity, where are you getting those results? I can only see the UK mentioned at 15th science, 21st reading and 27th maths..

And while the difference in points might not be huge, it's hardly the ringing endorsement of a competent education policy given where Scotland used to sit on the table.

I can selectively paste from Wikipedia too:

[i]Proposals for a second Forth road crossing were first put forward in the 1990s, but it was not until the discovery of structural issues with the Forth Road Bridge in 2005 that plans were moved forward.[/i]

Yeah - I'm not sure what her best course of action would have been, and that linked article doesn't really suggest one. Easy to criticise when it's not you making the tough decisions!

Yup, wholeheartedly agree.

As my edit say(case you missed it), plenty room for improvement all round, I don't think any of the UK nations can really sit on their high horse and criticize others.

Your claims of fallacious are specious arguments that have face value to the ignorant.
My premise is either true or false it is not fallacious
you accepted this hence you asked for proof. If it were fallacious proof would not be required as its would still be fallacious and still wrong. I really dont want or need a logic lessons from you as you dont know understand it as well as you wish to project.
Your points are weak, unamusing and not as bright as you wish they were.

I think my point on rw is about as controversial as your point on nats everything else is just you being you I guess
Shall we leave it there as I dont think we are actually discussing anything now and just trying to be smart arses
TBH I would have discussed the issues but clearly that is not going to happen

Good day

Agreed, but it was more about disproving the SNP's supposed competence [i]by any measure[/i] than a willy-waving contest about who's best at maths.

Your points are weak, unamusing and not as bright as you wish they were.

The point was *very* simple and you admitted you couldn't understand it. Now you have finally understood it claiming it's not that clever is a bit weird!

OK - by any measure may well be hyperbole!

I still stick with the idea they have been basically both competent and cautious tho. Compared to Westminster certainly even if that not a very high standard

How about a ringing endorsement for the incessant cuts to financial resources coming from Westmonster to Scotland, with the barely concealed attempts to strangle our economy and development while bleeding us dry on every aspect of tax policy? Most public services are better managed in Scotland, DESPITE the appalling meddling and cost cutting imposed from the wealthy, self-serving south east corner of the UK.

Yup - managing cuts when you have no (effctive) money raising abilities is tricky. The decision not to ringfence the NHS was a tough one but ringfencing the NHS would have meant much deeper cuts elsewhere

However removing the managerial waste of the "internal market" saves around 10% of the cost of the NHS directly and more indirectly in co operation rather than competition.

Scotland NHS management cost is less than half of England and in England its around 20% of expenditure goes on management.

so on the NHS its not perfect by any means but way way better than in England.

Here is a wee challenge for those of you who think the SNP have not done a decent job in running the country. Name the mistakes. I have a list but its not big. Not stuff open to interpretation like the NHS but glaring errors like westminster selling the post office for half its value.

"The decision not to ringfence the NHS was a tough one but ringfencing the NHS would have meant much deeper cuts elsewhere"

Agree, but the Southern Parties didn't have that option because votes.

My premise is either true or false it is not fallacious

you accepted this hence you asked for proof

TBH I would have discussed the issues but clearly that is not going to happen

Just a boring Friday afternoon with nothing better to do, that's all. Not trying to be a dick (although I am well aware I may be coming across as one).

Ox - you are not really coming across as a dick - well made debate but I ain't been following your spat with Junky!

[i]Not sure which category you pigeonhole me in, TJ, but my understanding of the issues as a Yorkshireman living in Scotland is that the SNP have not been all that good at actually running the country, either nationally or locally[/I]

I'm also a Yorkshireman living in Scotland 🙂

But tbh what folk have actually to get their heads around is that the party in charge is in charge until the next election. At that point they may get back in charge or they may not.

And once independent there'll be no blaming Westminster so any FU's point straight back to Holyrood - a bit like after Brexit Westminster can't blame Brussels 🙂

Few governments seem to last longer than about 10 yerars before they run out of energy and ideas and lose touch with reality. Sturgeon may have put this off a bit by taking over and pushing in a slightly different direction and I see no real signs of fatigue in the SNP yet but I would bet my house ( not really) that in ten years we will see a scottish government of a different type

*doffs flat cap*

I'm not against the idea of independence, in fact I'm leaning more towards an iScotland than not at the moment. I just can't stand the divisive politics that goes along with it all. If it's such a good thing, produce a sensible argument - economic and social - and let the facts do the talking. The indy vote would win over many more undecideds than they would pandering to the lowest common denominator, and would likely have the moral ground against the unionists because I think all the unionists have in their arsenal at the moment is a picture of sorrow and despair, albeit one that is not entirely BS - there are many questions that need answering about the how, the why, the what and the how much?

chewkw - Member
...Hence, her career is dead from the start go when she invoked the spirit of Scottish hero Mel Gibson ... Freeddoommmm!

1. She didn't.

2. She is there for the cause not personal power like most of the independence politicians. If she goes, there's one ready and able to step straight into her shoes. Cause politicians are different from party politicians.

3. And do tell us, oh irrelevant one, what exactly is wrong with freedom. Remember millions of our parents and grandparents generation supposedly died for it.

The Flying Ox - Member
...I'm not against the idea of independence, in fact I'm leaning more towards an iScotland than not at the moment. I just can't stand the divisive politics that goes along with it all. If it's such a good thing, produce a sensible argument - economic and social...

Why not look at the bigger picture?

Removing several layers of government and bringing decision making back to Scotland is going to make for a govt that is responsive to the electorate.

At the moment Scottish votes have no value in Westminster. Thus the need to bring democracy closer to home.

After independence the SNP probably won't be running the show for long, and we'll be voting primarily for functional reasons rather than a cause.

The Unionists pressing on about economic issues are doing so as a diversionary tactic - they know full well that Scotland is not likely to be a basket case because our politicians and public servants are as competent as any other 1st world country that has gained independence, and Scotland has more than adequate resources.

Well don't just say it, prove it. Outline how Scotland will finance itself and its policies*. And economic questions are not a diversion from the issues at hand; they are part and parcel of the issues at hand. For starters, I'm pretty sure a pre-requisite for joining the EFTA is having a lender of last resort, i.e. central bank. None of this "well, we'll use the Bank of England of course" nonsense.

And "our politicians are as competent as those in other countries" is a statement and not an answer. The questions remain.

*I don't mean you, epicyclo. I mean the pro-indy side in general, and the pro-indy government in particular.

Flying Ox - decent financial analysis is going to be cruicial from the SNP. I can't do it - I don't have the expertise but there are folk out there who can. I await with interest the SNP / Yes campaigns stuff on finances / economy 'cos they need some damn good answers.

I wasn't really satisfied with what they said last time. They need to do better this time

The £ arguement one is intersting tho 'cos I can see that being a useful transition and it would actually be in rUKs interst as well. Remember Scotland owns part of the bank of england

There are a number of other small countries in Europe with skills and resources that are broadly in the same ballpark as Scotland, and they function OK. If Scotland chose to be independent, why wouldn't it be able to do the same, in principle?
Answers to questions about the economy, etc are relevant in terms of the immediate consequences of independence, but they're not blockers to the concept of independence itself.

Why do some people outside Scotland have such a strong attachment to the union? Independence wouldn't stop Scotland and rUK functioning as neighbours, so why is the union so important to non Scots? Scotland often seems to be viewed as a wayward economic sink by rUK, so what's the big draw in retaining it?

KCR

Why do some people outside Scotland have such a strong attachment to the union? I

I believe it to be a number of things
1) pride - they don't want to see UK reduced in power and of course it would be a huge blow to the prestige of the tories to see Scotland reject them so comprehensively
2) finances - for the last 30 years Scotland with 8.4% of the population has (including oil) contributed almost 10% of tax revenues to the exchequer - england will be worse of financially without scotland long term and Westminster knows this
3) for the wartime generation it was Briton not England that fought the war and to some it would be a betrayal of those they fought alongside to seek independence - this is a fairly common view in the unionists in scotland of that generation
4) presence on the world stage - rUK would almost certainly lose its seat on the security council and would ( the unionsts feel) be laughed at for losing scotland and would lose power and prestige

5) there's a feeling amongst many of the more left wing that leaving England to the Tories in perpetuity isn't the best way of the Scots supporting their southerly comrades.

Can someone explain to me please, why Scotland cannot have its own Central Bank completely separate from the BoE.
I'm no expert obviously, but what are the current obstacles to such a bank existing?

Well don't just say it, prove it. Outline how Scotland will finance itself and its policies*. And economic questions are not a diversion from the issues at hand; they are part and parcel of the issues at hand

so what's the big draw in retaining it?

I'm not convinced there is that draw so much anymore tbh.
I've said before that i don't know many people at all who have any great desire to keep Scotland in the Union, in fact the only ones I know who do are Scottish.
Of course this isn't representative across all of rUK & its social strata, just that in my personal experience non-Scots don't feel much attachment at all.

[quote="scotroutes"]

5) there's a feeling amongst many of the more left wing that leaving England to the Tories in perpetuity isn't the best way of the Scots supporting their southerly comrades.

Indeed - I forgot that one and it really troubled me in the run up to the last referendum. To some on the left with an internationalist bent this is a fairly key point

Can someone explain to me please, why Scotland cannot have its own Central Bank completely separate from the BoE.
I'm no expert obviously, but what are the current obstacles to such a bank existing?

As is obvious I don't know much about finances but there would appear to be no reason why not especially if we get a fair share of the assets including the bank of england

But as the bank of england partly belongs to scotland why not continue using the £ at least during transition?

Again this is a topic the independence movement need some good answers on

& 6 maybe people believe that the country they live in is the UK. Turn the question round. Why do people have such an attachment to having Scotland as a nation? For a significant proportion it has nothing to do with a certain type of society they want to live in and an awful lot to do with 'Scottishness'

Well, the main reason for not allowing Scotland to use the £ is why should we (rUK) be acting as a backstop for any financial shenanigans by a Scots Gov't?
Anyway, that is merely a debating point as it isn't going to happen. That was settled last time round.

So, take the £ out of the equation & what else helps/hinders the establishment of a Scottish Central Bank?

Why the £ - because 9% of it belongs to scotland - its not the english £ its the UK £

Otherwise I can see no real issue with setting up another central bank. The independence movement are going to have to come up with some good answers on this sort of issue and I hope the answers are better than last time. They fell into a trap over the £ and did not make the case at all well

[quote="imnotverygood"]

& 6 maybe people believe that the country they live in is the UK. Turn the question round. Why do people have such an attachment to having Scotland as a nation? For a significant proportion it has nothing to do with a certain type of society they want to live in and an awful lot to do with 'Scottishness'

Is it? My experience is very much the opposite. For the vast majority of independence supporters its about the sort of society we want to live in not some romantic tartan tat idea of scottishness.
Or do you mean the modern scottish identity? That is very closely linked to the sort of society we want.

Modern scottish identity is much more about being a small liberal democracy on the edge of europe and not hankering after a role on the world stage but to be a beacon of enlightenment - alternative energy. free healthcare and education for all. Equality of opportunity and an outward internationalist viewpoint.

Modern scottish identity is not about ethnicity. Still IMO best said by Bashir Ahmed "its not where you come from as a person that matters - its where we are going as a nation

You living in Scotland imnotverygood? I forget who is and isn't

Yes, I live not very far away from you. A lot of the Scots I know who voted 'No' did so with a sense that they were 'betraying' their country. They felt that they ought to be supporting Scotland even though they thought the whole idea of Independence was bonkers.

I agree with that - it was certainly one reason a lot of scots especially the older ones voted no

TJ, whatever an Independent Scotland calls its currency, it won't be in a currency union with rUK, that isn't going to happen. The assets question will be solved, as will any potential liability question, but we aren't going to be sharing any form of currency. That after all is a major point of Independence.

Some on here have poo-pooed the idea of Scotland setting up its own Central Bank, I wonder what the obstacles would potentially be.

I actually think the debate should be quite good for this referendum, assuming it's held between negotiations ending and Brexit being finalised.

In the last referendum it was the status quo vs a leap in the dark (even if the status quo turned into a leap in the dark). You therefore ended up with one group of people telling the others 'just trust us, it'll be great.' Tempers got frayed.

This time we're already in the air and we're just trying to pick which bit of ground looks softer.

If Article 50 is triggered this month then negotiations will have to be completed by October 2018 so that there is time for ratification. It's going to end up being WTO rules. The alternatives are then very clear. Be part of the single market in an independent Scotland or be part of an isolated UK.

I think the debate will be much more measured and respectful this time around.

muddydwarf - Member
...Some on here have poo-pooed the idea of Scotland setting up its own Central Bank, I wonder what the obstacles would potentially be.

Judging by what's been happening at the SNP conference, we're about to find out.