Scotland Indyref 2

I agree THM does know his stuff but it would be better if he did not couch it in childish names for politicians and if he clearly articulated hos views rather than alluded and patronised.

Wasn't that what I just wrote? 😉

THM has the economic argument spot on - Scotland is far more closely tied to rUK than the EU - it is fairly clear cut.

Well at least NS is doing something about it.
The English opposition is missing in action.

This may have been answered before but what would be the drive for businesses to relocate to an independent Scotland following brexit rather than say Ireland?

In terms of risk moving to a location that would still be in a state of flux in terms of taxation, currency, sovereignty and access to the EU rather than an established location where all this is set.

Once you take the oil and pound away from the situation what can be offered that is unique compared to other countries?

I personally I think the situation is a complete cluster

aracer - Member
Since the brexit thread got hijacked by indyref talk, are we going to do the reverse here? 👿

😆 I think they are all inter-related topics because Sturgeon is acting by proxy for EU. EU is encouraging Sturgeon to do her best to sabotage the entire process of Brexit.

cchris2lou - Member
The English opposition is missing in action.

Fairly clear cut?????

Excuse me, it's 100% certain.

Hence the desperate need to warp it all up in BS. Or take the argument that we don't mind being worse off, as long as we are responsible for being worse off. Total madness

But it's nothing to do with this anyway, Both issues are about narcissists who put their own political agendas ahead of the interests of the people they are supposed to be service. It's shameful and scary that people are fooled by it.

Both issues? Can we roll Trump into this thread too, as your last para could have been about him. Though the difference is that I'm prepared to accept that Sturgeon does care a bit about the Scottish people.

Both issues are about narcissists who put their own political agendas ahead of the interests of the people they are supposed to be service.

Boris typified this Farage [ and other Brexiters] and NS do not. They belong to parties who have a single issue that defines them/their party. They are not narcissists nor are they putting their own agenda ahead of the people they just have polices you disagree with so you will be rude about them
Be rational there is much to criticise in both of them with out DM style hyperbole.

Or take the argument that we don't mind being worse off, as long as we are responsible for being worse off.

Lets condisder fact: According to the Scottish Government’s own figures, Scotland’s removal from the single market would be far less damaging – by a factor of four – than its removal from the UK single market. And yet how does the narcissist present this in the posttruth world? You tell me.

I have no idea what you're saying but whatever it is it's got nothing to do with post-truth politics.

I am just a poor boy from the benighted glen,but I thought the only way we could trade with EUROPE was if we voted no two years ago? Suddenly Europe isn't all that and trading with England is the way ahead? 🙄 We will be leaving,not as soon as the SNP would like,but brexit has set the break up of the union in motion. But for all the " disenfranchised" posters on this thread,surely as the subsidy junkies your press describe us as,getting shot of us will be worth a huge advert on the side of the jambybus telling you how much better off you will all be:That will be a wee shot in the arm surely? However I must say that though I have had my differences with him,I am touched that THM loves us Scots enough to swallow that burden on his taxes.

Remain voters getting dragged in a direction you want nothing to do with by a majority of people who think radically differently to how you do.

Welcome to being Scottish.

Well, this was me two years ago on the night of the referendum result:

[url= https://c2.staticflickr.com/9/8678/30324626865_5fc39d0b29_z.jp g" target="_blank">https://c2.staticflickr.com/9/8678/30324626865_5fc39d0b29_z.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/NcFD5e ]Independence Referendum Night[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/cycleologist/ ]Ben Cooper[/url], on Flickr

I remember Margaret Curran shaking her head condescendingly at me during this. Turns out I was right and she's out of a job.

Funny old world, isn't it?

Both issues? Can we roll Trump into this thread too, as your last para could have been about him.

For sure, but don't dare mention who got took in by Trump in the past 😉

Bruce - carry on, it most be very nice to love is a blissful world where reality merely passes you buy. Enjoy it.

Duckie, feel free to examine patterns of Scottish trade. Or ignore them if it makes you and Bruce happier.

I'm still waiting for the secret oil fields and oil boom promised by Yes the last time round.

Took in by - my apologies - taken in by

I'm still waiting for the secret oil fields and oil boom promised by Yes the last time round.

Well, I'm still waiting for the EU membership, the steel jobs, the guaranteed shipyard contracts, the HMRC jobs, the "near federalism", the renewables subsidies, the carbon capture backing, and the extensive new powers promised by the No side.

Bruce - carry on, it most be very nice to love is a blissful world where reality merely passes you buy. Enjoy it.

I think what's passing you by in your blissful enlightenment is that when you call everything you don't agree with post-truth politics you yourself are playing a kind of post-truth politics.

So, once again, can you use google and that big old brain of yours to copy and paste a statement from the last seven days from Nicola Sturgeon or any other member of the Scottish government that is so blantantly false (something like "we send £350 million a week to the EU" or "I'm going to build a wall and I'm going to get Mexico to pay for it" will do) so that we can see that you actually have a case for calling post-truth politics and not just trying to write off every argument without actually having to justify yourself.

And no, your interpretation or saying what they really meant doesn't count. Find an actual quote.

Carry on Bruce, I would hate to disturb your state of bliss. Enjoy

(p.s. putting the interests of the people of Scotland first)

So it's post-truth politics to say "putting the interests of the people of Scotland first" because according to [i]your interpretation[/i] she's not putting the interests of the people of Scotland first?

Surely it must be dawning on you now that you don't actually know what post-truth politics is and you are just saying it because it makes you sound clever without actually having to justify anything.

Carry on Bruce. Your state of bliss is awesome. Enjoy.

(p.s. the Scottish government - remember it - have pointed out her nonsense, but don't let that get in the way. Ends and means, ends and means)

Carry on Bruce, I would hate to disturb your state of bliss. Enjoy

Carry on Bruce. Your state of bliss is awesome. Enjoy.

So.... are we agreeing you're full of shit? I'm not as smart as you so it's difficult for me to keep up sometimes.

Edit for your edit:

(p.s. the Scottish government - remember it - have pointed out her nonsense, but don't let that get in the way. Ends and means, ends and means)

Like I said, copy and paste an actual quote because you can't call post truth politics based on your interpretation of what she said.

genuine question , but is Scotland dependant on rest of the union financially or could it balance the books ( same deficit level as everyone else obviuosly ) on it own ?

Well we agree. Dont bother, as I said, much nicer to enjoy the state of bliss. I would far rather live in that kind of wonderland. It would be much nicer than reality which is really

or could it balance the books ( same deficit level as everyone else obviuosly ) on it own ?

😀

So does that mean you're not going to use words you don't know the meaning of anymore?

No it means I would encourage you to carry on in your state of bliss. I only wish I could experience the same. Enjoy.

To her credit though, dear Nicola is playing a canny game by pretending she is keen on another vote (keep the sheep happy) while being scared of the same (keep reality at bay). Smart cookie.

cchris2lou

Average of the recent past - easily. In the future - I'm not worried. Right now? A nice big fat deficit. too big. depends to an extent on separation terms tho.

Are we getting the usual mix of condescension and ignorance spiced with a tinge of racism from the usual suspects? I haven't read the whole thread.

We Scots can run our own country and overcome all the real and imaginary difficulties that our colonial masters are chucking up.

Just like every country that has gained independence from the UK has - and even those that have run into real difficulties prefer that to coming back under the UK umbrella.

But I doubt we could manage such a royal ****up as the Tories have just managed, so maybe that disqualifies us.

I don't care about the BS, I just want us to take back control of our country.

Mmm, where have I heard that before....?

BTW well said Ben.

Alex was happy to renage on debt - so you had no deficit - no really!

Welcome to fantasy land

Sturgeon is completely out of her depth. She is pandering to the vocal minority who are putting nationalism before sensibility. Unfortunately for the Jocks, most of the English don't give a toss and will be pleased to see em go.

Are we getting the usual mix of condescension and ignorance spiced with a tinge of racism from the usual suspects? I haven't read the whole thread.

Yup.

Ignorance for sure. The SNP relies on it. See no evil, hear no evil...

Reality versus rhetoric

Reality versus rhetoric

Those in glass houses...

No it means I would encourage you to carry on in your state of bliss. I only wish I could experience the same. Enjoy.

You're having trouble achieving a state of bliss?

That's strange, it sounds like you're very sure of yourself and have complete faith in your views. Surely it must be quite blissful to not have to re-evaluate your thinking all the time.

I am and do, but reality is nowhere near as fun as fantasy land

It would be great to avoid reality and wander along in la la land

Real life is really rather a downer esp at the moment

[quote=Junkyard ]see aracer this is what he prefers to do rather than deliver his wisdom

I think I agree with you - and I wish he'd stop because he has so much to add to this thread. I'm kind of hoping that complimenting him in this way might be more likely to persuade him to change than you lot just arguing back at him all the time (which I'm inclined to think just encourages him).

I didn't mention in my previous post that at best I'm skimming most of his posts or simply ignoring others - not because they upset me, just because I CBA.

SOH aracer SOH

The whole thing is so absurd - except for the poor folk who are taken in by this stuff, they are screwed - that you have to have some fun from it. It's too far from reality to be taken seriously.

I really would be able to ignore reality - it really must be fun. I am genuinely envious of Bruce.

I am and do, but reality is nowhere near as fun as fantasy land

It would be great to avoid reality and wander along in la la land

Real life is really rather a downer esp at the moment

You're saying that never having to change your thinking is actually a bit of a downer?

If it's such a problem maybe you should try to engage others in conversation thus opening your mind up to new ideas. New ideas might help you become less of a downer.

Great idea Bruce. From now on I will agree that politicians are working in my best interests. Honestly.

Wow this is fun...

The trouble is THM, your SOH often violates Wheaton's Law - I'm assuming you're not really aware of that, so just trying to point it out in a friendly manner.

Are we getting the usual mix of condescension and ignorance spiced with a tinge of racism from the usual suspects?

Yes, of course we are. Unfortunately xenophobia towards Scotland and Scots in general is perfectly acceptable to those running the forum. That's the vibe I am picking up anyway. This place is toxic.

Too kind - still kept the bottle of Amarone company and graham nortons over now. Sleep well - looking forward to the new dreams

Km - everyone loves you guys that's why we are desperate not to lose you

Great idea Bruce. From now on I will agree that politicians are working in my best interests. Honestly.

Wow this is fun...

Did someone tell you politicians are working in your best interests?

Normally someone has to tell you something before you can agree or not. That's how it works, you see. Someone says something and if you agree you say, "Mm, yes, quite right" and if you don't agree then you say, "Well actually, I think....".

It helps if you can try to be polite. If you aren't polite then sometimes people will get annoyed and verbally slap you around a bit.

Bruce relax. Forums are like politics (and the SNP). Should never be taken seriously. Still it's been educational. Thanks

I didn't realise you weren't taking the forum seriously. Looking at how much time you spend posting I just assumed it was your job or something.

SOH aracer SOH

I'm assuming you're not really aware of that,

Its a shame as he does have a great depth of knowledge but he would rather be "humourous" than informative.

Perhaps we all* get to this point after long enough on here ?

* I mean me really as I can be just as guilty

Some real humour
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/snp-announces-second-instalment-of-independence-day-trilogy-20161014115378

maybe

But I still haven't heard why we shouldn't be independent.

All the problems raised are temporal, politicians, ideologies come and go, finances rise and fall, but why should we not be independent?

Why would the country that has given so much to the world in just about every field of endeavour be unable to run its own government? Our people are as capable as anyone else's.

C'mon, what's the reason?

One can argue that any nation, state, region, etc can be independent. Of course they can but that is not the question. The question is what structure maximises the benefits of its members.

The answer to that question is blindingly obvious hence the requirement for smokescreens and subterfuge of those pushing the opposite.

No one doubts the abilities of the Scottish people - after all most had the wisdom to vote remain and all but four voting categories (not sure of correct term) voted to stay "better together" - many, more convincingly than even the ardent nats of Dundee.

Why deny them their wishes and the benefits they currently enjoy.

The answer to that question is blindingly obvious hence the requirement for smokescreens and subterfuge of those pushing the opposite.

The problem with conservative types is that they struggle to envision scenarios that differ from the way things are at the moment.

The two main reason that people voted to remain was because they felt that the risk of the unknown was too great plus the fact that they were promised sweeping new powers. Now it turns out that staying in the union is proving to be a massive unknown and the sweeping powers that were promised never materialised.

I find it amusing when people talk about the result being decisive. When you consider the fact that when the referendum was announced it was 70/30 in favour of the union you have to wonder how you would even go about describing it if that had been the final result.

Considering the fact that we're starting from a 50/50 split this time, there's uncertainty with both options, we know better than to believe any promises of more powers or anything else from westminster, we're looking at a Europe that will be much more accommodating than last time, plus the fact that this time we can expect the support from at least three of the major newspapers then its very conceivable we could win it this time around.

[quote=BruceWee ]The problem with conservative types is that they struggle to envision scenarios that differ from the way things are at the moment.

You seem to be totally missing the point. Both scenarios are being considered, and it is quite clear which scenario is actually better for people in their day to day lives. Does the warm glow of being governed from Edinburgh instead of Westminster make up for having less money in your pocket?

I wish Mrs Crankie would STFU about another referendum. You can't keep having one till you get the result you want. She clearly doesn't believe in democracy.

aracer - Member
Does the warm glow of being governed from Edinburgh instead of Westminster make up for having less money in your pocket?

poah - Member
till you get the result you want. She clearly doesn't believe in democracy.

You can, you clearly don't understand democracy.

An absolute fundamental factor of it is that people are allowed to change their mind. Nothing is set in stone forever.

For similar reasons that Brexit is bad for both the UK and the EU.

and it is quite clear which scenario is actually better for people in their day to day lives.

Indeed. In fact, if you had a blank sheet of paper the optimum scenario is always to have access/be a member of as wide as region as possible while mainting the highest level of devolved power/sovereignty.

The odd thing in both votes is that the status quo - rather than represent conservatism with a little c - was/is about as close to perfect as possible (given that it will never be 100%).

Why would you want to deviate from this - to avoid scrutiny of actual track record??? Avoid awkward questions over why you are unable to maximise, even use, the benefits of the status quo??? Not difficult to answer is it.....?

aracer - Member
For similar reasons that Brexit is bad for both the UK and the EU.

Lets get down to the numbers the real details. Show us the evidence?

You seem to be totally missing the point. Both scenarios are being considered, and it is quite clear which scenario is actually better for people in their day to day lives.

I think what you mean is that in your opinion it's clear which scenario is actually better for people in their day to day lives.

Can you explain why?

Indeed. In fact, if you had a blank sheet of paper the optimum scenario is always to have access/be a member of as wide as region as possible while mainting the highest level of devolved power/sovereignty.

So for Scotland the optimum scenario would be to be independent while a member of the single market while the worst scenario would be to be a small part of a large country without access to the single market.

teamhurtmore - Member
and it is quite clear which scenario is actually better for people in their day to day lives.
Indeed. In fact, if you had a blank sheet of paper the optimum scenario is always to have access/be a member of as wide as region as possible while mainting the highest level of devolved power/sovereignty.

The odd thing in both votes is that the status quo - rather than represent conservatism with a little c - was/is about as close to perfect as possible (given that it will never be 100%).

Why would you want to deviate from this - to avoid scrutiny of actual track record??? Avoid awkward questions over why you are unable to maximise, even use, the benefits of the status quo??? Not difficult to answer is it.....?

A wee bit of honest disclosure would be nice here. Or you are in danger of looking a bit like, how would I put, the deceitful one. 😆 All bluster to further you're own agenda!

Even though I voted Yes in IndyRef I was content enough to stay in the UK as part of the EU when we lost. I could have lived with that for any number of years until the case for independence could be convincingly won.

Since brexit and the way things are going now, the overall tone of things, I can't get out of the UK fast enough. If this costs us money in the short and/or long term then so be it, a price worth paying to distance ourselves from what remains.

You can, you clearly don't understand democracy.

An absolute fundamental factor of it is that people are allowed to change their mind. Nothing is set in stone forever.

so we just have referendums every year because one party didn't like the result? Then once we get it do we have another one in 2 years time to see if we want back?

poah - Member
You can, you clearly don't understand democracy.
An absolute fundamental factor of it is that people are allowed to change their mind. Nothing is set in stone forever.
so we just have referendums every year because one party didn't like the result? Then once we get it do we have another one in 2 years time to see if we want back?

We could if we liked. yes.

btw I don't favour an early ref. like I say 2030 is the timeframe I think people should be looking at. be honest about the obvious financial challenges that scotland has and in the meantime and openly fix them. I'd like to see an honest debate and action on that before another ref.

I think that's how you convice the majority to vote for it. Not some opportunistic and overly simplistic bullshit about remaining in the EU being a redline.

(I actually think that an iscotland being in an EU that is hostile to RUK is a fairly complex situation, given scotlands largest trading partner is England.)

so we just have referendums every year because one party didn't like the result? Then once we get it do we have another one in 2 years time to see if we want back?

If someone puts the idea forward and enough people vote for it then sure, why not.

km - businesses would love you!!

We could if we liked. yes.

If someone puts the idea forward and enough people vote for it then sure, why not.

and the effect that would have on the country?

poah - Member
We could if we liked. yes.
If someone puts the idea forward and enough people vote for it then sure, why not.
and the effect that would have on the country?

People would get what the majority for(you know democracy). If one referendum gives a result, it should be able to withstand another. If not, then the initial result was suspect.

Precisely the reason why we should have another EU ref, imo. If 52% is a convincing majority, it should be able to withstand another referendum.

Why this simple argument isn't in the public domain is indication of a stitchup regarding the EU ref.

I have no particular interest in business. Whatever the situation, as long as there is money to be made there will be businesses there and willing to make it. It is no concern or objective of mine to ensure that they make ever increasing amounts of money. Sure they will complain if they don't get to do so, good for them, let them, I don't give a shit. If it's not enough money for one business, it will be for another. Believe it or not, not everyone lives their life being a slave to money, there are many other parts of life.

[quote=BruceWee ]So for Scotland the optimum scenario would be to be independent while a member of the single market while the worst scenario would be to be a small part of a large country without access to the single market.

If everything was equal regarding Scotland's trade with rUK and the EU - but it's not, it does far more trade with rUK. I'm basing my opinion (which is all anybody has on here, I'm not sure why that needs pointing out) on the basis that access to rUK markets is far, far more important. Clearly if Scotland managed to have cake and eat it, become independent and part of the EU then it faces the same issues that Germany does in terms of access to post Brexit UK markets - except that the rUK is a rather more significant market for Scotland than it is for Germany. We have done all this argument already on the Brexit thread.

If a party says they're going to have a referendum in their manifesto and people elect them then, yes, they can call a referendum every year if they like. The solution is to get people to vote for parties that say they won't have a referendum.

Even though I voted Yes in IndyRef I was content enough to stay in the UK as part of the EU when we lost. I could have lived with that for any number of years until the case for independence could be convincingly won.

Since brexit and the way things are going now, the overall tone of things, I can't get out of the UK fast enough. If this costs us money in the short and/or long term then so be it, a price worth paying to distance ourselves from what remains.

This is exactly my feeling too. Even though I campaigned for Yes last time, there was a sense after we lost that things would just stay the same really, back to the day job. There was even, I'll admit, perhaps a little relief that we hadn't leaped into the unknown - though also a lot of sadness that we hadn't.

Now, with the way the UK is going, a leap into the unknown is looking pretty good.

Like I said thm, it's pretty clear which ever investments you have are based on the status quo, you dislike change for this reason.

I am not sure where you get that from - but feel free to believe it if you want. As Bruce noted last night that is a much better path to happiness.

But returning to cold hard truths. Brexshit is bad for all of us. We know that and as I noted earlier its obviously more galling for Scots given the vote. But, that doesn't mean that a second knee-jerk bad decision is the correct way forward. This is not a maths exercise where tow minuses make a plus. This is real life.

As usual, the Narcissitic one is stirring up trouble, giving false hope to the gullible, and avoiding scrutiny of her track record. Cue talk of setting up rep offices/"embassies" - was meeting junior Germans in a restaurant that big a dent to the ego?

How about focusing on the tasks at hand, fully utilising the tools already at her disposal, tackling issues such as educational inequality, poor health standards; weaker economic performance. Or is just muddying the waters an easier option.

Like her or loathe her at least Theresa is getting on with the job at hand.

People would get what the majority for(you know democracy).

Remind what that was?

If one referendum gives a result, it should be able to withstand another. If not, then the initial result was suspect.

Oh I see.

Here's an idea like cumpulsory re-selection we can have rolling independence referendums. When the sun is shining vote out, when it rains vote in and blame the Westminsters.

Why has no one else though of that?

If everything was equal regarding Scotland's trade with rUK and the EU - but it's not, it does far more trade with rUK. I'm basing my opinion (which is all anybody has on here, I'm not sure why that needs pointing out) on the basis that access to rUK markets is far, far more important.

Yes but aracer these are the same facts that In posted a few pages back and they are inconvenient for the narrative. Like experts they really are not helpful.

If everything was equal regarding Scotland's trade with rUK and the EU - but it's not, it does far more trade with rUK.

Based on the situation we have now with Scotland part of the UK and the UK part of the EU. Unless you're an ardent Brexit fan you have to admit that the economy of the UK is going to suffer, thus reducing the level of trade with the UK.

Another thing is that trade between an independent Scotland and rUK won't cease but will be impacted. What I'm saying is that the the benefits of trade with the UK will not disappear completely.

An independent Scotland in the single market will have at least that part of it's trade protected which is more than can be said for her if she is part of a UK that has left the EU.

Also, Scotland is a small country with a population roughly a tenth of the UK. Some businesses will relocate to Scotland. How many it's impossible to say but that will increase our trade with the EU.

It's not as simple as saying that because things are this way with Scotland part of the UK which is part of the EU that they're going to stay the same with Scotland outside the UK but part of the single market.

teamhurtmore - Member
People would get what the majority for(you know democracy).
Remind what that was?

If one referendum gives a result, it should be able to withstand another. If not, then the initial result was suspect.
Oh I see.

Here's an idea like cumpulsory re-selection we can have rolling independence referendums. When the sun is shining vote out, when it rains vote in and blame the Westminsters.

Why has no one else though of that?

So I think the Scottish ref and current status quo is correct, the result is valid and should be followed, which it is. That should not exclude another ref sometime down the future, if the will is there within the scottish people to have one. That time is not now. But Scotland is definied as a nation within the UK, so it's a question only the people of Scotland can decide or not decide to have. Youse can waffle on, from south of the border, about once in a lifetime all you like. Simple fact is you don't get to decide that.

I think exiting the EU based on 52% is highly suspect. There should be another ref on what the vision of exiting the EU is, before the button is pressed.

So for Scotland the optimum scenario would be to be independent while a member of the single market while the worst scenario would be to be a small part of a large country without access to the single market.

The optimum solution was the one you reject for being overly cautious ie, membership of UK and EU (under UK priviliged terms). But I accept that has gone now (possible future fudges aside). But perhaps you misunderstand what being part of the single market would involve ie giving up independence of fiscal and monetary policy and less sovereignty? The worst scenario would be a small country (having to fulfill entry criteria ouch!) being a member of a broken economic structure. As before that is the upmost folly.

Good job, your leader only has that "in mind" 🙂

teamhurtmore - Member
Like I said thm, it's pretty clear which ever investments you have are based on the status quo, you dislike change for this reason.
I am not sure where you get that from - but feel free to believe it if you want. As Bruce noted last night that is a much better path to happiness.

But returning to cold hard truths. Brexshit is bad for all of us. We know that and as I noted earlier its obviously more galling for Scots given the vote. But, that doesn't mean that a second knee-jerk bad decision is the correct way forward. This is not a maths exercise where tow minuses make a plus. This is real life.

As usual, the Narcissitic one is stirring up trouble, giving false hope to the gullible, and avoiding scrutiny of her track record. Cue talk of setting up rep offices/"embassies" - was meeting junior Germans in a restaurant that big a dent to the ego?

How about focusing on the tasks at hand, fully utilising the tools already at her disposal, tackling issues such as educational inequality, poor health standards; weaker economic performance. Or is just muddying the waters an easier option.

Like her or loathe her at least Theresa is getting on with the job at hand.

Agreed a kneejerk reaction is wrong. My thoughts of 2030 and fixing scotlands problems(Ie making scotland financially self sustainable before another ref) isn't a kneejery reaction though.

I favour super majorities for such fundamental votes.

So do I.

Jo you are obviously far more sensible that your representatives who, in stark contrast, are jerking their knees faster than a reeling party goer

So we agree. Time for Nicola to STFU and concentrate on the job at hand until 2030. Stop the smokescreens and start delivering on your promises. That's what "the interests of the Scottish people" is all about not pointless grandstanding.

Like Theresa she has v weak oppo, but unlike her a much stronger majority. So no more excuses. Time for results. Scotland deserves better. See you for the 2030 referendum!!

Me too - I'm not sure if that makes us all conservative (small c).