Scotland Indyref 2

aracer - Member

Maybe it's just that I have trouble seeing Scottish people as foreigners.

I think this is an important point to make, but post IS I wouldn't view English Welsh or Irish as foreigners.

Tbh I don't really view anyone as foreigners, it's an alien concept in my mind. I'd probably have had an awkward time eating my curry tonight if I did! 😆

England dominates because it has way more people than the other 3 combined. So in some ways it is perfectly fair that the majority gets its way.

And don't forget Wales also wanted Brexit.

I'll just go and find another constituency which has voted Liberal for the last 100 years. Or maybe just a voter who has voted Green all their life. Because democracy is working just as poorly for them as it is for Scotland.

Obviously in a democracy you wont always wn
Obviously in an Independent scotland that will still happen
I am not aware of anyone who thinks
1. Countries should not have a democracy
2. people who think an individual should always have the govt they pick

Its a specious argument as comparing people or towns to counties is ludicrous.

Maybe we should discuss whether IS supporters are more or less racist than Brexit supporters? 😈

It would be more rational 😉

aracer - Member
IS supporters are less racist than Brexit supporters.

That should have been a statement, i feel. 😆

The thing is though, to come back to the point I was trying to make, the most significant difference constitutional change makes to the life of an ordinary person is to the performance of the economy which directly relates to the amount of money in your pocket. Other than that what real difference would it make to people's lives?

Money, money, money. It's sad that for so many people this is all that matters to them and indeed drives their decisions. One real and immediate difference it would make for me is that I have friends and people I care about worried about whether or not they will continue to be welcome in the UK right now. Full power to Holyrood means that immigration policy can be decided from there and be specific to our own needs as opposed to Westminster who sees a different path.

aracer - Member
He did suggest that those against it were racist though, tj

Those who oppose democratic self-determination in a country do so because of either they have a vested interest in the status quo, or because they do not think the people of that country are capable of running it themselves. The latter is racist.

I've heard all this stuff before when the colony I was living in was trying to get independence. Same arguments, same superior and "better informed" stances. I've seen it in Australia with the land rights issues for the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.

At the bottom of the opposition is always a vested interest or racism.

If you want to see some real racism, read your English papers on-line and read the comments whenever anything pertaining to Scotland is mentioned.

Is this the same racism of those who oppose Brexit?

Of course those who oppose it have a vested interest 🙄 otherwise you'd just not be bothered. My vested interest is that just as with Brexit the economies of both Scotland and rUK will suffer. The point km seems to be missing is that when the economy of a country suffers it's the ordinary people who feel it in the pocket, ordinary people who need money to pay the rent and put food on the table.

What other sort of vested interest do you imagine people have?

I'd rather not read the online comments on newspaper articles if it's all the same with you. I already know that lots of DM readers are racist without having to subject myself to that.

aracer - Member
Is this the same racism of those who oppose Brexit?...

Not sure I follow the logic in that question.

I fully support England's democratic decision to Brexit, so long as it does not affect Scotland's democratic decision to Remain. That's a vested interest. 🙂

Basically the 2 countries have voted to part.

BTW you don't have to read the DM or DE, try the Telegraph or Guardian or any other English paper.

If Scots think leaving the UK is going to piss off Tories they are wrong, I would expect the UK will just move on quite quickly with the hard style exit being favoured for speed and simplicity. As noted that would be a far smaller change than leaving the EU.

As much as the SNP are pushing their raison d'etre its a dead issue. UK will be outside the EU (long) before there is another Referendum (if there is ever) and in any case the UK Government now or in the foreseeable future isn't going to recognise one.

jambalaya - Member
...As much as the SNP are pushing their raison d'etre its a dead issue. UK will be outside the EU (long) before there is another Referendum (if there is ever) and in any case the UK Government now or in the foreseeable future isn't going to recognise one

I think you'll find there's measures in place for a very quick mobilisation for a referendum if necessary.

As for not recognising it, that would be an exceedingly stupid move.

bencooper - Member 
Thanks for that, I just spat out my Ovaltine.

POSTED 7 HOURS AGO # SHARE

It's a pleasure Ben and sorry it's such a long time since you were enjoying your nightcap. Ovaltine at your age and at the time!!! I'm afraid it's been rather wonderful Lebanese reds all night for me, but an Ovaltine would be rather nice now.

But a final reality check especially for poor Bruce who seemed to be getting a little hot under the collar earlier. Conclusions on the 2014 economic case - from which little has changes except for the story getting worse

Salmond's policy chief: "deluded"
The Nobel price winning economist on a retainer: "mistaken"
Jo and TMH: "naive" - so we seem to be the most forgiving of all

But never mind wee Brucie knows better than all the above...."and I said to myself, what a wonderful world.........."

Love to read all the V Englànd stuff. Why do the ardent nats always seem to forget the Welsh and the N Irish!!!! Tartan myopia is a very short sighted version indeed 😉

Ironic that, isn't it THM? Guardian is not an English paper!

Anyway, can someone explain why national boundaries are so important?

teamhurtmore
...Why do the ardent nats always seem to forget the Welsh and the N Irish!!!! Tartan myopia is a very short sighted version indeed

Forget? What have they done to us? Tartan myopia may be short-sighted, but it's very accurately focussed.

As has been posted before:

[url= https://c5.staticflickr.com/2/1672/24666365604_f28c1ddbd5_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://c5.staticflickr.com/2/1672/24666365604_f28c1ddbd5_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/DzFz8A ]12798832_956076307809119_4458645859628725853_n[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/82598458@N05/ ]jamesanderson2010[/url], on Flickr

Salmond's policy chief: "deluded"
The Nobel price winning economist on a retainer: "mistaken"
Jo and TMH: "naive" - so we seem to be the most forgiving of all

Jimbofacts! Evidence please. Ctrl-c then ctrl-V. Can't comment on your final answer if you don't show your working.

As far as getting hot under the collar goes I was actually just stating a fact which is that you're being a dick. I'm not going to copy and paste examples of you being a dick in this case. What I'm going to do is invite people to read your contributions from page 15 onwards. That way they can check my fact and decide if it's wrong or not.

See how easy it is?

Anyway, can someone explain why national boundaries are so important?

Like it or not Scotland is a separate country rather than just a region in the UK. There's been a union for three hundred years now and despite that they are two distinct countries with their own legal system, education system, and most importantly distinct attitudes that go beyond regional differences in attitudes in England.

If the UK was genuinely one country then you would expect them to have integrate much more closely over the past three hundred years. Compare the UK to Italy which has only really been united since 1871. Since then Italy has been a single country with all systems integrated and no distinct border. You have the Northern League but their movement is unfocused and more based around the general idea that the South doesn't pull its weight economically. There's definitely an element of racism as well.

In terms of attitudes there's a definite disconnect between Scotland and England around the conflicts of the period. Politics has changed and the ideological divide is only just becoming apparent. The left and right used to be defined by labour (small l) vs capital with the left on the side of labour and the right on the side of capital. The conflict hasn't been fully settled and Scotland still leans more towards labour while England is more in favour of capital but a compromise has more or less been arrived at where the left accepts that people who invest in business should be allowed to profit from the worker's efforts and the right accepts that the workers deserve a certain level of rights including safety, protection from unfair dismissal and collective bargaining.

This is why many people are struggling to differentiate between Labour, the Tories, Lib Dems and dare I say it the SNP. They all support economic and social policies that any one of them could have introduced.

The conflict now is based on openness vs closed societies. In Scotland the SNP has laid out it's position clearly. It wants society to be as open as possible with immigration and free trade encouraged. Even Scottish Labour, Conservatives, and Lib Dems are in favour of open borders.

All the major parties in England talk about controlling immigration. No party is in favour of openness to the extent that Scotland is. This means that Scotland doesn't have a party to vote for. A vote for anyone other than the SNP results in policies that they don't agree with.

Openness is the dividing issue of our time. Scotland is on one side of that divide and England is on the other. It was the same thing when the divide was labour vs capital.

That's why we are two separate countries.

Tell you what Bruce, why don't you do the eyes opening? Try googling (see how easy it is?) and watch the TV interview with Stiglitz - I posted fhe link many pages back (you see I like facts) with the time of the exact words (go back and check), - you won't like the answer though - then google Bell's comments and you can read Jo and my comments here. After that come back and repost the same nonsense if it makes you feel happy.

Alternatively you can also read this well-argued piece from one of your more rational politicians

https://www.ft.com/content/ae8475da-9216-11e6-a72e-b428cb934b78

(and yes, it's worth paying for)

Yours again at large,

Dickie xxx

Nicola on Marr this morning

Nicola anything BUT clear on how her new ideas might work on Marr but promised some detail to come. Don't hold your breath.

Still smart politics by being vague so she can keep all her options open and avoid scrutiny on what really matters. Masterful if distasteful. But linking grammar schools to Barnett shows an amazing level of mental dexterity. No wonder she can confuse so many.

Good enough reason to avoid the show this week then

I think you'll find there's measures in place for a very quick mobilisation for a referendum if necessary.
As for not recognising it, that would be an exceedingly stupid move.

No doubt you can have a quick locally organised vote without a 2 year campaign this time. What you wouldn't have is an Edinburgh Agreement making it legally binding nor sufficient time to act upon an "out" vote before the UK is long gone from the EU.

So UK ignores a locally organised referendum with no Westminster recognition - yup people will be very grumpy but so what, what are they going to do about it ? I fail to see why that would be "stupid"

Openness is the dividing issue of our time. Scotland is on one side of that divide and England is on the other. It was the same thing when the divide was labour vs capital.

Might this be something to do with Scotland having had far less inward migration than England over the past few years? The Brexit vote seems to have been driven largely by immigration; if Scotland had seen the same levels, that egalitarian attitude might slip a tad, no?

I know that immigration is a net positive etc etc, but you've got plenty of, shall we say, less enlightened folk up there who wouldn't see it that way in the event of a big influx, just as we do down here. Unless you think that Scots are inherently more outward looking and less parochial than their English neighbours? Having grown up there, I'd struggle with that!

The results of the EU referendum were non binding and based on a non-rational 'gut reaction' which has now been reinterpreted a as mandate to take the UK back to something like Hitler's Germany so why shouldn't the Scot's be allowed their own opportunity to 'take back control' and take the view that that's not a path they want to follow. I'm not a Scot or living in Scotland and would, on balance probably have voted in last time but would most certainly vote out now irrespective of the fiscal consequences predominantly based on the fact the I wouldn't want to be associated with the prevailing cult of Little England and out of sheer embarrassment that other parts of the word thought I was if nothing else.

The sooner that Little England and the Little Englander's are disabused of its/their notion that we are a super power or even that important on the world stage ( we have Bojo as Foreign Secretary ffs) the better - that slipped away in 1945 and was confirmed at Suez when the US firmly put us in our place as part of the new world order. If the break up of the Union hastens that that then all to the good.

Britannia Rules the Waves - Britannia isn't capable of running a small duck pond it just that the likes of your average Brexiteer doesn't know that yet.

Unless you think that Scots are inherently more outward looking and less parochial than their English neighbours? Having grown up there, I'd struggle with that!

Indeed

Scotland's view (SNP's half) seems to be that their industrial decline was due to "Westminster / Tories" rather than a global trend. Ships are much cheaper to build in Asia etc.

Scotland actually needs more immigration and jobs for them. The best way to achieve this is by setting our own policy on immigration and our own economic policy

Gordimor do you not have sufficient tax raising and law making powers to set your own economic strategy at the moment ? Have you actually used any of the powers you have ?

If you are in the EU you have zero control over immigration

airtragic - Member

Might this be something to do with Scotland having had far less inward migration

I know that immigration is a net positive etc etc, but you've got plenty of, shall we say, less enlightened folk up there who wouldn't see it that way in the event of a big influx, just as we do down here.

That's a nonsense argument. The most anti immigration parts of england are the part with the least immigration. Attitudes and levels of immigration in cities like glasgow, liverpool, manchester etc isn't all that different, neither are the attitudes in the cities.

Places with most immigration ae generally the most accepting of immigrants, imo. Obviously not always the case but it's a general trend.

Gordimor do you not have sufficient tax raising and law making powers to set your own economic strategy at the moment ?

If we are in the UK and out of the EU we will have an immigration policy which Scotland rejected in the EU referendum.

BruceWee - Member

The conflict now is based on openness vs closed societies. In Scotland the SNP has laid out it's position clearly. It wants society to be as open as possible with immigration and free trade encouraged. Even Scottish Labour, Conservatives, and Lib Dems are in favour of open borders.

If it's just down to that, then it's a single issue, you don't need full independence, you juts need to campaign for scotland to control it's own immigration.

The immigration arguments are bunkum anyhow, it's just subterfuge to get the masses chattering about irrelevant issues.

There always has been and always will be immigration.

Scotlands problem is attracting them, not that they aren't allowed in, particularly in rural areas.

If scotland can't even get people to move out of the cities(that have plenty of immigrants) to these places they've got little hope of attracting people directly from other countries.).

That becomes even more obvious when you look at the status quo, there's a pool of 500 million people that can freely move to scotland just now, they aren't queueing up.

Immigration isn't factored on policy, it's factored on job opportunities. If the scottish government wants more people in the highlands and islands. Create the jobs, housing and infrasture to attract people.

IMO the SNPs stance on immigration and backing individually families and highlighting their cases is opportunism. Nothing more.

Of course, once we have successfully left the EU, we can give Scotland the independence they so desire.

It should only take the EU seven or eight years to fully process their application (if they even qualify, which remains unsettled) by which time they will be so heavily in debt that the Scottish pound will be trading like the Zimbabwean dollar long before they are forced to adopt the euro.

Full of win I reckon

IMO the SNPs stance is opportunism. Nothing more.

FTFY :

The vast majority of powers over economic policy remain at Westminster The powers that have been devolved are too little to have any real effect on the economy and would achieve nothing except to make any government that used them unpopular as taxes would increase with no visible improvement in the economy or services so basically the new powers are just a sham.

So devolved powers over

agriculture, forestry and fisheries
education and training
environment
health and social services
housing
law and order
local government
sport and the arts
tourism and economic development
many aspects of transport

are a sham and the idea of raising taxes to improve {?} services might be unpopular

perhaps we should close Holyrood and save the money?

gordimhor - Member
Scotland actually needs more immigration and jobs for them. The best way to achieve this is by setting our own policy on immigration and our own economic policy

Out of interest, how will being a member of the EZ help you achieve these goals?

THM All your spinning is making you dizzy. I clearly referred to powers over economic policy
"The vast majority of powers over economic policy remain at Westminster"
I also clearly referred to new powers.
" basically the new powers are just a sham"
So I cant really see why you went away back to 1998 for this quote
"agriculture, forestry and fisheries
education and training
environment
health and social services
housing
law and order
local government
sport and the arts
tourism and economic development
many aspects of transport"
Not really new is it, being 18 years ago and a lot of it is not really powers over economic policy either.
As for the new powers ,you know the 2016 ones being a sham well this is what Reform Scotland thought
http://stv.tv/news/politics/1345472-think-tank-concludes-new-tax-powers-for-holyrood-are-useless/
As for raising taxes to improve services being unpopular well if you try to do it without the correct powers for the task you will fail and imposing ineffective tax rises will be unpopular So yes the "new powers" are a sham

You may find this helps clear your head

@thm Freedom of movement within the eu will help for a start

Ok 15 all - your opening line which I quoted suggested that the vast majority of powers remain in Westminster. That is patently untrue but we may come back to that.

Ok, fair cop, I missed the "new" bit so lets re-address that point (but note that the list of devloved powers comes form the current S Gov webpage, so I went as far back as 2016 not the date you suggest but that is minor detail.

So these "sham" new powers - lets have a wee look. Better still lets see what experts (ok, ok) say rather than simple MTBers

The Holyrood government [b]has always had control over much of public spending[/b] in Scotland. From next spring, i[b]t will have control over taxes, including most of income tax, which raises 40 per cent of the revenues required to cover devolved spending.[/b] From 2019, half of the VAT raised there will also be assigned. [b]Half of Scottish spending will then be paid for by taxes devolved or assigned to Scotland. That is a remarkable change. [/b]Scotland will have far more control than now over its tax affairs and over the size of its budget.

This idea of Bruce's to use google to check facts is quite good isnt it? What were the words - "R E M A R K A B L E C H A N G E" thats really quite different from sham

And lets see why I propose spending more time on SNPs delivery rather than their hot air and fluff

The Scottish budget will now enjoy the upside and suffer the downside of economic performance that differs from that in the rest of the UK. [b]The incentive on the Scottish government to focus on growth is much sharper than ever before.[/b] Even small differences will compound over time into big differences in the money available.

One worry is that in the short term the economics don’t look to be working in Scotland’s favour. In part as a result of a declining oil industry, economic growth in the past year has been significantly less than that in the UK as a whole and it is expected to do less well again next year. The direct effect of falling oil prices, the collapse in revenues from taxes on North Sea oil and gas production, won’t affect the Scottish budget. These taxes are not devolved. The effects of their loss are shared across the UK. But the Scottish budget will suffer to the extent that the earnings and spending of those working in the industry, or in related industries, suffer

So it should be obvious where attention should be focused. Sadly, instead we have I2 coming to a panto stage near you.

So yes, you will get freedom of movement. Now explain to me about the important bits - monetary and fiscal policy and as an aside how do you feel about the inevitable political integration that must accompany fiscal union?

You may have some legitimate complaint about the some influence from the SE of England (you are not alone in that) but at the moment monetary and fiscal policy is set within a context of highly synchronised economies (albeit that one - no need to guess - is currently underperforming). Instead you seem to prefer to have policy set by economies that are far less synchronised with the Scottish one. [b]That is folly at its most extreme. [/b]

And more from the IFS

One risk not faced by Scotland will be the consequences of tax revenues growing more slowly as a result of differential population growth. The Westminster government lost that argument in agreeing the new fiscal framework. That matters because, for decades, the Scottish population has grown less quickly than that in England. [b]That’s essentially why the Barnett formula remains so generous to Scotland. Originally it was supposed to lead to a gradual equalisation in spending per head, but the consistently lower rate of population growth in Scotland has left public spending per person there much higher than it is in the rest of the UK. The new devolution settlement will entrench that advantage, at least for now.[/b] [ who mentioned cake and eating it?]That extra spending is substantial, despite incomes per person being almost identical. Public service spending per person in Scotland today is still quite a bit higher than it was in England before the present period of austerity began. Of course, what is felt is that spending is being cut, even if less quickly and from a higher base than elsewhere in the UK. What is not felt is how much higher it was and how much higher it remains.

In fact, the Scottish government is looking to use some of its new tax powers to increase taxes relative to those south of the border to cushion the budget from further cuts. [b]That, of course is precisely the point of devolution. It allows the Scottish people to make a different set of choices[/b]

So c'mon Nicola get on with it. Report back when you have done so.

Doesn't that ^^^^ just illustrate why Scotland needs more control over it's fiscal policy.

What the fact that Barnett works in your favour? Ot that the ability to raise tax independently in the ST at least is weaker than under current arrangements?

"Please may be worse off than now" - is an odd attempt to win votes!

Be careful what you wish for.

[quote=epicyclo ]

aracer - Member
Is this the same racism of those who oppose Brexit?...

Well you did write:

"Those who oppose democratic self-determination in a country do so because of either they have a vested interest in the status quo, or because they do not think the people of that country are capable of running it themselves. The latter is racist."

again tHM would you stay in an unhappy marriage just because you are better off?

You keep forgetting that other people have principles other than what is financially best for me, quite possibly because you put money first second and third but not everyone does.
Please just accept this.

again tHM would you stay in an unhappy marriage just because you are better off?

You keep forgetting that other people have principles other than what is financially best for me, quite possibly because you put money first second and third but not everyone does.
Please just accept this.

JY - we come back to my argument about what actually makes a real difference to people's lives. In this case we have to remember that money actually means jobs amongst other things.

I note your ifs report but we can quote reports at one another ad infinitum so lets agree to disagree on that, its not really allowing people to make different choices if it can be shown that the tax and welfare powers recently devolved are ineffective at best. I note your ifs report but we can quote reports at one another ad infinitum so lets agree to disagree on that
I have many reservations about the EU and its influence over the monetary and fiscal policy of some member states. I would happily adopt a new currency for an independent Scotland and delay or abandon entering the euro till there are some reforms in the eu. I would also be happy not to use the pound which is one opinion I have changed since2014
Edit THM I said 1998 because the list you quoted is the list of areas originally devolved under the 1998 Scotland Act

5th - which is why Brexshit is Brexshit.

we come back to my argument about what actually makes a real difference to people's lives. In this case we have to remember that money actually means jobs amongst other things.

Only the gullible forget that many of the goods and services that we require have a cost and need to be paid for. Pity that the gullible are often the most vulnerable too who suffer the consequences of a lack of joined up thinking that is all too evident.

@aracer of course and I dont dispute his reasonings or his argument

It is a perfectly sensible approach to accept you will be worse of financially and still take the option hence why I keep using the divorce argument

Not everyone would stay in a marriage where they had no say, felt oppressed etc just because they had a better standard of living

Its NOT JUST about money though it is all he ever discusses

I note your ifs report but we can quote reports at one another ad infinitum so lets agree to disagree on that, its not really allowing people to make different choices if it can be shown that the tax and welfare powers recently devolved are [b]ineffective at best[/b]. I note your ifs report but we can quote reports at one another ad infinitum so lets agree to disagree on that

They are not, nor are they a sham as you suggest. So we will not agree, merely agree to move on.

I would happily adopt a new currency for an independent Scotland

Good because that is the only option available that is that makes even an smidgeon of sense

and delay or abandon entering the euro till there are some reforms in the eu.

But any talk of the Euro is absurd. Until the € finally collapses, you know what membership means. Significantly, less power of the key instruments of policy that you have now. So the EU argument (not you tbc) is either ignorant (at best) or intellectually dishonest (much worse)

I would also be happy not to use the pound which is one opinion I have changed since2014

Dont worry that is not your choice.

So from now on we have a starting point. Phew.

Any future discussions need to begin with the basic premise that the foundation is a separate Scottish currency. That is another thing that I agree with Stiglitz on. From here:

Q1 What needs to happen to achieve this?
Q2. Will this create a situation that is better or worse for the people of Scotland?

These are the only question that matter at this point. The rest is hot air and froth.

[quote=Junkyard ]It is a perfectly sensible approach to accept you will be worse of financially and still take the option hence why I keep using the divorce argument

I get your point, but I'm not sure how good the analogy is. Are the Scottish people [b]in reality[/b] that oppressed and miserable? Remembering that whilst they don't have full power over their own affairs a lot of stuff is devolved - will the stuff which isn't currently devolved make a real difference?

Are the Scottish people in reality that oppressed and miserable? Remembering that whilst they don't have full power over their own affairs a lot of stuff is devolved - will the stuff which isn't currently devolved make a real difference?

Aracer - of course not. They enjoy a standard of living that is higher than would otherwise be the case and significantly lower risks to that standard of living. You see, its not about money. Its about looking after the best interests of the Scottish people. Something the Narcissist should remember.

"Something the Narcissist should remember. " back to the petty name calling thm

No back to facts - like Bojo, Gove, Farrage, Salmond, Fox, Trump etc - anyone who puts their own self interest and ego ahead of those whose interests that they are elected to serve needs to be identified for what they are.

The knee-jerk reaction to Brexshit and BS about the single market falsify any pretence that her focus is on serving the interest of the Scottish people. As above, that argument is intellectually dishonest and a characteristic of narcissistic characters.

The term would be inappropriate if she started with the only viable foundation for further debate (see Qs 1 and 2) Until then....

Will this create a situation that is better or worse for the people of Scotland?

Everyone has different ideas of what constitutes better or worse. Yours seems to be entirely financial, which is fine. You also lack the ability to see that others have differing priorities, which is not good. I really can't understand why you spend so much time on here on this subject. Well I can, it obviously stokes your sense of superiority and you get a kick out of trolling. Either that or you have nothing else going on. Don't what is sadder.

Yours seems to be entirely financial, which is fine.

On the contrary. Rather than pretending, I am considering the wider interests of the people of Scotland - what the SNP are supposed to be delivering on, but currently failing to do so.

The issues are not just Scottish, much the same relates to Brexshit too

{XC ride pre Marr, dog walk with friends post Marr, part cooked family lunch, golf practice and now supposed to be writing a report but (hands up) distracted 😉 before dinner with friends, so dont worry about my sad little life]

teamhurtmore - Member
....You see, its not about money. Its about looking after the best interests of the Scottish people. Something the Narcissist should remember.

And the best interests of the Scottish people is having control over their own destiny. Sturgeon is doing a good job if the voting pattern is anything to go by.

BTW it's pointless sneering at the leaders of the Scottish govt. It's not a personality cause, so demeaning the leader does not deflect the voters from the movement.

Sturgeon is doing a good job if the voting pattern is anything to go by.

Votes - very true, as remarkable as people voting Brexshit and/or Trump given relative performance against goals etc. but you have to credit Nicola on this. Some achievement.

And the best interests of the Scottish people is having control over their own destiny.

Agreed - so define what they are (they are not found in the € obviously)

So step back and assess the strengths and weakness of the Scottish economy in its wider sense. Then work out the best structure which maximises the former and minimises the weaker which is more than simply "saying" having control its about "actually" having. This is what should have happened with Brexhsit too

[quote=km79 ]Everyone has different ideas of what constitutes better or worse.

Of course, but a lot of them seem to be somewhat theoretical.

[quote=epicyclo ]And the best interests of the Scottish people is having control over their own destiny

Best interests in what real sense? Is it better to have a job and be ruled from Westminster or not have a job and be ruled from Holyrood?

aracer - Member

Is it better to have a job and be ruled from Westminster or not have a job and be ruled from Holyrood?

There you go again with wild speculation and subterfuge. You can not know that. And it's an irrational question.

😀

Well it's a bloody ridiculous comment. 😆 westminster = jobs, holyrood = unemployment. Lets get back to the land of reality.

Which is that the difference bewteen holyrood or westminster will equate to a slight percentage jump up or down in the scottish economy. Which way is anyones guess and relies on actions after the event. But scotland, like the uk post brexit, isn't going to fall off a cliff.

Joe, I might respectfully suggest re-reading what aracer said. You may have got the wrong end of the stick 😉

There is more to this than the economy,or having a job. There is feeling valued by your employer and having secure adequately paid employment. There is having a good work life balance. There is being respected by your politicians at all levels and feeling that they listen to you and understand you. ( In a small country like Scotland participatory politics might work better than representative politics)There is feeling that the same rules and laws apply to all irrespective of wealth or social class, colour or creed.

Are the Scottish people in reality that oppressed and miserable

The reality is they get what england chooses- and its usually very different from what they want. The marriage analogy is you are "not oppressed" but you get what they always decide. You have some freedom - but only where they allow it and they can take it back etc. ye syou can ride tuesday night but only if they let you etc.
I think a fair few would consider than oppressive* if not everyone
* the term is unnecessarily emotive IMHO and democratic defecit is a far better less emotive descriptor that may help the discussion be a little more rational.

THM this made me laugh

Are the Scottish people in reality that oppressed and miserable? .....
Aracer - of course not. They enjoy a standard of living that is higher than would otherwise be the case and significantly lower risks to that standard of living.

PS if you wont engage with me then dont interrupt my conversation either its a bit rude and it nearly breaks your principled flounce 😉

teamhurtmore - Member
...So step back and assess the strengths and weakness of the Scottish economy in its wider sense....

The weakness in the Scottish economy is that we do not have control of the levers, so lack the ability to alter course to suit our strengths as various economic issues arise. At the moment we end up going the way that suits the major partner in the Union, namely England.

Independence is necessary to get full fiscal autonomy.

I think the term is ' cutting off your nose to spite your face'.

I'm sure if I was Scottish, I'd feel the same way to be fair, but from where we sit, it has never made any real sense.

[quote=gordimhor ]There is more to this than the economy,or having a job. There is feeling valued by your employer and having secure adequately paid employment. There is having a good work life balance. There is being respected by your politicians at all levels and feeling that they listen to you and understand you. ( In a small country like Scotland participatory politics might work better than representative politics)There is feeling that the same rules and laws apply to all irrespective of wealth or social class, colour or creed.

and how is independence going to affect any of that?

My assertion is that IS will be bad for the economy of IS and that of rUK, an assertion which seems to have a reasonable basis, simply for the same reasons that Brexit will be bad for the economy of UK and EU (which most knowledgeable people seem to agree with). Any arguments being made for IS having a better economy appear to be broadly similar to those being made for the advantages of Brexit - so you're now agreeing with jamba? 😆

One of the effects of a worse economy is generally higher unemployment. I'm surprised I need to explain that.

The weakness in the Scottish economy is that we do not have control of the levers, so lack the ability to alter course to suit our strengths as various economic issues arise. At the moment we end up going the way that suits the major partner in the Union, namely England.

Well leaving aside that is patently untrue, you are now considering giving up MORE sovereignty to those whose economies are far less in synch with your own. That is total madness.

Much of the wider interests have SFA to do with politicians anyway.

But take you first point into a wider context - are you safer being part of NATO despite not having total control over the levers?

I think the term is ' cutting off your nose to spite your face'.

*we do seem to prefer overly emotive descriptors on here

aracer - Member
My assertion is that IS will be bad for the economy of IS and that of rUK

In the short term, that's a valid analysis. But in the long term, the question for the scottish people, is that after the effects of the divorce, will scotland then be able do better than it does just now.

It's a question of whether people believe there will be short term pain for long term gain. A question that can be speculated on a thousand ways, and is fairly pointless to argue. Depending on your bias and how you measure "better" your answer will be different..

But ultimately that's the long term supposition I think.

[quote=seosamh77 ]But in the long term, the question for the scottish people, is that after the effects of the divorce, will scotland then be able do better than it does just now.

The Brexit argument 😉

aracer - Member
The Brexit argument

Pretty much, yes.

Why I favour a long term view. As I've alluded to, Brexit is a test case for Scottish independence. Behind the nonsense of Brexit, I can see the parallels. It was interesting POV being pro EU and Pro IS I thought.

I'm happy to wait and see. (But will still vote yes if the opperchancity arises. 😆 The chance to break westminster links will only come along once again imo.. )

"and how is independence going to affect any of that?"
Quite fundamentally aracer it will be much easier to make that case for reform of local government at Holyrood , and it will be easier to achieve consensus on employment law etc without a need to make the case at westminster. Constitutuional reform is currently a reserved matter so that is off the table without independence.

It was interesting POV being pro EU and Pro IS I thought.

You're planning to legislate to ensure employees feel valued by their employer and have a good work life balance?

"You will feel valued comrade, it's the law"

""You will feel valued comrade, it's the law" 😀
Plenty that could be done to achieve those things aracer we could consider a universal basic income to simplify the tax and benefit "systems" . We could repeal some of the anti trade union laws, put restrictions on use of zero hours contracts etc

Late coming back to this but:

airtragic - Member

Might this be something to do with Scotland having had far less inward migration

I know that immigration is a net positive etc etc, but you've got plenty of, shall we say, less enlightened folk up there who wouldn't see it that way in the event of a big influx, just as we do down here.

That's a nonsense argument. The most anti immigration parts of england are the part with the least immigration. Attitudes and levels of immigration in cities like glasgow, liverpool, manchester etc isn't all that different, neither are the attitudes in the cities.

Places with most immigration ae generally the most accepting of immigrants, imo. Obviously not always the case but it's a general trend.

That's debatable at least. Plenty seem to think it's the rate of change that's important.

[url= https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/brexit-vote-explained-poverty-low-skills-and-lack-opportunities ]Joseph Rowntree Report[/url]

Quote from it: "Even though areas with relatively high levels of EU migration tended to be more pro-remain, areas that had experienced a sudden influx of EU migrants over the last 10 years were often more pro-leave. This finding is consistent with the argument that when it comes to the effect of immigration on the referendum what appears to matter the most is the experience of sudden population change rather than the overall level. Indeed, as Geoffrey Evans and Jon Mellon show, public concern about immigration as a political issue over time in Britain strongly tracks actual levels of immigration."

Plenty of areas of Scotland that would be analogous to Peterborough etc, [u]if[/u] Scotland had had the same level of immigration.

On a second independence referendum being impossible without westminster approval. The UN would disagree. any attempt to hinder another referendum from westminster will move people into the yes camp and any sensible politician would know this.

T%he UN is quite clear on self determination of a people - win a referendum. become independent. No permission needed from the parent state

Independence would improve my life no doubt at all. A better NHS my employer. A greener energy policy. No fake Austerity.

A better NHS my employer. A greener energy policy. No fake Austerity.

Think all those cost money! Tough to square that with an acceptable deficit for EU entry.

Shhhs, air, dont spoil the dream. Anyway tj called for no fake austerity - seems like he would prefer the real thing.

T%he UN is quite clear on self determination of a people - win a referendum. become independent. No permission needed from the parent state

Shame it gets a bit foggy when it's the Falklands

If the falklands wanted to be independent the UN would recognise this after a referendum was won.