big_n_daft
Depends on how many of the leading lights of the SNP are left in a year. Regardless of guilt it’s going to be messy
Ah, you think the "leading lights" of the independence movement are the motivators behind independence, do you?
Mow them down if you like, there's plenty more where they came from.
aberdeenlune
Some of you guys are misunderstanding this completely. The Scottish Parliament should be able to decide on a referendum. If they want to have one every year they should be able to do that.My point was Westminster should not be able to veto that. The Scots should be able to decide their own future.
That would never do, it sounds dangerously like actual democracy, not the pretendy version of Her Majesty's "United Kingdom".
Ah, you think the “leading lights” of the independence movement are the motivators behind independence, do you?
Mow them down if you like, there’s plenty more where they came from.
Absolutely. As I told a lot of SNP haters in 2014, the only way to get rid of them is to vote yes.
Scottish Labour would be as well changing tact too, Indy will happen sooner or later, unless they want left on the outside again as they are in Westminster.
Or they could continue up here to be a complete irrelevance.
Smith and Dewar must be turning in their graves.
@gordimhor - sorry, didn't mean it to come across that way. I genuinely feel Scotland should have the choice and have the right to choose, and you should get your ref. I was just basically saying, I want Scotland to have it and make their choice so that we can move on either way.
@seosamh77 - 'ps there’s only 3 area of the uk that don’t run a deficit' I know that, i said so in my last post? I'm not from the SE by the way, I wasn't trying to say I'm rich and I subsidise you. Apologies if it came across that way, I meant no offence or disrespect. I have read your arguments, but I have also read other people's. As usual in politics and economics, people spin figures to suit their argument. For example, you and eat the pudding are saying quite different things from genuine sources. It brings me back to my earlier point: have a referendum and your say and see how everyone else feels.
Happy Christmas to all!!
I wasn’t trying to say I’m rich and I subsidise you. Apologies if it came across that way, I meant no offence or disrespect
I never took it that way so no worries. It's just worth pointing out that there's no subsidies in the uk, it's just getting put on the credit for everyone. It's even got £3.5bn allocated in GERS toward the interest payments.
Which incidently.
Given the uk debt for 17/18(the latest we get numbers for the uk) was £2564.4bn. Constisting of £2,013.8bn in assets, and £4,579.2bn in liabilities.
For the same period, Scotlands interest payments were £3.688bn, according to gers.
Which if you take a direct population share of all that basically means Scotland pays this roughly £3.5bn yearly to maintain an asset and liability balance of around.
£165bn assets. £375.5bn in liabilities. So the net debt is about £210bn.
So about a 1.7% yearly interest rate, to maintain Sotlands chunk of the interest. (The debt is never getting paid off!)
So there is no subsidy, Scotland maintains it's own debt. I'd imagine it'll be similar for other regions.
This is the state of Scotlands finances within the UK
Tbh, I don't particularly think me and ETP disagree on the figures all the much. Where we disagree is really just a case of what comes next. I think the UK hinders Scotland and he thinks it helps.
And just to support my last statement... Comparing it to the 5 similar sized EU nations...
[img] 
[/img]
I want Scotland to have it and make their choice so that we can move on either way.
The independence campaign won't stop until "yes", the only question is how often the vote is done. "No" is only a postponement pending yet another vote.
And that is the core logic behind the scenes. There isn't a killer argument, there is the wearing down of opposition to tip the scales to 50%+1 vote
Hopefully the iS campaign will be more "civic" than the last iteration.
big_n_daft
...Hopefully the iS campaign will be more “civic” than the last iteration.
Yes, the behaviour of the Unionists was abominable.
It would be nice if there was a balanced media too, instead of about 95% anti-independence.
And no Magic Postal Votes...
Yes, the behaviour of the Unionists was abominable.
Dressing as snowmen?
It would be nice if there was a balanced media too, instead of about 95% anti-independence
Surely the fervent iS supporters are more than happy to buy multiple newspapers, magazines, and subscribe to other pro independence outlets? They must realise the need to sustain pro iS media buy actually buying it?
Or does everyone rely on BBC and Channel 4 for everything?
And no Magic Postal Votes…
electoral fraud???
I'm surprised that the establishment managed to get away with it, better start tAking your own pens in to mark the ballot paper
https://wingsoverscotland.com/our-man-on-the-scene/
But still it's better to keep the conspiracy theories going
I agree the postal votes thing is just a conspiracy theory.
aberdeenlune
I agree the postal votes thing is just a conspiracy theory.
I really do hope you're right because we're stuffed if not.
epicyclo
I really do hope you’re right because we’re stuffed if not.
Paranoid nonsense, you should give the conspiracy stuff a wide berth, it's not good for the argument. People like big and daft will just taunt you and the argument turns to shit.
GERS supporters, can you confirm, deny or explain this. It's not a leading question, I'm genuinely interested.
Saw something elsewhere about tax revenue from Scottish whisky, Vs the amount raised in RoI from whiskey. They do tax the arse out of booze in Ireland, but even accounting for that, Ireland makes much more in tax revenue from whiskey Vs Scotland's revenue in GERS despite much, much less turnover
The explanation was the GERS numbers are "reallocated". For example, if Scottish whisky was ultimately exported from an English port etc, then that tax revenue would be allocated to England. They also mentioned Scotland produces a disproportionate amount of the world's gin but again tax is handled in a similar way to whisky
Is that true or false?
The explanation was the GERS numbers are “reallocated”. For example, if Scottish whisky was ultimately exported from an English port etc, then that tax revenue would be allocated to England.
Don't really see how that could be the case, there's no export duty, so a company will just get taxed on it's profits surely same as any company?
I don't know, I'm guessing. I'd guess the ultimate decider is where a particularly companies head office is located for tax purposes on whether the tax revenue is allocated to scotland? Which isn't any different for any company?
Quick google would suggest there's 2 sides to the argument.
Internal sales and exports.
On Exports, there's no special tax, so the companies will just get taxed on their profits like a normal company, so I guess just depends on the head office location no doubt. (whisky exports are worth about £4.7bn for 17/18, but obviously government receipts are just a percentage of profits a company makes, I've no idea if that export number equates total yearly profits for the whisky industy, if it does corporation tax is 19%, so tax collected probably amounts to about £893m on those. )
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-47211794
On the internal sales, it really just comes under the way theres extra tax put on domestic sales of alcohol as a whole. Similar to duty in cigarettes
Quick google suggests:
So that's worth about £10.5billion. So taking a straight geographical share, you'd imagine scotland's share is about x .082, so about £861m.
If Scotland was independent, it couldn't claim the £9.6bn from the rUK, that would be a rUK tax and nothing to do with Scotland.
I really do hope you’re right because we’re stuffed if not.
I think you are alledging the ballots were stuffed not the people
But say anything as long as you think it gets you closer to 50%+1
Westminster has no incentive to agree to Indy ref2 if no-one can say when Indy ref3 or 4 or 5 will be. Agreeing to one on a sub 20 year timeline sets the precedent for repeating the pain every 4-6 years
whisky exports are worth about £4.7bn for 17/18, but obviously government receipts are just a percentage of profits a company makes,
A lot of the distilleries are foreign owned, I imagine they will be paying corporation tax abroad eg Louis Vuitton
Good points re foreign ownership
Does GERS get that granular? Or does it simply say turnover x 19%?
There will be tax over and above duty for alcohol sales btw, as the companies will still get tax on their profits.
No idea how to figure that out.
BoardinBob
Subscriber
Good points re foreign ownershipDoes GERS get that granular? Or does it simply say turnover x 19%?
About as detailed as it gets.
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
There will be tax over and above duty for alcohol sales btw, as the companies will still get tax on their profits.
They do get taxed on profits but the large foreign owned companies tend to shift it to their head office jurisdiction using group overheads to move the profit to where they want it . Essentially the Starbucks/Amazon/Apple/Guardian Media Group problem. Higher tax rates increases the incentives to do this.
big_n_daft
Westminster has no incentive to agree to Indy ref2 if no-one can say when Indy ref3 or 4 or 5 will be. Agreeing to one on a sub 20 year timeline sets the precedent for repeating the pain every 4-6 years
And the problem with that is?
Premier Icon
kennypSubscriber
No but a majority for no referendum for at least the next few years. If the next Scottish election sees a change then fair enough but for now the voters do not want one.
So you are telling us that anybody who didn’t vote SNP was voting purely on preserving the union? Hahahaha
And the problem with that is?
Ok t devalues a "no" vote, if every time you vote no you get asked again within a short period, but if 50%+1 vote "yes" once that is it forever. Which vote is worth more, "no" or "yes"?
I suppose the argument would be it's preparation for future EU membership where referendums are repeated until the "right" answer is achieved.
big_n_daft
if every time you vote no you get asked again within a short period, but if 50%+1 vote “yes” once that is it forever. Which vote is worth more, “no” or “yes”?
Democracy is so inconvenient isn't it?
You are assuming the Unionists would be denied their democratic right to organise for a referendum to engage in a treaty with the UK.
Democracy is so inconvenient isn’t it?
This response to a nuanced issue (equivilence of yes and no votes and the repetition of referenda) shows the real strategy, keep asking until you get what you want then batten down the hatches and shout "democratic will of the people"
big_n_daft
..., keep asking until you get what you want then batten down the hatches and shout “democratic will of the people”
Really?
What evidence do you have that an independent Scotland would remove the right of its citizens to pursue democracy?
I'm not in favour of a neverendum but if the electorate keep voting for a party with a referendum in its manifesto then that really is democracy in action.
Exactly, those arguing against a referendum are the anti democracy ones. If the Scottish parliaments votes for a referendum then we should have one. If it’s a no in a 2020 referendum then surely the pro union parties will do well in the 2021 Scottish parliamentary elections and that will be it for a while.
Use your vote and have an influence on it.
big_n_daft
Would you agree to one of it was written into the section 30 order that it's not to be asked again for another 25 years?
A parliament cannot bind its successors.
In any case the whole Section 30 order question needs to be put to bed. It should not be for any UK government to subvert the will of the Scottish people. If there is a mandate in Scotland for a referendum then a referendum should be held.
"This House endorses the principles of the Claim of Right for Scotland, agreed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention in 1989 and by the Scottish Parliament in 2012, and therefore acknowledges the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs."
House of Commons, 4th July 2018.
Ye, but the the 1989 claim of right has no force in law. Despite commons endorsement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claim_of_Right_1989
Legal significance
The Claim of Right has never had or claimed any legal force. On 4 July 2018, the House of Commons officially endorsed the principles of the Claim of Right, agreeing that the people of Scotland are sovereign and that they have the right to determine the best form of government for Scotland's needs. However this was a non-binding endorsement and did not create any legal recognition of the Claim of Right.[4]
It's obviously SNP policy to give it legal force, it's half their argument at the minute, don't fancy their chances though.
In any case the whole Section 30 order question needs to be put to bed. It should not be for any UK government to subvert the will of the Scottish people. If there is a mandate in Scotland for a referendum then a referendum should be held.
we did have a vote recently mind. Surely you can see big_n_daft’s point about holding frequent referenda until 50%+1 is achieved. The last referendum was so acrimonious, it’s not something I’d be keen to go through again. However, maybe sufficient change has taken place to warrant another - I’d sooner wait until we’ve seen what can be learned from Brexit.
Really?
What evidence do you have that an independent Scotland would remove the right of its citizens to pursue democracy?
Seriously, do you think the people arguing for another referendum, will be as keen to have a referendum looking to rejoin rUK in 5 years time? I for one cannot see it!
acrimonious
It really wasn't.
Seriously, do you think the people arguing for another referendum, will be as keen to have a referendum looking to rejoin rUK in 5 years time?
If Scotland leaves the UK, then rejoining it at a future date will not be Scotlands decision alone to make.
I really didn't witness any acrimony. I have friends in both camps. Their decision hasn't affected our friendship. Don't exaggerate a few minor instances into something that didn't happen.
I'll repeat - if the voters elect a party with a referendum in their manifesto then it's up to the government to deliver that. Whether that's to leave the union or to seek re-join it makes no difference.
I really didn’t witness any acrimony. I have friends in both camps. Their decision hasn’t affected our friendship. Don’t exaggerate a few minor instances into something that didn’t happen.
Oh, sorry I forgot your experience trumped mine.
As opposed to you extrapolating your personal experience to a nation of 5 million people?
What are you saying? We shouldn't have a referendum because folk hold differing views and sometimes get a bit shouty? That's fair enough, let's just use parliamentary elections instead and go with whoever gets a mandate to deliver their manifesto.
I’m not in favour of a neverendum but if the electorate keep voting for a party with a referendum in its manifesto then that really is democracy in action.
The neverendum until "yes" is SNP policy, equating it with an ability to campaign for a new one should"yes" get 50% +1 is disingenuous, it will be 20years plus for there to be any campaign, and would 50%+1 be accepted to overturn?
I agree that there is a logic trap in the votes they get in the various elections they stand in, but that's as much a indictment of Scottish politics at the moment as anything else.
What are you saying? We shouldn’t have a referendum because folk hold differing views and sometimes get a bit shouty?
You have had one.
Indyref 2 won't affect your EU member status as you would be out already.
It's just a continuation of the SNP neverendum policy
I agree that there is a logic trap in the votes they get in the various elections they stand in, but that’s as much a indictment of Scottish politics at the moment as anything else.
Yip. If Scottish Labour are ever going to have a chance at revival then they need to grasp the nettle and really go for a strengthened devolution settlement, something akin to full Home Rule. The problem with that approach is (a) would enough folk believe them given recent performance and (b) will they ever be in a position to deliver it.
Scottish labour have 1 MP and they tried to get him deselected before the election. Would be a huge turnaround for them to be a political force again.
I am an ex Labour voter. Voted for them through the Thatcher years up to the Cameron election when I switched to SNP. Not a huge fan of all things SNP so once we are independent I will reassess who to vote for.
Big 'n daft. If you're correct that Scotland would be out of the EU, and it's not guaranteed then we would be seeking to rejoin. Not drifting off into some bloody awful twilight zone Boris is already going back on his promises about workers rights etc. Something that will directly affect me and many like me.
As opposed to you extrapolating your personal experience to a nation of 5 million people?
What are you saying? We shouldn’t have a referendum because folk hold differing views and sometimes get a bit shouty? That’s fair enough, let’s just use parliamentary elections instead and go with whoever gets a mandate to deliver their manifesto.
I believe I said it was acrimonious and that I would not cheerily repeat the experience. I did not say it was acrimonious for everyone. I was not alone however, my wife tells me that it was acrimonious, but it depends which side you were on - “the pro-independence side being far more aggressive; it was remarked upon widely in the press at the time”. (I know how flaky that comment is, but it’s what she said so I’ve quoted her).
I’m not sure referenda are the best approach to any decision, but whoever gets a mandate being able to deliver their manifesto, that would need to be stated beforehand imho.
For What it's worth I also experienced no acrimony during the indyref. I have friends who are unionists and my parents also voted no.
