Unless of course Scotland has a population that is becoming younger due to dire health care and life expectancy,
Unlike the shining beacon that is the NHS in E&W? Give it a rest.
Well life expectancy in England is around 2.5 years longer than Scotland and England has the best stats for the UK.
Anyway I wasn't comparing Scotland to England, merely commenting on the failure of the SNP to get a grip on one the of the key dedpite it being a devolved issue. The SNP havent exactly been a shining example of what an independent Scotland could look like, failed to deliver and blamed others.
Unlike the shining beacon that is the NHS in E&W?
Pure whataboutery, give it a rest (health care in Wales is also managed by the Welsh and is generally worse than England).
Edit: ONS life expectancy data.
Its pure whataboutery to mention Scots NHS as you have given that the Scots Government have no budget room to do a lot and given the loss of EU nurses from Brexit plus the absurd ridiculously expensive PFI hospitals we are stuck with - guess what - pre SNP taking power
its still better than England tho and admin costs are half. Its not great by any manner of means but the Scots government do not really have a lot of power to do owt - they have done what they can in getting rid of the fake internal market and its associated costs
They have for example removed parking changes where they can, we get free prescriptions, social care is government supported to a far greater degree and staff are paid better than in England.
Independence will live or die by their campaigns, and how they sell it, simple as that, personally it's all about the level of risk that comes with either staying put, or going alone, i still haven't seen any real proof of independence being a benefit, or it being a negative impact for Scots, that argument hasn't even really started yet, bar for those who are already set in stone on how they'll vote.
First things first though, the SNP need to sort out their internal issues, and then the Scottish Government need to work out how to get back on track, i see a lot of internal bickering now with the SNP, and the SNP and Greens, this whole finance issue has opened up those wounds as well, allowing them to bicker even more.
Yet from the ~6 million population the SNP were only able to raise ~600k of a target 1 million to fund a campaign for indy ref 2. Does this point to a population hungry to revisit the question?
And when the Tories needed donations they pumped their Russian Pals, are you saying that's what the SNP should've done?
Well life expectancy in England is around 2.5 years longer than Scotland and England has the best stats for the UK.
it’s interesting that we still use life expectancy as a measure of success. Controversial opinion - but is living to slightly longer into your 80s, with a very poor quality of life actually better?
are you saying that’s what the SNP should’ve done?
no, where did you get that from? the point is they didn't manage to meet their own target to raise funds for the next Indy ref - suggesting that it's perhaps not on the top of most folks to do list. Secondly after this, the chances of the SNP raising money again is basically nil now isn't it? what will their campaign slogan be. "We promise not to buy a camper van this time"?
I think it is fair to criticise the SNP for missing health targets that they set themselves, of which there are quite a few, including A&E waiting times, delays over discharges, cancer treatment targets, drugs deaths, and waiting lists for child mental health services. They've been hampered with a lack of budgets; as have the the rest of the NHS, but these are things that they said they'd fix, and haven't.
it’s interesting that we still use life expectancy as a measure of success. Controversial opinion – but is living to slightly longer into your 80s, with a very poor quality of life actually better?
I don’t thing you understand what ‘life expectancy’ is a measure of.
no, where did you get that from? the point is they didn’t manage to meet their own target to raise funds for the next Indy ref – suggesting that it’s perhaps not on the top of most folks to do list.
Is that why the Tories only seek donations from foreigners who they're able to 'offer' something to, rather than Joe Public who they're just outta shaft?
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1574370/Russian-oligarchs-linked-conservative-party-tory-donor-evg
"Mrs Chernukhim reportedly donates enough to the Tories to qualify for membership of a group of elite donors who meet monthly with Mr Johnson and chancellor Rishi Sunak."
On the flip side, it appears if you want to speak to high up SNP, all you need to do is find out what layby/campsite they're going to be parked on 🙂
Not much point looking for the campervan anywhere other than the driveway it's been on since January 2021
On the flip side, it appears if you want to speak to high up SNP, all you need to do is find out what layby/campsite they’re going to be parked on 🙂
I thought that was the SSP modus operandi?
And when the Tories needed donations they pumped their Russian Pals, are you saying that’s what the SNP should’ve done?
Well they might have to if they can't get the half the population of Scotland that purportedly support independence to cough up 33.3p each to fund a campaign for another referendum. 🤣
Rather sad, in a thread discussing the state of the SNPO finances, large chunks of it are about the Conservative party.
Rather than comparing the SNP to any other party, what are the implications for the SNP and the current crisis that they are in? What impact will it have any the support for independence?
At the moment all I see are those who are saying that the issues in Scotland are caused by the UK Government. Fine, but how does that cause the SNP to fail hugely in its internal governance. Or is that the fault of the UK Government? The lack of auditors is going to hit SNP MPs soon and staff employed by them as two thirds of the income is short money and paid to the SNP if they have audited accounts. No audited accounts, no money - and only the SNP have themselves to blame.
And how do the SNP climb out of the hole that they have created for themselves?
The only thing that we can deal with just now is to say that the SNP internal governance needs to be completely rebuilt as does their internal democracy. Anything else would be conjecture and speculation about what are currently hypothetical situations.
Meantime I have noticed over my sixteen years or so on STW that thread titles are not generally proscriptive of what can be discussed on a thread
And how do the SNP climb out of the hole that they have created for themselves?
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/debt-solutions/bankruptcy/
Well they might have to if they can’t get the half the population of Scotland that purportedly support independence to cough up 33.3p each to fund a campaign for another referendum. 🤣
How much did you financially contribute to either of the Brexit campaigns?
If you did, do you think that made your position stronger than someone who didn't?
I don’t thing you understand what ‘life expectancy’ is a measure of.
no, I understand exactly what it is a measure of. I also understand that it IS a simple tool for highlighting inequalities, and that those effects are at least in part the cumulative effect over entire lifetimes so it may be a useful indicator of how cultures, policies, geography, diets, ecconomic, genetics, inherited wealth etc all combine to give an average metric on the “health” of a population. BUT the underlying assumption behind the metric is that living longer is better. I’m challenging that assumption - there must come a point when actually a grim and miserable existence in a care home is such a poor quality of life that the presumption that a bigger number is better is nonsense.
im not for one minute suggesting that the inequalities in the U.K. are not real but I’d rather we found a better way to measure and describe them than the average age people die at, given that most people who make it to that age have already reached a point where their quality of life is considerably poorer than it was 10 years before. Implying (as the poster did) that it was something a governement even with unlimited resources could fix in 14 years ignores impact of the first half of your life on the second half.
Well they might have to if they can’t get the half the population of Scotland that purportedly support independence to cough up 33.3p each to fund a campaign for another referendum.
Perhaps the people of Scotland are smarter than you think - and thought donating to a nebulous campaign for a referendum that isn’t happening yet and with the funds being held by one political party was not a great idea.
Wonder if Nicola ever visited her mother in law?
"Nice camper van mum. Where did that come from?
"Och, it's your new battle bus. Did Peter no tell ye he wanted to hide it on my driveway for a couple of years?"
How much did you financially contribute to either of the Brexit campaigns?
I think the majority of us posting on this thread think brexit a collosal mistake. I certainly wasn't about to contribute to a campaign for a referendum for it but if you think this would be the same thing I find this interesting. I've drawn parallels between brexit and Scottish independence before and it got people quite upset.
Perhaps the people of Scotland are smarter than you think
I don't think people who identify as Scots are, on average, any smarter or not than the rest of the UK's general population. I think if the roughly half of the population of Scotland were really that motivated to see independence come about they might feel inclined to contribute towards a campaign fund put together by the dominant political party in the region, as the amount of money being asked for was quite small. Unless they didn't trust the SNP? As it turns out with hindsight that may well have been the right call but did a couple of million people in Scotland not trust them before all this came out? Why did they keep re-electing them?
The other option is that enough people just aren't that bothered with independence. If 3 million people can't raise 1 million between them it looks like that may be the case, doesn't it? Unless it really was a matter of trust? You only need 1 million people to say to themselves 'hey! I can get behind that - have a pound' and you could be at the target by tea time. We'll never know the make-up of contributions that totaled the 600k but it seems more likely that a smaller number of more motivated people contributed more than a quid each? But then sturgeon started on the whole 'now is not the time' thing I guess. I imagine if you'd contributed a noticeable sum to the campaign you might be a bit grumpy about that.
I’ve drawn parallels between brexit and Scottish independence before and it got people quite upset
Thats because the parallels are simply not there. Its a very different set of motivations. its a very different set of consequences. This has been pointed out repeatedly but we still get folk trying to make this false claim. Its no wonder people get annoyed when told " its all about xenophobia and isolationism / exceptionalism " when actually its the opposite
I'm no ideological nationalist.. However I am convinced that independence will make Scotland a better place to live. Richer, fairer and generally beeter.
you can disagree but please do not try to claim its anything like brexit. The most superficial understanding shows it is not.
I’ve drawn parallels between brexit and Scottish independence before and it got people quite upset.
People who have no understanding about Scotland (but feel entitled to comment as if they are the leading authority on the place) have been making that link since 2016 on every indy thread. Despite having it explained repeatedly someone new is always ready to repeat the same thing as if they are the first person who has made this observation.
It got old the first half dozen times it happened. You have to be at least the 20th or 30th person to have done it. Go back an read any of the other threads for all the reasons it is wrong and unless you have some new insight that makes this relevant please stop going on about it. At this point it's just trolling.
However, since I'm feeling generous, here is the TLDR. Brexit was about becoming North Korea in terms of autonomy whilst gaining the trading opportunities of the EU, US, and China combined, ie, an impossible pipe dream driven by racism.
Indy is about becoming a normal small European country of which there are many examples already, ie, not a racist pipedream.
In other words, no, not the same at all no matter how much British Nationalists wish it so.
Unless they didn’t trust the SNP?
Yes, many, possibly most, indy supporters don't trust the SNP. It's not a mystery.
At this point it’s just trolling
Dude - I didn't bring it up.
Edit - oh I see tj reacted too. I have my opinion on this comparison and you have yours. I don't bring it up because I accept your position differs from mine and it gets none of us anywhere. I was responding to squirrelking's post.
its a very different set of consequences.
If an independent Scotland re-joined the EU, we know that the EU would insist on a hard border. Scotland's largest trading partner is the rest of the UK. At the very least there would be years of disruption even if Scotland could re-align it's industries to face the rest of Europe - which I have no doubt it's capable of doing. It would still take decades. In theory, like many other small nations within the EU, Scotland is on the face of it, no different and perhaps wealthier than a good deal of them, but the realities of Scotland's geography - (like the UK's as whole with brexit) in comparing it to those nations cannot be ignored away.
I don't think the independence campaign is like Brexit, the starting positions are clearly different but I think you can compare the two events as they're probably broadly similar in the amount of disruption and unforeseen outcomes that they'd cause.
Edit: and any ruling political party having won an Independence campaign/ vote would be foolish to ignore how Brexit unfolded and the events it casued.
in comparing it to those nations cannot be ignored away.
And once the NI solution is implemented why can't that be applied to the Scotland/England border?
If anything, it should be even simpler to implement due to the fact there are far fewer crossing points. I think if you only include the ones you could drive a van across you're talking about 6 crossings.
but I think you can compare the two events as they’re probably broadly similar in the amount of disruption and unforeseen outcomes that they’d cause.
Its not unforeseen. Its obvious. But the benefits far outweigh the negatives. there are clear positive benefits that would occur straight away
Brexit has no benefits.
And once the NI solution is implemented why can’t that be applied to the Scotland/England border?
Not going to happen. there will have to be a hard border. its pie in the sky to think otherwise
However it will increase the rUK isolation and cause significant damage to the ruk economy so will provide a further reason for the rUK to get closer to the EU
Not going to happen. there will have to be a hard border. its pie in the sky to think otherwise
Because?
I don't think the EU is as intransigent to unique situations among its members as people in the UK like to pretend.
Then there's the Euro debate, There was a poll recently (last year I think) that suggested that support for independence falls to 39% if Scotland has to take on the Euro. While it can certainly continue to use Sterling, with or without the BoE agreement,I can't imagine that the EU would be happy to accept a new member using that currency.
I imagine if you’d contributed a noticeable sum to the campaign you might be a bit grumpy about that.
"Campaign"
You don't have to win every battle to win a war.
I'm not grumpy, I understand it'll e a long 'haul', just a set-back but sat here looking at the 5h1tshow that is UK politics and imagining that folk would choose it when they've another option is lost on me.
Then there’s the Euro debate, There was a poll recently (last year I think) that suggested that support for independence falls to 39% if Scotland has to take on the Euro. While it can certainly continue to use Sterling, with or without the BoE agreement,I can’t imagine that the EU would be happy to accept a new member using that currency.
Sweden and Denmark?
Anyway, EFTA membership doesn't have that requirement. Even full EU membership isn't always 'full' EU membership.
There are certainly issues but I've yet to see one that doesn't have a conceivable solution.
,I can’t imagine that the EU would be happy to accept a new member using that currency.
What you have to remember is the pound is not englands currency nor would it be after independence. Its the UK currency and would remain part owned and controlled by iScotland.
Using the pound can only be during the transition
Bruce - because of the size of Scotlands economy and the fact that NI has a unique situation because of the good friday agreement.
Bruce – because of the size of Scotlands economy and the fact that NI has a unique situation because of the good friday agreement.
What do you mean by the size of Scotland's economy?
How does the GFA affect the border agreement? Do you mean the only reason the EU would be willing to look at alternative solutions is because of the GFA?
If so, I don't think the EU is as unbendable as the majority in the UK believe. I certainly wouldn't be making any absolute statements regarding the border.
Remember, there is also Gibraltar (which is still being negotiated). Between NI and Gibraltar I would imagine there is a workable solution. That's before we look at the Norway/Sweden border (Norway being outside the CU and therefore the border is very much relevant for goods).
I think you're talking about this with an unfounded level of confidence.
UK currency and would remain part owned and controlled by iScotland.
Don't disagree with that assessment at all. Do you think the EU would be content to have a new member using that currency joining the Union? I can certainly see it becoming a major part of any talks about joining, and I can foresee Scotland's dilemma. Adopting the Euro is as unpopular in Scotland as it was in the UK before Brexit, and economically there are clear issues over using either. I'm sure they'd be a way around it, the EU is master of fudge after all, but either way presents Scotland with problems.
Do you mean the only reason the EU would be willing to look at alternative solutions is because of the GFA?
Yes
What do you mean by the size of Scotland’s economy?
the only reason the EU can accept the cross border arrangements is NI trade is tiny. Scotland is multiples of the size of NI
I think its daft to rely on a NI type solution. A great bonus if it happens but far better to plan for the worst case scenario when the worst case is the most likely
There are certainly issues but I’ve yet to see one that doesn’t have a conceivable solution.
Oh without a doubt, all the issues are solvable, whether they are acceptable politically is another matter altogether though. I mean I can foresee some (if not all the governments) of the rUK being very keen on iScotland becoming a member of the EU, it would solve huge amounts of issues for companies who trading with the EU before Brexit. I can also foresee that the EU would be aware of that as well.
A great bonus if it happens but far better to plan for the worst case scenario when the worst case is the most likely
Absolutely, although I suspect the EU would have no problem making allowances for iScotland. The reason the worst case scenario contingencies will be needed will be because of the rUK government.
But I don't consider that to be a good unionist argument. 'We have to stay or the beatings will get worse...'
I don't think anyone thinks that a good unionist argument Bruce but let's be honest - if that point ever comes where do the rUK's government's responsibilities lie? Are they going to be looking out for the Scottish people? Further, if the Westminster government is so craven and venal that the Scots must have independence at any cost, these are the people the Scots will be negotiating with. Will they suddenly develop a sense of fairness and benevolence? Or will they play rough?
On the topic of fundraising it should be noted that the SNP is the dominant political party in the independence movement but... The SNP is not the only political party in the independence movement nor is it the only national organisation in the independence movement. AUOB and SIC being two others. In addition to that there are dozens if not hundreds of local groups. Most of these groups survive on the work of volunteers and on fundraising so the SNP fundraising appeal is just one among many. If it does'nt reach a target that does'nt necessarily mean there is less support for independence
The whole story gets worse by the day, nothing but in-fighting and blaming others, the Westminster MPs are struggling to get their accounts in order as well, Stephen Flynn is talking as if it's the previous incumbents fault, Ian Blackford is stating something different.
Got to say, it's not been a good year for them, still not sure why Blackford stood down, belief was behind the scenes it was a bit of a coup to get a new front bench sorted, now with the stuff about finances coming out it looks like we'll have weeks of them ripping into each other, and the greens as well, as they're not making it any easier to govern!
Then there’s the Euro debate, There was a poll recently (last year I think) that suggested that support for independence falls to 39% if Scotland has to take on the Euro.
I think the currency question is far too complex to be distilled into a polster's question. I mean no disservice to the people of Scotland, but frankly its too complex an issue for the typical voter to get their head around in any detail. The question asked is about currency. Frankly I'd be surprised if >50% of people would care about whether the coins/notes say Euro or Pound but that is how the question is presented by the media.
Much more important in reality is the central bank and the fiscal policies that comes with. I doubt that the average person walking along princes's st or bucannan st can explain the roll of the BoE never mind the ECB and the differences that would entail. What does matter to people on the ground is ease of transactions - as we become increasingly electronic the currency itself might not be critical but things like UK pensions, mortgages, payroll etc become complex and you start to think about it a lot more. The temptation is to say "oh, that's too complex lets stick to what we know".
I think the currency (and indeed many of the other hot topics) is used a bit like a belligerent spouse arguing about access to the kids in a divorce though. There are sensible and rational solutions if everyone wants to find them, and whilst briefly you might hold things together by using them as leverage all you do by refusing to have the discussion is drive the wedge deeper in the long run.
Will they suddenly develop a sense of fairness and benevolence? Or will they play rough?
Who knows - but if they play rough they will come out of it even more damaged - even if they inflict a bit of extra damage on iScotland
It would be a two way argument with things in iScotlands gift that rUK would want and need
nickc
Full MemberDon’t disagree with that assessment at all. Do you think the EU would be content to have a new member using that currency joining the Union? I can certainly see it becoming a major part of any talks about joining, and I can foresee Scotland’s dilemma. Adopting the Euro is as unpopular in Scotland as it was in the UK before Brexit, and economically there are clear issues over using either.
Euro myths aside... since I think pretty much everyone now knows that an independent scotland wouldn't be under any pressure to take the euro, and most people know we wouldn't actually be allowed to even if we wanted to... and of course if an indy movement said "we'll take the euro" and the scottish public said "aye OK", it'd take about 2 seconds for the unionists to switch from "you'll have to take it" to "you won't be allowed to"...
There's no major issue with "dollarisation" with the pound for purposes of joining the EU. None at all with a parallel scottish pound pegged to stirling which is the easiest and most likely option. (Which would be called the tillicoultry, because it's near stirling.) That doesn't stop us meeting the copenhagen criteria or entering pre-accession. Ironically, the UK possibly couldn't do that just now due to the rule of law issues.
Where it does become a pretty much insurmountable problem is with future convergence to the euro, you just can't do that if you don't have complete control of your own currency, which is kind of ironic. Not because it's banned but just because all of the convergence rules assume you have that and just can't be met otherwise, and it'd be politically damn nearly impossible to change that. But, as we know, you only have to commit to joining the euro in the future.
Anyway, this is all indy rather than SNP chat but I guess in the lack of more news that's inevitable?
What you have to remember is the pound is not englands currency nor would it be after independence. Its the UK currency and would remain part owned and controlled by iScotland.
Minor hiccup - If Scotland became independent it would LEAVE the UK. Independence is not about the break up of the UK, it is about if Scotland wants to be part of the UK. If there is a vote for Independence, then there will be a lot of haggling over the assets. But since the pound is controlled by the Bank of England and the UK Government, post Independence, Scotland would have very little (if any) control of the pound.
