Jedi2

'Exhausted Yoon tropes' I'm.glad that you have so clearly set out the route map to this (immediately) booming economy and country which will arrive seamlessly post-independence where we have our own currency up and running pretty much immediately, we are debt free, we don't have to cut much public spending (after all we are debt free), we grab a significant portion of UK assets, and are back in the EU pretty much immediately as they are begging us to join. Sounds like a paradise on earth...if only a single SNP document had set out such utopia.

The key part there is 'if' Scotland rejoins the EU...need to get the debt levels down to the right levels first, then overcome the potential Spanish veto..and that is after a near decade of cutting public spending and services to get the debt to the right level. How long does it take an Indy Scotland to strike its own trade deals with other countries in the meantime? How long to negotiate share of rUK debt? How long to prepare for Scot currency? (While cutting public spending). It all still requires (under the SNP's 'proposals' such as they are, to accept being worse off for a decade, before hitting the jackpot)....no mention of EFTA, no mention of how the Scot currency will operate etc These points and questions have got nothing to do with the refusal to agree to a Ref. Plans for How an Independent Scotland might work would (you would think) be on the table beforehand. The closest we have come is the infamous Growth Commission, the more 'recent' papers are just vague waffle by comparison. Keir Starmer isn't in a position to try and improve Brexit at the moment...although he might be at the next renegotiation of its terms. Will he set out a plan beforehand? I would expect so.

'Within 5 years'...how? Scenario 1: If current polling holds up, GE- SNP 13 seats/Labour 33. Scenario 2:Next Holyrood election (based on polling) Labour most seats though clearly short of a majority. That's 2 out of his 5 years used up..in the next 3 why would the UK govt agree to a Referendum? Unless the polls are spectacularly wrong or there is dramatic change.

Currency 'To use the pound sterling for a period..as soon as practicaable'...could be 2 years, 5 years, 10 years. They don't know. Also floating a new currency on International markets requires building up sufficient foreign reserves beforehand..not an overnight process. During the period of using sterling interest rates would of course still be determined by the B of E...that's not 'financial Independence' and whether moving to a Scot currency or not, as said could take some time. SNP policy as we know, is also to take on a share of rUK debt..what proportion, we don't know, for how long, we don't know. Nuclear Weapons Yes, subject to negotiation..again how long does the 'rent' last for? We don't know Foreign Relations Setting up and running Embassies we do know is expensive. Likely to 'share' Embassies with rUK for some time..how long? We don't know. Getting back in the EU Could take up to 10 years..subject to the famous Aquis accord..could be longer.. guess what..don't know. 'If' it happens, hard border with your 'new' trading 'co-operation' partner, England. An awful lot of 'don't knows' in there for a negotiation which could drag on for some time, and all that is dependent upon a UK govt agreeing to a Ref/or accepting a 'majority' of SNP seats (currently polling at 13). 'Touching distance' (to quote Yousaf)....not quite.

I totally agree that they will sit down and negotiate terms (which I also reckon could drag on for years). However...as we know the current proposal is to share a currency. The SNP have made no mention of discontinuing thr Royal connection, so presumably shared Crown. I agree that Faslane will continue for some time. And as with the point about electricity/water I think there will be a shared defence with Scotland paying a share towards it. Should an Independent Scotland make treaties etc with other countries? Of course, but clearly an ongoing union/co-operation with England is very different to striking a trade deal with France or Italy eg. Roddick's comments still sound to me like a watered down version of what has been proposed over recent times, and designed to gain support by saying we will only be 'half' Independent and essentially half not...so don't worry about voting for us

Exactly. I know that there was a lot of waffle in 2014 about maintaining a 'social union' with England, but the words expressed here sound like a lot more than that. It's a kind of ultimate 'don't scare the horses' tactic...you can vote for Indy because we will still be in a co-operative union with England.

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/utterly-deluded-snp-msp-emma-32817931 The intellectual collusus @lichtgilphead has decreed that Emma Roddick didn't say any of these things though and we know the master of every subject is never wrong.

'I would love an Independent Scotland to be in some sort of union or co-operation agreement with what is currently the rest of the UK' It 'wasnt' Emma Roddick that said this of course she was clearly misquoted in the article 'Some sort of union'....wild speculation on shared currency, crown, defence etc......wait a minute..that's what the White Paper proposed in 2014

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-national-scotland/20240515/281586655698529inued' union with England Post Indy. All out of my own head. The comments aren't really Emma Roddick and Murray Foote isn't really the Chief Exec of the SNP, nor was he the editor of the Daily Record at the time of the Vow, but still...

Emma Roddick now wants a 'continued' union with England Post Indy. How does that work? Vote for us and we will get you Independe...no, that's not right..Vote for us and we will get you.. Shared Currency Shared Crown Shared Broadcasting Shared Defence/Foreign Policy Might park the nuclear weapons for you We might get some extra Social Security Powers Most importantly we can wave our own fleg. Still, when you have architect of the Vow Murray Foote as Chief Exec no surprise

Would agree with this..incremental powers gained each time. Gets to the point eventually when it can be said 'might as well be Independent'. A change of tack by the SNP on this might well be what regains support.

Obviously Northern Ireland is 'different' due to the circumstances there, and the fact that the GFA is a legally binding document, so clearly if a majority polled wanted a Ref, one has to be granted. In Scotland though, if you think an SNP majority of MP's won't do it, or a Holyrood election win, or a consistent 60% polling support.....what is the route? Also, if the argument for voting SNP is 'just' to 'get Independence' but there is an idea that Westminster govts (of any stripe) won't authorise a Ref, whatever the level of SNP support..does it not go back to 'what does an SNP vote achieve'? (Genuine question) I still reckon the 60%ish in polling would force the hand of any Westminster govt, but its still a long way from that scenario at the moment.

So...SNP support currently at 31%, which would equate to significant seat loses at the GE. A 'defeat' for the SNP..does that mean support for Independence is therefore 'dead' or dropping from its 45-50% post-GE? Don't think so. Therefore where is the 'Wow' in a decoupling of SNP voting and support for Independence? Or is the 'Wow' that consistent 60 odd percent Independence polling would trigger a Referendum? Even Alistair Jack of all people has conceded that. The SNP have had their 'mandates for a Referendum in 4 elections in a row now..denied (with Indy support hovering at less than 50% on the whole albeit in that time and sometimes in the high 30s/early 40s)...and that has been with Johnson, Brexit, Truss et al. 60 odd percent (outside the SNP) is a different matter

I would suspect that the biggest shift toward Labour for the GE (with the 38-31% current lead) has come mostly from disillusioned SNP voters. No doubt a whole host of reasons in there..yes, lesser of two evils re the Tories, but also fed up with recent events at Holyrood and 'other' controversies. May well be 18 months between a new govt (if it is a Labour one) and Holyrood elections, but if the polls hold up, and the SNP lose a lot of seats at GE, they still have 2 years of Swinney to come, as well as more of Branchform, Salmond's legal action against them etc.

At the moment support for the SNP is clearly trailing support for Independence by a signicant gap..(around 30% for the former and 45-50% the latter). Is this (finally) a decoupling of 'I support Independence therefore can 'only' vote SNP? Clearly there are significant numbers of folk who would vote Yes in the Referendum/continue to support Indy, but are fed up with the SNP, due to presumably, record in govt/'other' controversies. Might it be, that in years to come, the Independence moment (hopefully) doesn't need the SNP? If support for it can reach say 60% on a consistent basis, (at a time with much lower numbers of SNP MPs), chances still are that a Referendum happens and things go from there.

But...but...but....but...Labour (with far fewer powers in Cardiff than Hoyrood) and the Tories are worse, so SNP doing a great job. Yawn...Tedium levels off the scale. Top trolling though.

Erm..they have been an administration for the past 17 years, in a period when, aside from broadcasting, foreign policy, and defence, pretty much everything else has been Devolved..they of course have power over taxation as well. Would think that might be a long enough period to assess how the SNP do in govt.

It just goes to show the tribal nature of politics...SNP equate to 'Independence', doent matter if they have the 'Growth Commission' view of Independence (as some in high positions still do), Independence is 'all' that matters..their record in govt-also becomes irrelevant. It's no different to the 50 odd years of Scotland 'voting Labour' by instinct, didn't matter who the characters or the policies were..the votes just stacked up. It is of course possible to 'support' a political party, and still be critical of them and recognise their flaws..ie is Starmer about to lead the UK into some new 'golden era'..no, I don't think so. Should he have accepted Elphicke..no.Do they need to flesh out more policies and be more 'principled'? Absolutely. But ultimately will they be better than the Tories over time? I think they will, and they aren't 'just' a right wing party. Unless the SNP can also do some soul searching and admit mistakes along the way,(as well as admitting that Kate Forbes and those around her are very much on the right wing of politics ecomically and socially) Independence with them is not 'inevitable'...it still takes a lot of work

Certainly a scrappy game, but we dug in well, when needed, and just about shaded it. Couple of decent chances late on for St.Mirren with the one off the bar, and off the line, both unlucky. Really hope Saints make it to Europe as well now, and looking good for it...deserved over the past 2 seasons

I can recall back in 1997, that we heard 'folk are only voting Labour because the Tories have been a mess for years/the Tories will be back in, next election/ New Labour are just the Tories in disguise/ all they will do is manage decline for the next 4 years' Same govt went on to give us record levels of funding for public services, the Minimum Wage, Devolution in Scotland, a Peace Settlement in Northern Ireland, Sure Start Centres, Human Rights Act, 3 million more people in work, crime rates halved, Educational Maintenance Allowance, low inflation, debt write off for 100% of the poorest countries in the world. Same refrains then as now.. 'They are just Red Tories' 'They don't have any policies/won't do what they promise anyway'. Time will tell..

Ah, but as we know, 'Tories' in the SNP are 'good' Tories, and if they get to implement their economic policies post-Independence, so be it. I am looking forward to the SNP's 'honest' upcoming GE pitch...'make us Independent this time, you will be worse off and have a desert of public services for 10 years, (cause that George Osbourne was a wet Liberal) but it will be sunshine and flowers after that'

Glad to see that a decade of swinging cuts to public services to implement austerity further and faster than the Tory govt from 2010-16 isn't considered to be 'extremely right wing' yet supporting Brexit, and criticising Marcus Rashford's free school meal campaign is. Kate Forbes has also been deemed on the 'further' to the right wing on her views of same-sez marriage, equality, sexuality, and trans rights. In summary...social and exotic views on the right in the SNP=good, social and economic views on the right of the Tories (who defect)=shameful. Again, I wouldn't have accepted Natalie Elphicke into the Labour Party, (indeed..is she a 'lunatic'..yes), but nor would I seek to defend Forbes economic outlook etc. Whether the Tory is wearing a blue, red, or (yellow and black) rosette, they are still a Tory.

Maybe check out: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/kate-forbes-economic-agenda-dangerous-snp-leadership-race-scotland-conservative/ Including: 'Forbes writes, the plan is for Scotland to become a “magnet for inward investment and global private capital”. (Normally a prelude to low tax, light touch regulation, strip public services and sell off assets) She was of course, a key player in the decade of austerity 'Growth Commission' plan to make deeper cuts to public services than Osbourne. Add in her views on 'social' issues and perhaps is she sounds and acts like a Tory, then.... Did she back Brexit as Natalie Elphicke (who for the record, I wouldn't have had in the Labour Party) did?..No, but if its okay to have a Deputy FM who wouldn't be out of place in the Conservative Party...

That will be the 'Swinney bounce' then presumably.

As opposed to appointing an extreme right winger as your Deputy FM you mean? And a hung parliament so you can still have the Tories wrecking the place? Dearie me.