When will indyref2 happen?

[ayrmad]

1 hour ago, lichtgilphead said:

I know. So does Strichiner.

He didn't appear to want anyone else to realise this though.

It's bad enough having to look beneath the veneer in the MSM, poor and unexpected show from Strichiner.

Edited August 18, 2019 by ayrmad

[strichener]

4 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

Who was this mystery minister, Strichiner? Why do you appear reluctant to name him?

Is it because you wish to imply it's an SNP minister, rather than a Liberal Democrat minister?

Only if you are absolutely incapable of reading.  I have already stated that it wasn't an SNP government in place at the time of the trams legislation being passed.

Vanity projects by governments happen whatever party and country they may be.  Somehow you think that they only originate in London.

I do note that you have just chosen to ignore the content of the quote.  A minister appointed by the Scottish Government clearly stated that not passing the legislation would have derailed the tram project.  It proceeded only on the green light of parliament and the finding by the Executive as it was at the time.  

No reasonable person could look at the trams and Crossrail and fail to see the multitude of similarities between the two.

Edited August 18, 2019 by strichener

[lichtgilphead]

1 minute ago, strichener said:

Only if you are absolutely incapable of reading.  I have already stated that it wasn't an SNP government in place at the time of the trams legislation being passed.

Vanity projects by governments happen whatever party and country they may be.  Somehow you think that they only originate in London.

No Strichiner. I'm happy to ascribe blame where it is deserved.

Tavish Scott was the Transport minister at the time, with the enthusiastic support his Holyrood Lib Dem chums and Labour colleagues. They worked with the Labour City of Edinburgh council to implement the Edinburgh Trams vanity project.

But, hey, SNP baaaaaaaad.

[Wee-Bey]

23 minutes ago, strichener said:

Only if you are absolutely incapable of reading.  I have already stated that it wasn't an SNP government in place at the time of the trams legislation being passed.

Vanity projects by governments happen whatever party and country they may be.  Somehow you think that they only originate in London.

I do note that you have just chosen to ignore the content of the quote.  A minister appointed by the Scottish Government clearly stated that not passing the legislation would have derailed the tram project.  It proceeded only on the green light of parliament and the finding by the Executive as it was at the time.  

No reasonable person could look at the trams and Crossrail and fail to see the multitude of similarities between the two.

I thought we'd already cleared this up ? The trams were a City of Edinburgh Council vanity project.

- The council wanted a tram network.

- The council tried to introduce a congestion charge to pay for the network.

- When the residents of Edinburgh rejected the congestion charge proposal, the council asked the government for funding.

- The government, via grants from Transport Scotland agreed to provide funding for the project.

- The council prepared a business case for approval by the Transport minister.

0092204_fc 21.12.06 10.00am item 08.4 (part 1).pdf

It's a long and boring document tbh, but some interesting paragraphs...

Key Players 
3.10 There are four key players responsible for the delivery of an integrated transport 
system for Edinburgh:- The Council; Transport Scotland; Transport Edinburgh 
Ltd (TEL); and tie Ltd. Transport Scotland is the agency responsible for the 
delivery of the Scottish Executive’s transport investment programme and is the principal funder of Edinburgh’s tram project. The Council is the promoter of the 
Tram project and has been responsible for its inception through the Local 
Transport Strategy, and the promotion of Parliamentary Bills enabling its 
construction. Following Royal Assent the Council is now the “authorised 
undertaker’’ for Edinburgh Tram Lines 1 and 2 under their respective Acts. If the 
Council enters into any agreeements in its capacity as authorised undertaker 
the Council must notify Scottish Ministers accordingly. Relevant agreements in 
this regard at the present time include agreements with TEL (Operating 
Agreement and on maintenance demarcation which is in preparation) and with 
the District Valuer in connection with land acquisition. The Council is the sole or 
major shareholder in three limited companies all of whom play a vital role in 
Tram namely TEL, Lothian Buses and tie.

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
Background 
1.1 Substantial road traffic growth across the Edinburgh area combined with forecast 
population and employment increases will lead to significant growth in road 
congestion and demand for transport solutions. To support the local economy, City of 
Edinburgh Council (CEC) has identified trams as the preferred way to provide the 
backbone for a comprehensive, higher quality public transport network to support the 
local economy and to help to create sustainable development. The Edinburgh Tram 
Network (“the tram”) has been central to transport policy and planning and the wider 
economic development aspirations of the City for more than six years. The scheme 
has had in-principle funding support from the Scottish Executive (now represented by 
Transport Scotland) since 2003.

[sergie's no1 fan]

Why would anyone want to be ruled by a party this country hasn't voted for in decades?

Why would anyone wanted to be ruled by folk who go out their way to cause so much misery and destruction so they can get rich in doing so?

Would you give your wage to your neighbour and let him/her decide what your eating this week? They take £150 off you and give you £60 worth of food back and say you should be grateful for that?

If being against that means i am labelled a stupid nationalist then so be it.

[Gaz FFC]

I've asked before but didn't get an answer.

Does the profits from the tram network go to paying for it or to LRT?

[Detournement]

I doubt it makes a profit.

[Wee-Bey]

2 hours ago, Gaz FFC said:

I've asked before but didn't get an answer.

Does the profits from the tram network go to paying for it or to LRT?

LRT are called Lothian Buses now, both it and the trams come under TfE, Transport for Edinburgh. An arms length company which the council has roughly 90% ownership of.

It's all a bit murky tbh.

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/traffic-and-travel/edinburgh-trams-big-pay-rise-for-boss-despite-10million-loss-1-4949726

 

[Malky3]

11 hours ago, sergie's no1 fan said:

Why would anyone want to be ruled by a party this country hasn't voted for in decades?

Why would anyone wanted to be ruled by folk who go out their way to cause so much misery and destruction so they can get rich in doing so?

Would you give your wage to your neighbour and let him/her decide what your eating this week? They take £150 off you and give you £60 worth of food back and say you should be grateful for that?

If being against that means i am labelled a stupid nationalist then so be it.
 

Ill answer your questions directly in the hope you'll return the favour. 

1. In the last General Election 63.2% of Scots rejected Scottish Nationalism. In the Scottish Parliament elections 53% of those who voted rejected Scottish Nationalism. And in 2014 when asked a direct question 55% of Scots rejected Scottish Nationalism. If you are so concerned about the democratic will of your fellow countrymen perhaps we should start by recognising that the majority of Scots are not sold on Independence. 

2. You misrepresent the facts. First off Scotland is a part of the UK. Secondly the reason the Conservatives were able to form a government with the DUP was the increased vote and the increased number of Conservative MPs that Scotland elected. The people of Scotland had a clear and direct influence on the outcome of the last General Election. Also in recent history we've seen Gordon Brown and Tony Blair - two Scots raised and educated - UK Prime Ministers "rule over" the UK. Scottish MPs have also had disproportionate influence over the last four UK governments. Indeed one of the biggest jokes in recent times is seeing a Scottish Separatist party positioning itself as part of a UK Government of "National Unity" 

3. I'd rather not give any of my money to politicians who will always waste it. Unfortunately, in Scotland, the SNP have increased taxes as seemingly they think they can spend my earnings better than I can. Its also quite clear that Scottish Independence has never been fully costed and that any Independent Scottish government woulf have to make large cuts in piblic spending or increase taxation substantially. So to directly answer your question I'd prefer the current arrangement because it offers me and my family the best value for money. 

Now can you please tell me

1. Where you would make £26.9Bn worth of cuts to what was proposed in the White Paper?

2. What are your proposals for replacing the services the UK public sector provides on behalf of Scotland and how much would it cost? 

3. If you rule out the emotive drive of an nationalistic xenophobic ideology can you sell me a single economic benefit of going through another protracted and antagonistic divorce and erecting a hard border between Scotland and England? 

[Wee-Bey]

[anonanist]

2 hours ago, Malky3 said:

Ill answer your questions directly in the hope you'll return the favour. 

1. In the last General Election 63.2% of Scots rejected Scottish Nationalism. In the Scottish Parliament elections 53% of those who voted rejected Scottish Nationalism. And in 2014 when asked a direct question 55% of Scots rejected Scottish Nationalism. If you are so concerned about the democratic will of your fellow countrymen perhaps we should start by recognising that the majority of Scots are not sold on Independence. 

2. You misrepresent the facts. First off Scotland is a part of the UK. Secondly the reason the Conservatives were able to form a government with the DUP was the increased vote and the increased number of Conservative MPs that Scotland elected. The people of Scotland had a clear and direct influence on the outcome of the last General Election. Also in recent history we've seen Gordon Brown and Tony Blair - two Scots raised and educated - UK Prime Ministers "rule over" the UK. Scottish MPs have also had disproportionate influence over the last four UK governments. Indeed one of the biggest jokes in recent times is seeing a Scottish Separatist party positioning itself as part of a UK Government of "National Unity" 

3. I'd rather not give any of my money to politicians who will always waste it. Unfortunately, in Scotland, the SNP have increased taxes as seemingly they think they can spend my earnings better than I can. Its also quite clear that Scottish Independence has never been fully costed and that any Independent Scottish government woulf have to make large cuts in piblic spending or increase taxation substantially. So to directly answer your question I'd prefer the current arrangement because it offers me and my family the best value for money. 

Now can you please tell me

1. Where you would make £26.9Bn worth of cuts to what was proposed in the White Paper?

2. What are your proposals for replacing the services the UK public sector provides on behalf of Scotland and how much would it cost? 

3. If you rule out the emotive drive of an nationalistic xenophobic ideology can you sell me a single economic benefit of going through another protracted and antagonistic divorce and erecting a hard border between Scotland and England? 

I think your points show the mistake the SNP made in not supporting the Customs Union in the 'indicative votes' in the spring.

To me, the securing English membership of the EU customs union (via a 'soft' UK Brexit, at this time) would guarantee a future open border between Scotland and England, which would not only ensure that we would not have the 'cliff-edge' disruption to trade if Scotland chose to leave the UK, but that - crucially - Scots would be more likely to actually vote for independence if open borders to rUK and the EU were guaranteed.

Further, Scotland re-joining the single market with England/rUK not in the single market, would give Scotland the sort of economic boost that would be required to support the finances of independence; this would occur, I believe, as Scotland would have EU 'passporting rights' for financial services that England would not and so, being an English speaking country with these passporting rights, Scotland would become a financial services conduit/hub between the EU and England/rUK (and, very likely, the USofA too).

As such, in failing to support the UK's continued membership of the EU customs union, the SNP have made a serious error on independence, in my opinion.  And in selling off Prestwick Airport, they are further diminishing Scotland's chances to be an independent trading nation, given Prestwick's huge capacity for air freight. 

Nevertheless, Scotland's supposed deficit on GERS figures can be reduced with a bit of perspective: about one-third of the 'deficit' is capital expenditure, to which credit ratings agencies do not ascribe risk (as I understand it); another third of the 'deficit' is interest payments on a population share of UK debt, which literally would not be Scotland's responsibility if we no longer used the pound; the final third of the 'deficit' would bring Scotland to within allowable range of the EU's debt-GDP ratio, so the EU wouldn't be too concerned with that.  All in, the supposed huge deficit of Scotland looks to be nothing of the sort.  It's also worth bearing in mind that the likes of Sweden have been slated to join the Euro for decades, but they will never be forced to by the EU and, just to be sure, they haven't made the requisite banking reforms anyhow.  

IndyScot could be in a position to join the Euro very quickly, but wouldn't be compelled to by the EU and would find, with England in the EU customs union only and Scotland within the single market, that a Scottish currency would be supported by a surplus in tax revenues.  

P.s. - why do Brexiters think that a free-trade agreement with the EU is more desirable than remaining in the Customs Union, given that the CU is, by definition, tariff-free trade with our largest economic partners?  Duh?!

[DeeTillEhDeh]

You are correct. He is a liar who is deliberately misreading your post to play to the galleries.

Not the first time he has done that and won't be the last.

 

Who was it that said Malky was Oaksoft?

[John Lambies Doos]

Pray for Malky

[Malky3]

12 hours ago, anonanist said:

I think your points show the mistake the SNP made in not supporting the Customs Union in the 'indicative votes' in the spring.

To me, the securing English membership of the EU customs union (via a 'soft' UK Brexit, at this time) would guarantee a future open border between Scotland and England, which would not only ensure that we would not have the 'cliff-edge' disruption to trade if Scotland chose to leave the UK, but that - crucially - Scots would be more likely to actually vote for independence if open borders to rUK and the EU were guaranteed.

Further, Scotland re-joining the single market with England/rUK not in the single market, would give Scotland the sort of economic boost that would be required to support the finances of independence; this would occur, I believe, as Scotland would have EU 'passporting rights' for financial services that England would not and so, being an English speaking country with these passporting rights, Scotland would become a financial services conduit/hub between the EU and England/rUK (and, very likely, the USofA too).

As such, in failing to support the UK's continued membership of the EU customs union, the SNP have made a serious error on independence, in my opinion.  And in selling off Prestwick Airport, they are further diminishing Scotland's chances to be an independent trading nation, given Prestwick's huge capacity for air freight. 

Nevertheless, Scotland's supposed deficit on GERS figures can be reduced with a bit of perspective: about one-third of the 'deficit' is capital expenditure, to which credit ratings agencies do not ascribe risk (as I understand it); another third of the 'deficit' is interest payments on a population share of UK debt, which literally would not be Scotland's responsibility if we no longer used the pound; the final third of the 'deficit' would bring Scotland to within allowable range of the EU's debt-GDP ratio, so the EU wouldn't be too concerned with that.  All in, the supposed huge deficit of Scotland looks to be nothing of the sort.  It's also worth bearing in mind that the likes of Sweden have been slated to join the Euro for decades, but they will never be forced to by the EU and, just to be sure, they haven't made the requisite banking reforms anyhow.  

IndyScot could be in a position to join the Euro very quickly, but wouldn't be compelled to by the EU and would find, with England in the EU customs union only and Scotland within the single market, that a Scottish currency would be supported by a surplus in tax revenues.  

P.s. - why do Brexiters think that a free-trade agreement with the EU is more desirable than remaining in the Customs Union, given that the CU is, by definition, tariff-free trade with our largest economic partners?  Duh?!

The Scottish Nationalists have always been in a strange place when it comes to Brexit. Westminster is bad because Scotland only has 72 MP's out of 650, but the European Parliament is great despite Scotland only having 6 MEP's in a parliament of 736. They argue we need to localise politics so to do that we should remove ourselves from the Parliament that is 400 miles away from Glasgow and Edinburgh, whilst extolling the virtues of being ruled by a European Parliament that is either 615 miles away from Edinburgh - if it's Brussels or 870 if it's Frankfurt. When the contradiction is highlighted they claim that the European Parliament allows them to create alliances that Westminster doesn't, yet it appears they want to take part in a bizarre "Government of National Unity" that includes Scottish and Irish Separatists to try to overthrow the Prime Minister and to force the UK to remain in the EU despite the democratic will of the people. 

I think you make an excellent point though. In their rush to grievance politics the SNP has gone from demanding a "Soft Brexit" to a position that has pushed Scotland into what the SNP described as a seriously damaging Hard Brexit through their failure to support Theresa May's Withdrawal Agreement.  As a result Scottish Independence is a good deal less attractive than it could have been. It'll be interesting to see how history views that piece of stupidity in a few years time. 

The second half of your post is where you lose me. I can't envisage any situation where a government of an Independent Scotland would sit down to negotiations on a separation agreement and walk away without any responsibility to the UK National Debt. That sounds like the same kind of ridiculously optimistic forecast that the SNP made in their White Paper that would have run up a fiscal black hole of £29.9Bn had 55% of Scots not saved us. And then to compound things you use the most ridiculous kind of spin imaginable when you state that capital expenditure wouldn't be a deficit because credit agencies deem it low risk. After all my credit card company might think I'm low risk and be willing to offer me a decent credit facility with low introductory interest rates, but if I use the credit facility I'm still in debt no matter how you try to spin the story. 

I can't answer your question at all as I voted to remain. 

Edited August 19, 2019 by Malky3

[Bairnardo]

Does being aligned to the European Parliament involve all of the exact same lawmaking/changing/taxation powers etc as being aligned to Westminster? Or are those parliaments pretty different in their remit and capabilities? Genuine question

The Scottish Nationalists have always been in a strange place when it comes to Brexit. Westminster is bad because Scotland only has 72 MP's out of 650, but the European Parliament is great despite Scotland only having 6 MEP's in a parliament of 736. They argue we need to localise politics so to do that we should remove ourselves from the Parliament that is 400 miles away from Glasgow and Edinburgh, whilst extolling the virtues of being ruled by a European Parliament that is either 615 miles away from Edinburgh - if it's Brussels or 870 if it's Frankfurt. When the contradiction is highlighted they claim that the European Parliament allows them to create alliances that Westminster doesn't, yet it appears they want to take part in a bizarre "Government of National Unity" that includes Scottish and Irish Separatists to try to overthrow the Prime Minister and to force the UK to remain in the EU despite the democratic will of the people. 
I think you make an excellent point though. In their rush to grievance politics the SNP has gone from demanding a "Soft Brexit" to a position that has pushed Scotland into what the SNP described as a seriously damaging Hard Brexit through their failure to support Theresa May's Soft Brexit Withdrawal Agreement.  As a result Scottish Independence is a good deal less attractive than it could have been. 
The second half of your post is where you lose me. I can't envisage any situation where a government of an Independent Scotland would sit down to negotiations on a separation agreement and walk away without any responsibility to the UK National Debt. That sounds like the same kind of ridiculously optimistic forecast that the SNP made in their White Paper that would have run up a fiscal black hole of £29.9Bn had 55% of Scots not saved us. And then to compound things you use the most ridiculous kind of spin imaginable when you state that capital expenditure wouldn't be a deficit because credit agencies deem it low risk. After all my credit card company might think I'm low risk and be willing to offer me a decent credit facility with low introductory interest rates, but if I use the credit facility I'm still in debt no matter how you try to spin the story. 
I can't answer your question at all as I voted to remain. 

[The_Kincardine]

13 hours ago, anonanist said:

P.s. - why do Brexiters think that a free-trade agreement with the EU is more desirable than remaining in the Customs Union, given that the CU is, by definition, tariff-free trade with our largest economic partners?  Duh?!

Of course this is nonsense - but then I have never been in favour of Brexit.

What's fanciful about your post is the easy assumption you made when you mentioned, "Scotland re-joining the single market with England/rUK not in the single market," and this is not at all within New Scotland's gift. 

What the odious Brexit has done is to raise the bar when it comes to glib advocates of significant constitutional change.  When Scotland went to the stump in 2014 the ramifications of divorce were pretty-much soft-soaped.  If it ever happens again they will not be given such an easy ride.

[Malky3]

1 minute ago, Bairnardo said:

Does being aligned to the European Parliament involve all of the exact same lawmaking/changing/taxation powers etc as being aligned to Westminster? Or are those parliaments pretty different in their remit and capabilities? Genuine question

I'm tired so hopefully this will make sense. I'm sure others will pick up on anything that I'm saying that isn't fair or balanced.

With regard to law, the European Commission can propose legislation which the European Council and the European Parliament then vote on whether to pass into law. If someone is unhappy with a decision made in the UK Courts they can appeal to the European Courts in the hope that they will overrule the decision. In terms of taxation the EU does impose some rules on member countries for example the UK Government has said several times in the past that it would like to replace VAT with a different form of tax but claim the EU Rules mean they can't.  It's also the case that the EU imposes strict rules on the fiscal budgets of countries that use the Euro as their currency - one only has to look at Greece to see how the EU treats member states who repeatedly fail to meet their criteria. 

In many ways it was the growing influence the European Parliament was having in our every day lives that started much of the debate in the UK on our EU membership. The EU policy of convergence was seen by many in UK politics to be eroding our sovereignty and our ability to run our own country in the way we wanted to. 

[Bairnardo]

15 minutes ago, Malky3 said:

I'm tired so hopefully this will make sense. I'm sure others will pick up on anything that I'm saying that isn't fair or balanced.

With regard to law, the European Commission can propose legislation which the European Council and the European Parliament then vote on whether to pass into law. If someone is unhappy with a decision made in the UK Courts they can appeal to the European Courts in the hope that they will overrule the decision. In terms of taxation the EU does impose some rules on member countries for example the UK Government has said several times in the past that it would like to replace VAT with a different form of tax but claim the EU Rules mean they can't.  It's also the case that the EU imposes strict rules on the fiscal budgets of countries that use the Euro as their currency - one only has to look at Greece to see how the EU treats member states who repeatedly fail to meet their criteria. 

In many ways it was the growing influence the European Parliament was having in our every day lives that started much of the debate in the UK on our EU membership. The EU policy of convergence was seen by many in UK politics to be eroding our sovereignty and our ability to run our own country in the way we wanted to. 

In your opinion, what would you as genuine problems arising from an independent Scotland (Lets say not using the Euro) joining the EU

[Brother Blades]

The Scottish Nationalists have always been in a strange place when it comes to Brexit. Westminster is bad because Scotland only has 72 MP's out of 650, but the European Parliament is great despite Scotland only having 6 MEP's in a parliament of 736. They argue we need to localise politics so to do that we should remove ourselves from the Parliament that is 400 miles away from Glasgow and Edinburgh, whilst extolling the virtues of being ruled by a European Parliament that is either 615 miles away from Edinburgh - if it's Brussels or 870 if it's Frankfurt. When the contradiction is highlighted they claim that the European Parliament allows them to create alliances that Westminster doesn't, yet it appears they want to take part in a bizarre "Government of National Unity" that includes Scottish and Irish Separatists to try to overthrow the Prime Minister and to force the UK to remain in the EU despite the democratic will of the people. 
I think you make an excellent point though. In their rush to grievance politics the SNP has gone from demanding a "Soft Brexit" to a position that has pushed Scotland into what the SNP described as a seriously damaging Hard Brexit through their failure to support Theresa May's Withdrawal Agreement.  As a result Scottish Independence is a good deal less attractive than it could have been. It'll be interesting to see how history views that piece of stupidity in a few years time. 
The second half of your post is where you lose me. I can't envisage any situation where a government of an Independent Scotland would sit down to negotiations on a separation agreement and walk away without any responsibility to the UK National Debt. That sounds like the same kind of ridiculously optimistic forecast that the SNP made in their White Paper that would have run up a fiscal black hole of £29.9Bn had 55% of Scots not saved us. And then to compound things you use the most ridiculous kind of spin imaginable when you state that capital expenditure wouldn't be a deficit because credit agencies deem it low risk. After all my credit card company might think I'm low risk and be willing to offer me a decent credit facility with low introductory interest rates, but if I use the credit facility I'm still in debt no matter how you try to spin the story. 
I can't answer your question at all as I voted to remain. 

You are the king of cut & paste... Scotland has 59 MPs. Hasn’t had 72 for a long time.
You are a LIAR. Also, your trolling is tedious, your copy & paste, even more so.

[GordonS]

It's always illuminating when you come across someone who's wrong about *everything*.