When will indyref2 happen?

[AUFC90]

I'm not a cultist, I'm just Scottish. Are you?

Using the phrase 'add up' betrays the usual superficial thinking of a country as a household that needs to balance its budget. Scotland is not a household. Scotland would need to borrow significantly off international money markets. It could and would collateralise this borrowing against the potential return from exploitation of its - incredibly for a developed nation and in stark contrast to England - still abundant natural resources. Oil still generates a marginal return though it is limited by the technical constraints on extraction unique to UK shelf reserves as compared to Norwegian. Renewables is clearly a growth sector that would be a platform on which to borrow resources to properly develop the country. You can call this gambling, cultism if you like. I call it ambition and I take a dim view of mainly older, mainly right wing, Scots who poo-poo this kind of thinking.

You'd be correct to say the SNP growth commission doens't chime with much of that. But there's the rub. The SNP are just the people I'd vote for until independence then I'd drop them like a hot stone.

This. I'll vote for the SNP whilst we are still in the UK and patch them straight after. As was repeated time after time during the referendum...the ONLY way to kill off the SNP is to vote yes.

 

[NotThePars]

See people that get upset over the use of "craven" or "servile", they might reasonably consider how they throw around the word "cult". 
Folk that use "cult" are generally arseholes of the highest order and most likely to fit perfectly to a description of craven and servile. 

Aye tbf the cult thing that gets thrown at SNP or Labour members is utterly embarrassing. It’s levelled a lot of the time by people who think you have to like your politicians as people and not just as vehicles for policies or ideology.

[I'm Brian]

4 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

 

Aye tbf the cult thing that gets thrown at SNP or Labour members is utterly embarrassing. It’s levelled a lot of the time by people who think you have to like your politicians as people and not just as vehicles for policies or ideology.

 

TBF there are a fair number who fit the bill.  One of the reasons I don't go out with them anymore.

[AyrExile]

21 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

I'm not a cultist, I'm just Scottish. Are you?

Using the phrase 'add up' betrays the usual superficial thinking of a country as a household that needs to balance its budget. Scotland is not a household. Scotland would need to borrow significantly off international money markets. It could and would collateralise this borrowing against the potential return from exploitation of its - incredibly for a developed nation and in stark contrast to England - still abundant natural resources. Oil still generates a marginal return though it is limited by the technical constraints on extraction unique to UK shelf reserves as compared to Norwegian. Renewables is clearly a growth sector that would be a platform on which to borrow resources to properly develop the country. You can call this gambling, cultism if you like. I call it ambition and I take a dim view of mainly older, mainly right wing, Scots who poo-poo this kind of thinking.

You'd be correct to say the SNP growth commission doens't chime with much of that. But there's the rub. The SNP are just the people I'd vote for until independence then I'd drop them like a hot stone.

Fair play then you are obviously a gambler. Not everybody in the world is though and many require facts and figures to work from. I could see your plan having a chance with the correct people involved although my appetite for risk  diminishes when politicians are the main drivers. Having had many more years dealing with them I can understand why the elderly wouldn’t be fooled as easily with soundbites over substance 

[topcat(The most tip top)]

I usually assume “cult” is a typo

[AUFC90]

Fair play then you are obviously a gambler. Not everybody in the world is though and many require facts and figures to work from. I could see your plan having a chance with the correct people involved although my appetite for risk  diminishes when politicians are the main drivers. Having had many more years dealing with them I can understand why the elderly wouldn’t be fooled as easily with soundbites over substance 

People wanted every fact and figure provided for an event that's never happened before. Basically an easy reason to vote no. All i know is judging by the current shambles that is the UK government...Cameron and co would have resigned the next day and we would have had quite a strong hand in negotiations. Certainly a much stronger hand than the UK has with the EU. The same people who demanded certainty are only quite happy to bumble along with an uncertain UK.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Wisdom comes with age

But only for people who’ve been paying attention

[I'm Brian]

7 minutes ago, AyrExile said:

Fair play then you are obviously a gambler. Not everybody in the world is though and many require facts and figures to work from. I could see your plan having a chance with the correct people involved although my appetite for risk  diminishes when politicians are the main drivers. Having had many more years dealing with them I can understand why the elderly wouldn’t be fooled as easily with soundbites over substance 

Two questions:

1) If you are against "gambling" as you put it, are you comfortable with the financial services sector in the UK?

 

2) If the elderly are less easily fooled by soundbites, why did so many of them vote to leave the EU?

[RedRob72]

One of the big accusations is that the group born between 1945 and 1965 are probably the most selfish generation - in some ways not surprising as they were the ones who benefited first from property ownership - the first generation who had real disposable income to spend. 

It's also ironic that it's the generation that lived through the liberal 60s because now it is one of the most conservative generations.

 

Selfish!!? I think ‘appreciative’ is nearer the mark. In the 60’s early 70’s we had absolutely nothing. Our parents worked long hours for a meagre weekly pay packet, that just about covered the bills and kept food on the table and that was it. If the old man had a few bob to go to the pub on a Friday night it was a rare treat for him. My mother never went anywhere, outside of running the home, other than the library perhaps. We didn’t have a fridge, TV or a car, nobody else on the street did either mind, we were all in the ‘same boat’. I never considered for a moment that we were quite poor though. Only when the old boy got the foundry foreman’s job could he afford to take us to a game at Ibrox now and again. Every kid got their siblings hand me downs and none of us got ‘pocket money’ there was no such thing. ‘Holidays’ might be a day trip to Saltcoats nothing more. Might be looking back with rose tinted spectacles, but I wouldn’t change it for the world, we had nothing of material value but we had everything in terms of fun & freedom to grow up in an environment that was perhaps tough but certainly caring. We lived in a proper community of friends and neighbours that is rare today.

I’d say everything that has happened since and for most of my pals, job/business, home, reasonable stability for the family etc, has come through a combination of hard work AND being fortunate enough to have taken the opportunities that have arisen since the days of high unemployment in the late 70’s early 80’s. No one had any aspirations of a career or Further/Higher Education, just a job, any job was all that mattered. Today, I honestly think that makes ‘my generation’ grateful above all else. Pampered, privileged and entitled we were not.

 

[AUFC90]

Two questions:
1) If you are against "gambling" as you put it, are you comfortable with the financial services sector in the UK?
 
2) If the elderly are less easily fooled by soundbites, why did so many of them vote to leave the EU?

They voted to leave the EU because of all those facts and figures provided....clearly.

[jakedee]

Those people you are slating got it spot on the last time. All the projections in the white paper were followed by an unforeseen collapse in the oil price meaning day one of any new Scotland would have been a major challenge. I am not saying things can’t be different in the future or a different plan might not have worked last time. Maybe the old people just need more facts on how things add up as they arent gamblers or follow a cult like yourself. Seems to be still a demand for Indy ref 2 on here but have any of the shortcomings from the last time been answered yet? Brexit is a shit show and will throw up opportunities but also many more questions for any future referendums that happen

Can someone please explain why Scotland being independent is any more of a gamble than any other Country running it's own affairs. That one seems to have passed me by.

[Antlion]

2 hours ago, AyrExile said:

Those people you are slating got it spot on the last time. All the projections in the white paper were followed by an unforeseen collapse in the oil price meaning day one of any new Scotland would have been a major challenge. I am not saying things can’t be different in the future or a different plan might not have worked last time. Maybe the old people just need more facts on how things add up as they arent gamblers or follow a cult like yourself. Seems to be still a demand for Indy ref 2 on here but have any of the shortcomings from the last time been answered yet? Brexit is a shit show and will throw up opportunities but also many more questions for any future referendums that happen

Do you mean they want fantasy figures emblazoned across the side of a bus and accompanied by the jingoistic witterings of their semi-feudal lord and masters? That seemed to be a defining factor in the cult of UK nationalism winning the last referendum on these isles. And old people couldn’t get enough of it.

[Jacksgranda]

1 hour ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

I usually assume “cult” is a typo

It probably is if they're talking about you...

[sophia]

1 hour ago, RedRob72 said:

 

We didn’t have a car, nobody else on the street did either mind, we were all in the same boat

No wonder things ground to a halt in the 70s

[RedRob72]

No wonder things ground to a halt in the 70s

Very good![emoji6]

[git-intae-thum]

1 hour ago, AyrExile said:

Fair play then you are obviously a gambler. Not everybody in the world is though and many require facts and figures to work from. I could see your plan having a chance with the correct people involved although my appetite for risk  diminishes when politicians are the main drivers. Having had many more years dealing with them I can understand why the elderly wouldn’t be fooled as easily with soundbites over substance 

This whole needing the exact figures stuff is nonsense.

The treasury gather all the figures on UK income and expenditure. They do not have the ability (or political will) to differentiate Scotlands exact income/ outgoings from that of the rUK. 

Going by your logic then we are forever tied to them regardless.

What we do have however is a set of figures sent back to us, that provide inaccurate estimate of Scottish taxation income. They are based on survey return. There is no legal requirement for such surveys to be completed by business or individuals. This is GERS.

These further take no account of what is termed the multiplier effect as put forward by Prof. Richard Murphy, university of London

I read a good explanation of this on another forum

Scotlands tax goes to the UK treasury. The UK hands Scotland back approx 60% to cover Scottish domestic expenditure. This is the block grant. The other 40% is used by the UK govt as Scotlands share of whole of UK expenditure. The vast majority of that whole of UK expenditure is concentrated in London and the South. As the seat of central govt, this cannot be disputed. The resultant economic activity generated in the South from that expenditure generates income. This is the so called the multiplier effect. This is the resultant tax income generated from that extra economic activity. Now....that income is UK income. Under a correct accounting system, Scotland would have its share of this income returned to its balance sheet. It does not....and just as importantly the extra income is not removed from London and the South Easts balance sheet. This then drastically skews the UK's apportion of deficit to its constituent parts. GERS does not have the capacity to show this correctly. 

The effect of the multiploer effect is that Scotlands income is incorrectly apportioned to the South thus adding to our deficit and lessening London and the South Easts.

Due to the inability of the UK treasury to provide seperate figures for taxation raised in differing regions, we will never be certain of the exact figures involved, but it is likely to be many billions pa.

[AyrExile]

1 hour ago, AUFC90 said:

2 hours ago, AyrExile said:

Fair play then you are obviously a gambler. Not everybody in the world is though and many require facts and figures to work from. I could see your plan having a chance with the correct people involved although my appetite for risk  diminishes when politicians are the main drivers. Having had many more years dealing with them I can understand why the elderly wouldn’t be fooled as easily with soundbites over substance 

People wanted every fact and figure provided for an event that's never happened before. Basically an easy reason to vote no. All i know is judging by the current shambles that is the UK government...Cameron and co would have resigned the next day and we would have had quite a strong hand in negotiations. Certainly a much stronger hand than the UK has with the EU. The same people who demanded certainty are only quite happy to bumble along with an uncertain UK.

They didn’t want every fact and figure just a few more than we’re provided. Look at how the Brexit shambles has turned out and exactly the reason why people should be provided with as much info as possible to judge. Having now witnessed parts of Brexit and the complexities of leaving a forty year old union, I’m surprised you think leaving a 300 odd year old one would be a formality 

[ICTJohnboy]

12 minutes ago, sophia said:

No wonder things ground to a halt in the 70s

 

We didn't know how lucky we were back in the good old days.

 

[AyrExile]

2 hours ago, I'm Brian said:

Two questions:

1) If you are against "gambling" as you put it, are you comfortable with the financial services sector in the UK?

 

2) If the elderly are less easily fooled by soundbites, why did so many of them vote to leave the EU?

I’m not against gambling at all as part of my income is made this way. I like to back winners and experts in their field which sadly doesn’t describe politicians. Very comfortable with financial services as money rules the world and better to be a part of it. A lot of old people will remember pre Eu and probably don’t think it’s all that either

[AyrExile]

1 hour ago, jakedee said:

3 hours ago, AyrExile said:

Those people you are slating got it spot on the last time. All the projections in the white paper were followed by an unforeseen collapse in the oil price meaning day one of any new Scotland would have been a major challenge. I am not saying things can’t be different in the future or a different plan might not have worked last time. Maybe the old people just need more facts on how things add up as they arent gamblers or follow a cult like yourself. Seems to be still a demand for Indy ref 2 on here but have any of the shortcomings from the last time been answered yet? Brexit is a shit show and will throw up opportunities but also many more questions for any future referendums that happen

Can someone please explain why Scotland being independent is any more of a gamble than any other Country running it's own affairs. That one seems to have passed me by.

Because it’s not happened yet