When will indyref2 happen?

[Malky3]

4 minutes ago, Snobot said:

Were they acting in the best interests of Scotland or were they power hungry careerists who facilitated austerity? It’s possible to have malign as well as benign influence, regardless of place of birth

What a bizarre question from someone who votes SNP! 

[Malky3]

6 minutes ago, Antlion said:

Vile ethnic nationalism. What did all those Scots have in common? Hardcore UK nationalism. I’d far rather trust French- or American-born politicians who are beholden only to the Scottish electorate to have Scotland’s best interests at heart than Scottish-born politicians who see Scotland as a small region of the UK and are answerable to leaders outside of Scotland. Scotland’s “power or control” does not equate to a quiver of Scots who oppose the country’s statehood, any more than Georgia enjoyed exceptional power or control over the Soviet Union because Stalin was born there . But then I don’t think people’s birthplace makes them automatic partisans of it, because I’m not an ethnic nationalist.

Ach, I didn't get past the first sentence in this drivel. Sorry mate. You wasted your time with this post. 

[Double Jack D]

14 minutes ago, Malky3 said:

As I've said already I am not an economist so I don't have the figures you are demanding but the onus of proof isn't on me. I don't need to prove that I'm happy with my situation in the UK. The Nationalists need to make the case for and to prove why I would be better off voting for change. If they don't manage it I'm unlikely to vote for it. 

I'd be very interested to hear what makes you think there would be a boom in construction and infrastructure jobs up here and where all the money for those projects would come from. I'd also like to see what you base that opinion on. 

As for selling to the rest of the UK after Independence there's no reason why it wouldn't happen - IF THE UK HAS A TRADE DEAL WITH THE EU THAT SCOTLAND WOULD INTEND ON BEING PART OF! Without a trade deal doing cross border business would be extremely difficult. 

Edited to add - I'm not sure anyone treats much of what Boris Johnston says with any great resonance. If he did indeed say that - and I've no reason to call you a liar - and he is right, it still doesn't preclude the UK from continuing to be a strong player in the world. It simply means that compared to where we would have been within the EU we wouldn't be in as strong a position as we could have been until 2050 when we'd really start to benefit. How anyone would ever be able to realistically measure that is beyond me. 

Agreed that the burden is on the Yes campaign to convince people. I wasn't demanding figures about UK internal trade, a wee read of the McCrone report would provide some evidence of huge Scottish wealth however those with a pro UK stance will point to GERS and say but £15bn black hole.  

We are currently a huge net exporter of goods, the money for this currently all goes to the UK treasury and major  infrastructure improvements are focused (correctly in a UK context) on London and the SE. Taking our share of these to an independent Scottish Treasury, coupled with a new Scottish Currency gives us the ability to create the funds required for infrastructure improvement required to export our stuff directly. In addition, the inward investment into Edinburgh in terms of the setting up of international embassies and potential for all our cities to become national HQ's for a wide range of industries is significantly greater than it currently is with us pretty much as a region of the UK. Energy wealth is (or should be) obvious, regardless of oil price but the two biggest food and drink exports from the UK are Whisky and Salmon. They account for in excess of 25% of the total UK food AND drink exports. 

The potential wealth of an independent Scotland is there but we need control over our industries to realise the benefit of it.  

I don't see this happening but if we move 10 years into the future and Scotland is independent and in EU/EEA and England has no deal with either then I don't see Scotland as being the loser in that scenario.  Yes we will have seen a monumental shift in how our country does business but in that scenario the inward investment into Scotland has the potential to be huge.

We need to take Johnson seriously, he is PM and we will be following his agenda. His quote was along the lines of looking back in 2050 we will realise what a great decision Brexit was. I'm not sure who he would define as "we" however I will confidently predict that Scotland is unlikely to be at the forefront of his thoughts.

[Snobot]

Just now, Malky3 said:

What a bizarre question from someone who votes SNP! 

Who said I voted SNP? 

 

[renton]

Just now, Malky3 said:

Scotland has a far greater say in the running of Westminster than it ever would have in the EU. It's not hard to see that. For example the Conservatives could not have formed a government with the DUP support had it not been for the 13 Conservative MP's Scotland voted in. Prior to that Tony Blair and Gordon Browns Labour Governments were packed full of Scots and David Cameron's Coalition Government has Scots in key positions in the Treasury. An Independent Scotland would never have that much power or control at the European Parliament.  

The argument that Scottish constituencies might tip the balance of the composition of government is actually separate from the idea that Scotland, as a political identity has a say in the running of Westminster. This is the crux of the incorporating Union, to actively deny Scotland a political (and economic) existence that it might have had in a looser, federal Union.  

On the argument that individual constituencies can influence the way that the Government ends up composed is undeniable, if historically unlikely. The vast majority of Westminster governments are formed in spite of Scottish voting intentions, regardless of it's latest occurrence. 

As for individual Scots? Irrelevant. They did not speak for Scotland as there was no political unit of Scotland for them to represent. Within the UK parliament those people represent their own conscience, the views of their constituents and the discipline of their chosen parties. 

Within the EU, Scotland could choose it's own financial and fiscal imperatives. Make up it's own mind on environmental progress, choose which wars to get involved with or not. Participate actively as a nation in EU deliberations, and to choose alliances with other EU nations big and small based on the eccentricities of the contemporary argument while allowing it's political parties to also follow their own consciences in alliances within the EU parliament. That yields far greater influence than the ghost state that Scotland currently is within the UK.

[Malky3]

Just now, Snobot said:

Who said I voted SNP? 

 

Sorry if I have assumed incorrectly. It's possibly a result of the volume of posts I'm having to get through to stay up to date. I absolutely appreciate that 0.7% of nationalists voted for the Green Party,. 

[Antlion]

1 minute ago, Malky3 said:

Ach, I didn't get past the first sentence in this drivel. Sorry mate. You wasted your time with this post. 

It’s not really for you. You’re a lost cause - just the latest in a long line of dodgy, angry BritNats making their cause look insane. But the more people see your hypocrisy and Union Jack-draped nationalism called out, the better.

[Antlion]

7 minutes ago, Malky3 said:

Surely it would be better not to pay in, then you would have all the money, rather than just the proportion of it that an EU parliament votes to grant you. 

Again I'd apply the same logic anywhere. For example I'd rather pay less tax than more for the simple reason that I have never found a politician who is better at spending my money than I am. Surely true Independence would be to have control of all of your revenues, not just the proportion that someone gives you back. 

Except the UK, apparently.

[Snobot]

10 minutes ago, Malky3 said:

Surely true Independence would be to have control of all of your revenues, not just the proportion that someone gives you back. 

Well said.

[Malky3]

2 minutes ago, renton said:

The argument that Scottish constituencies might tip the balance of the composition of government is actually separate from the idea that Scotland, as a political identity has a say in the running of Westminster. This is the crux of the incorporating Union, to actively deny Scotland a political (and economic) existence that it might have had in a looser, federal Union.  

On the argument that individual constituencies can influence the way that the Government ends up composed is undeniable, if historically unlikely. The vast majority of Westminster governments are formed in spite of Scottish voting intentions, regardless of it's latest occurrence. 

As for individual Scots? Irrelevant. They did not speak for Scotland as there was no political unit of Scotland for them to represent. Within the UK parliament those people represent their own conscience, the views of their constituents and the discipline of their chosen parties. 

Within the EU, Scotland could choose it's own financial and fiscal imperatives. Make up it's own mind on environmental progress, choose which wars to get involved with or not. Participate actively as a nation in EU deliberations, and to choose alliances with other EU nations big and small based on the eccentricities of the contemporary argument while allowing it's political parties to also follow their own consciences in alliances within the EU parliament. That yields far greater influence than the ghost state that Scotland currently is within the UK.

WIthin the UK Scotland has a level of control over it's own financial and fiscal imperatives too. Our Scottish Parliament has also chosen, wrongly in my opinion, not to invest in nuclear power favouring instead to cut down trees to create wind farms. The SNP could also have chosen to align with the Conservatives to form the current UK government, and had there been fewer Scottish Conservative MP's in the parliament, the SNP could have formed an alliance with the Labour Party to form a different UK Government. The only difference I see between Westminster and the European Parliament is that there would be far fewer Scottish representatives in Brussels than there is in Westminster. 

As for looser control - I'm not sure the Greeks or the Italians would agree with that. 

[Double Jack D]

3 minutes ago, Malky3 said:

WIthin the UK Scotland has a level of control over it's own financial and fiscal imperatives too. Our Scottish Parliament has also chosen, wrongly in my opinion, not to invest in nuclear power favouring instead to cut down trees to create wind farms. The SNP could also have chosen to align with the Conservatives to form the current UK government, and had there been fewer Scottish Conservative MP's in the parliament, the SNP could have formed an alliance with the Labour Party to form a different UK Government. The only difference I see between Westminster and the European Parliament is that there would be far fewer Scottish representatives in Brussels than there is in Westminster. 

As for looser control - I'm not sure the Greeks or the Italians would agree with that. 

They chose not to, how did that work out?

[Malky3]

2 minutes ago, Snobot said:

Well said.

That's always been my understanding of "Independence". But these Nationalists aren't arguing for that. To me that is inconsistent with their ideology. That's what confuses me and it appears it confused Jim Sillars and Alex Neil, amongst others within the SNP too. 

As I've said I'm perfectly happy being a part of the larger block. The political union with the UK brings the benefit of greater diversity across different industrial sectors which provides greater stability. 

[Malky3]

1 minute ago, Double Jack D said:

They chose not to, how did that work out?

It left the SNP on the opposition benches shouting a lot whilst the DUP earned a financial package worth £billions for Northern Ireland. 

[Malky3]

12 minutes ago, Antlion said:

Except the UK, apparently.

Really? My colleagues in England are paying less tax than me currently. I'd rather have more of what they've got thank you. 

[Antlion]

2 minutes ago, Malky3 said:

Really? My colleagues in England are paying less tax than me currently. I'd rather have more of what they've got thank you. 

Then the answer is to vote in another party in an independent Scotland. If you’re against nations sending revenue away and letting politicians decide how much goes back, you’re against the UK. If you’re against paying more tax than other nations, you’re in favour of a change in government. These are separate issues.

[Double Jack D]

1 minute ago, Malky3 said:

It left the SNP on the opposition benches shouting a lot whilst the DUP earned a financial package worth £billions for Northern Ireland. 

So left Scotland with no real voice and forced us to contribute to the funding of an anti gay, anti abortion party in a different country?

You won't be talking me out of independence with that patter...

[renton]

Just now, Malky3 said:

WIthin the UK Scotland has a level of control over it's own financial and fiscal imperatives too. Our Scottish Parliament has also chosen, wrongly in my opinion, not to invest in nuclear power favouring instead to cut down trees to create wind farms. The SNP could also have chosen to align with the Conservatives to form the current UK government, and had there been fewer Scottish Conservative MP's in the parliament, the SNP could have formed an alliance with the Labour Party to form a different UK Government. The only difference I see between Westminster and the European Parliament is that there would be far fewer Scottish representatives in Brussels than there is in Westminster. 

As for looser control - I'm not sure the Greeks or the Italians would agree with that. 

Devolution is undoubtedly a positive development within the framework of the UK. The fact that it was only given partial control of income tax, and then only after an independence referendum speaks volumes as to the seriousness with which the Scottish parliament is considered by the UK. See also the fact that the UK could resume direct control and abolish the parliament tomorrow, if it so wished and also the ongoing issue around how to best progress another IndyRef - the Scottish parliament exists solely at the UK government's sufferance. 

The existence of the Scottish parliament has given rise to an alternate seat of power, one which in poll after poll, Scots would like to see the majority of powers devolved to, but it hasn't replicated that sense of import at Westminster, the deliberations of the devolved administration still count for little in the UK government. The wishes of Scotland as represented by the Scottish government are not given a hearing on reserved matters. Thus we still exist as a ghost state, called into being by UK law and disposed of just as easily.

Which again comes back to the idea that the political parties in Scotland represent Scotland as a nation - they don't. Not even the SNP do that. 

So, as we go back around this loop yet again, the power Scotland has as a member state within the EU would include full access to our financial and fiscal levers, and importantly our sovereignty to bargain with the other nation states as an equal member. Our basic sovereignty would be untouchable, that is our right to decide how we represent ourselves, to choose the degree of foreign entanglements and in conflicts, our nation's right to have it's political structures recognised and not modified or abolished by outside force. One other thing, our right to leave, As hard going as Brexit has been they have the mechanism in place for member states to remove themselves. The UK does not, it's granting of such rights is based on capricious whim. Imagine if the UK had been refused even to have the original Brexit referendum because the EU was scared the answer would be something they didn't like. That's the difference in power that the UK has over Scotland that the EU doesn't over it's member states.

[Antlion]

6 minutes ago, Malky3 said:

That's always been my understanding of "Independence". But these Nationalists aren't arguing for that. To me that is inconsistent with their ideology. 

British Nationalist ideology is even more confused then. It rejects even semi-federalised unions as being too controlling, politicised and damaging to national sovereignty whilst advocating integrated, one-army, one-flag, one-nation political union. This is why we have the likes of Johnson and Gove champing at the bit for independence whilst wagging their fingers at Scotland and saying, “but not for you.”

[AUFC90]

So Scotland is the richest country in the UK?  You are off your fucking tits.  But keep it up.  I like utter twats like you making a case for independence.

Yes. We are 3rd richest area of the UK behind the South East and the city of London and that's without the massive transport subsidies that the South sponges off every area of the UK including all the English counties. It's not much of a stretch to conclude that we are indeed the richest nation in the UK.

Added to fact we have more far more space, water( more fresh water in Loch Ness than every lake in England combined),oil, huge renewable potential, a highly educated population with a fairly low gammon count.

It's not even close. England is pretty shite mate.

[git-intae-thum]

Ah. The fiscal black hole and having to pay more tax in Scotland.

What angry britnats always fail to get, or more likely due to nationalist ideology don't like to mention, is that the said "black hole" does not exist because of Scotland's finances. It is due to us having to assume a share of Westminsters deficit and debt repayment. 

Further, the money we pay to Westminster in the form of block grant remains consistent. In real terms, the part of our money we are getting returned from Westminster for being a good wee colony, is dropping. Fraser of Allander estimates that the discretionary budget has dropped about 5% since 2011, Scotgov itself estimates 7.5%. That is a lot of money. That is your "black hole"

The Scottish govt rightly prioritises essential public services. It has been granted extremely limited tax raising powers. It is having use these to mitigate the disaster that is Westminster. That is why the income tax has went up for the few who can afford it.

No one wants more tax. But unarguably Scotgov is doing the right thing in trying to protect services.

Granting Holyrood limited tax raising powers always had the smell of a Westminster stitch up. It's now very easy for them to pull the plug, then watch Scotgov take the flack for trying to stem the flow.

The tragedy is so many of our Malky types buy in to it.