Brexit slowly becoming a Farce.

[The_Kincardine]

37 minutes ago, Andrew Driver said:

William of Orange (Senior) was the husband of Mary, the sister of James VII who was deposed in 1689.

If you can't get that basic detail right then the rest of your post of shame is pointless.

Mary- wife of William of Orange - was daughter of James VII.  There is a massive difference between a sister and a daughter when it comes to succession and that makes all the difference wrt the Williamite revolution. If you can't grasp that then you really shouldn't be posting.

Stupid wee Natter fuckwit.

Edited December 26, 2020 by The_Kincardine

[sophia]

A charitable donation denied whilst previously and solemnly promised is dishonourable indeed.

 

[TonyHendrix]

13 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

To be a Nat is to argue that black is white and that shite tastes like sugar.

Good to see screeds of posts confirming this.

What a load of tosh,you love trying to bring guys who know what they are typing about down but you can’t put up a single decent word regarding your Unionist mob,you’re a loser son,go to bed.

[Thistle_do_nicely]

??

i thought it all got paid out, dunno about a timeframe but it would be a few pages ago on either this thread or the indyref one

[Guest Jedi]

17 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

And I get called the drunk.  Go to bed.

[TonyHendrix]

9 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

If you can't get that basic detail right then the rest of your post of shame is pointless.

Mary- wife of William of Orange - was daughter of James VII.  There is a massive difference between a sister and a daughter when it comes to succession and that makes all the difference wrt the Williamite revolution. If you can't grasp that then you really shouldn't be posting.

Stupid wee Natter fuckwit.

I reckon that you talk verbal diarrhoea the same way as you type it,you're a complete fanny who’s totally out of your depth.

Here son,some more facts for you,read it and weep.

 

Every Westminster Government in your lifetime has knowingly diverted tens of billions of pounds of Scottish revenues to Westminster. This has led to lower investment in Scotland, higher unemployment, lower economic growth, lower standards of living, economic migration and growing inequality and poverty. All of which would not have been the case were Scotland an independent country.

Internationally, this is the sort of government behaviour that often leads to demonstrations and makes headline news. This might have happened here if it wasn’t for the fact that the Scottish people have largely remained unaware of the nation’s wealth draining south. In this article, we will expose the accounting trick that hides Scotland’s wealth. We will also supply undeniable evidence to demonstrate that if Scotland was already an independent country our economy would be booming and public finances would be debt-free.

The confidence trick

For generations, the people of Scotland have been fed a negative narrative on Scotland’s economy. A depressing picture of Scotland has been drawn by Westminster politicians, portraying it as a subsidised state dependent on the UK for charitable handouts, with higher levels of debt and a dependency on the public sector. Scotland has been told that without the generosity of the UK to bail it out, it would be a bankrupt nation, unable to meet the very basic needs and wants of its people.

This narrative is fundamentally untrue. There is simply no evidence to support it whatsoever.

So manifestly untrue, in fact, that all the available economic data entirely contradicts the age-old, absurd and tired Westminster proposition that Scotland could not succeed as an independent self-governing country.  The “too small, too poor and too stupid” argument has become so completely discredited that none of the major players in the 2014 No Campaign dared to suggest it.

Politicians have retreated from suggesting that “Scotland’s economy is a basket case” as the truth is now easily sourced. The UK Government hid evidence, such as the McCrone Report, classified as top secret for 30 years by the 1970s Labour Government but is now publicly available. The report states that “the SNP had underestimated the nation’s oil wealth” and that an independent Scotland would “suffer from an embarrassment of riches”.  That report was written in 1974 and classified as “secret” due to worries about “restless natives” if its facts were known by the masses in Scotland.  It was eventually made publiconly after a Freedom of Information Act request in 2005.

A few years ago the former Chancellor Denis Healey in an exclusive interview with Holyrood Magazine said:

“Scotland “pays its fair share” and that “these myths” are simply perpetuated by those that oppose independence”. And that “Scotland’s oil wealth had been squandered by Westminster rather than invested, while being underplayed (in value terms) by the UK government to subdue calls for Scottish independence”.

It’s not all about oil though, as is made remarkably clear from the evidence in our publication Scotland the Brief. Scotland has everything that it takes to be an extremely prosperous and successful independent nation, and more. Scotland with only 8.4% of the UK population possesses 34% of the UK’s natural wealth.

This prompts the question – why does a naturally wealthy nation with a strong, resilient and diverse onshore economy, booming exports, a highly educatedpopulation, low unemployment, a wealth of oil and renewables, and a wide range of strong economic sectors have a set of accounts (GERS) that suggest that Scotland’s finances are weak? That is a trick question, it doesn’t. GERS is not a set of accounts for spending in Scotland it contains spending outside of Scotland that doesn’t benefit Scotland economy and that Scotland didn’t generate. GERS also contains clear evidence of mechanisms for removing wealth from Scotland’s accounts which then creates a phoney deficit. There are actually several hidden mechanisms for stealthily removing Scotland’s wealth. The one we will look at in this article is debt loading.

How debt loading works

There is an expenditure line in GERS called Public Sector Debt Interest (PSDI). It’s the fifth-largest expenditure of the Scottish Government and a larger spend than Scotland’s allocated share of the UK Armed forces expenditure. Historical analysis of GERS reports demonstrates that every year since records began, Scotland has been paying interest on a population share of the UK’s debts. In 2019-20, PSDI added £4.5bn to the cost of running Scotland.366

That’s not paying back the capital on any debt, it’s just the interest on the UK’s debt. Scotland has recently been granted very limited borrowing powers, but while the UK’s debt was being built up Scotland had no borrowing powers. In fact, Scotland’s economy was either in surplus, or had a lower deficit than the UK, so Scotland did not contribute to the creation of the debt.

How does a nation without the ability to borrow end up paying billions of interest on debt every year?  It does so because the allocation of the debt is not related to the UK region or nation which generated the debt, nor where the money was spent or the economic benefit felt. The UK’s debt is allocated to Scotland’s accounts on a population percentage basis, even though Scotland did not generate that debt.

Looking at Scotland’s GERS reports (and earlier historical data) that go back 40 years, Scotland’s share of UK debt interest amounted to a staggering £133.4bn.367 However, analysing those figures also demonstrates that, had Scotland been an independent country, its entire borrowing requirement over those 40 years would have been zero. Let me be clear: nothing, not one penny.

Scotland’s accounts have had £133bn (one-hundred and thirty-three thousand million pounds) of interest on debt removed from them, despite the fact that Scotland did not generate, nor benefit from this spending. This has happened simply because it is not an independent nation and had to chip in to service the rest of the UK’s rising debts. Without that £133bn cost, Scotland’s finances would be in surplus today.

If we look back as far as reliable historical figures for Scotland’s revenues and expenditure go, we can see that in 1980-81, before the UK debt started to spiral, Scotland was charged £3bn to service the UK debt. Despite that, it managed to record a surplus of more than £1bn.368 Indeed, using GERS, Scotland’s finances showed a surplus until 1990, when the cumulative surplus amounted to £38.8bn (£74bn surplus without debt loading).369

It is undeniable that in an independent Scotland those surpluses would either have been invested to grow Scotland’s economy or possibly put into a sovereign wealth fund, similar to Norway’s.

[The_Kincardine]

1 minute ago, TonyHendrix said:

I reckon that you talk verbal diarrhoea the same way as you type it,you're a complete fanny who’s totally out of your depth.

The wife of William of Orange was the daughter of James VII.  This is crucial to the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

Save us from posting screeds of inconsequential shite.

[Wee Bully]

He honoured the first bet but there was half a dozen offered to him and he didn't explicitly say no to them, therefore the welcher Kincardine welched on the majority of the charity bets.

I hate to be fair to the old soak, but you need to explicitly accept a bet.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Jesus f**k. I actually pity this c**t. Btw surely it's The_Welcher

[TonyHendrix]

4 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

The wife of William of Orange was the daughter of James VII.  This is crucial to the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

Save us from posting screeds of inconsequential shite.

For just once tonight I have to agree.

Harrrumph.

Btw,why did you ignore my original post?

[lichtgilphead]

21 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

If you can't get that basic detail right then the rest of your post of shame is pointless.

Mary- wife of William of Orange - was daughter of James VII.  There is a massive difference between a sister and a daughter when it comes to succession and that makes all the difference wrt the Williamite revolution. If you can't grasp that then you really shouldn't be posting.

Stupid wee Natter fuckwit.

This is f*cking rich coming from the person who posted the following:

"it was our most famous Fifer, Charles II, who gifted the island to his fellow Scot, James Hay, in 1627"

As I pointed out at the time, Charles II was born in St James's Palace, London, England in 1630.

 

[Dan Steele]

3 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

iJock in Europe - if it ever comes around - will trade on the same terms that were agreed on Thursday.  This means no freedom of movement for people, goods, services and capital.

The Natter cultists will love it.

If 'taking back control' isn't the start of a Golden Age and, having made scapegoats of Europeans 'taking are jobs', do you think Scots will be next to be demonised? Oh wait, you're the 'tartan gonk' man. Maybe it's already started...

[The_Kincardine]

11 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

This is f*cking rich coming from the person who posted the following:

"it was our most famous Fifer, Charles II, who gifted the island to his fellow Scot, James Hay, in 1627"

As I pointed out at the time, Charles II was born in St James's Palace, London, England in 1630.

As I said in reply:

On 22/09/2020 at 22:40, The_Kincardine said:

 I made a bollocks of the regnal number.

The Charles I from Fife.

It's fine to get 'shit' wrong as long as you acknowledge it.  I am one of the rare posters who does.

 

Edited December 26, 2020 by The_Kincardine

[sophia]

21 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

He honoured the first bet but there was half a dozen offered to him and he didn't explicitly say no to them, therefore the welcher Kincardine welched on the majority of the charity bets.

The welcher who welched on these charitable bets can surely not stay silent on standard contractual law that required his counter offer. If no such counter offer was annunciated then a contract there was.

One would hope that the welcher would retrieve something of his reputation and swiftly  reverse the welching.

[lichtgilphead]

1 minute ago, The_Kincardine said:

As I said in reply:

It's fine to get 'shit' wrong as long as you acknowledge it.  I am one of the rare poster who does.

 

1) Where did I use the word 'shit'? Do you have dyslexia?

2) Shouldn't 'poster' be pluralised? Are you functionally illiterate?

3) If you acknowledged every error, practically every post of yours would be an apology.

4) I note that you don't appear to dispute the pictorial point that you have a brass neck and enjoy a few bottles. I applaud your honesty.

 

[The_Kincardine]

1 minute ago, lichtgilphead said:

You have a brass neck and enjoy a few bottles

It has taken you a while, A816, but eventually you've made a decent post...

[lichtgilphead]

3 minutes ago, sophia said:

The welcher who welched on these charitable bets can surely not stay silent on standard contractual law that required his counter offer. If no such counter offer was annunciated then a contract there was.

One would hope that the welcher would retrieve something of his reputation and swiftly  reverse the welching.

To be fair, The_Welsher's silence does mean that no legal contract was enered into. He would win in court if it came to it.

Morally, however, he probably should have made it clear which bets he had or hadn't accepted.

It would have been interesting to see how many losing bets he would have attempted to collect in the unlikely event he had won...

[TonyHendrix]

29 minutes ago, The Skelpit Lug said:

If 'taking back control' isn't the start of a Golden Age and, having made scapegoats of Europeans 'taking are jobs', do you think Scots will be next to be demonised? Oh wait, you're the 'tartan gonk' man. Maybe it's already started...

[NotThePars]

43 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

To be fair, The_Welsher's silence does mean that no legal contract was enered into. He would win in court if it came to it.

Morally, however, he probably should have made it clear which bets he had or hadn't accepted.

It would have been interesting to see how many losing bets he would have attempted to collect in the unlikely event he had won...

You could make the argument that the brother left it open-ended so he could have the best of both worlds where he would only have to pony up a tenner when he inevitably lost and could have 50 quid in the unlikely possibility that Sturgeon fell on her sword by the end of the year. Of course, in fairness to him, even giving odds of 4-5/1 on Sturgeon resigning is ludicrously short but also at the same time he's a shite bag and it'll be brought up every time he gets too lippy.

[vikingTON]

Disappointed that the thread is focused on the jakey tramp when there are so many fishermen to point and laugh at. Shafted by their gammon fellow travellers at the very end: you hate to see it happen.

Most groups would have seen that coming a mile off but as their rampant overfishing demonstrates, fishermen aren't very good when it comes to reasoned foresight.