Scotland must be given new independence vote - Sturgeon

[Laughing Gravy]

15 minutes ago, candide said:

It is a matter for member states, not the EU. Nothing prevents them from doing it, just as UK did.

And you believe that. Ah well. In the name of democracy.

 

Something to ponder on.

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2281768/jean-claude-juncker-begs-eu-leaders-not-to-hold-more-referendums-as-he-fears-they-will-vote-to-leave/

 

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/5975/eu_tyranny_finally_crushes_the_birthplace_of_democracy

 

 

[Nigel Garvie]

7 minutes ago, vogie said:

And there was me thinking you did it to gain brownie points, I could suggest you be a little bit more honest and not try to pass off spurious information as fact in future.????

I did hear that it was a spoof (Brexiteer in Shiphol), but that doesn't imply that it isn't true to type, otherwise there would hardly be any point making it. 

I think we could say to the writer "Thanks for the laugh,  spoof on, you will never find a group of voters begging for this treatment, so easily again! " 

[vogie]

19 minutes ago, Nigel Garvie said:

I did hear that it was a spoof (Brexiteer in Shiphol), but that doesn't imply that it isn't true to type, otherwise there would hardly be any point making it. 

I think we could say to the writer "Thanks for the laugh,  spoof on, you will never find a group of voters begging for this treatment, so easily again! " 

Yes it was so funny, I've just cracked a rib.????

[candide]

40 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

And you believe that. Ah well. In the name of democracy.

 

Something to ponder on.

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2281768/jean-claude-juncker-begs-eu-leaders-not-to-hold-more-referendums-as-he-fears-they-will-vote-to-leave/

 

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/5975/eu_tyranny_finally_crushes_the_birthplace_of_democracy

 

 

So what? He did not forbid any 'leave' referendum anywhere, right?

Austria could have done it, if it had wished so.

 

On top of it, the topic is outmoded. There has been only a short-lived surge of interest for leaving around the time of the Brexit referendum (Austria, Brexit, etc...). Juncker's comments would be irrelevant now.

[Thongkorn]

Sick of all the moaning give Scotland its freedom , part of the National debt , Return all English interests in Scotland back to England  and stop subsidizing them,  tell them get your own  Money not the English pound, Good luck to them In the EU being independant.

[RuamRudy]

12 minutes ago, Thongkorn said:

Sick of all the moaning give Scotland its freedom , part of the National debt , Return all English interests in Scotland back to England  and stop subsidizing them,  tell them get your own  Money not the English pound, Good luck to them In the EU being independant.

Are there any English interests in Scotland other than via private companies? 

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, vogie said:

And there was me thinking you did it to gain brownie points, I could suggest you be a little bit more honest and not try to pass off spurious information as fact in future.????

No, I think I will continue to laugh at the nonsense of Brexit. Gallows humour and all that. 

[Nigel Garvie]

19 minutes ago, candide said:

So what? He did not forbid any 'leave' referendum anywhere, right?

Austria could have done it, if it had wished so.

 

On top of it, the topic is outmoded. There has been only a short-lived surge of interest for leaving around the time of the Brexit referendum (Austria, Brexit, etc...). Juncker's comments would be irrelevant now.

Yes, recent polls have shown healthy support for remaining in the EU from all member states. One look at the UK Brexit fiasco has put so many people off the idea ...... how surprising. Could it be that they noticed that we are on course to spend more on Brexit than all our EU contributions ever.

Businesses are still planning to leave right now. 

 

"Brexit is set to have cost the UK more than £200 billion in lost economic growth by the end of this year — a figure that almost eclipses the total amount the UK has paid toward the European Union budget over the past 47 years.

The analysis, found that business uncertainty had caused the UK's economic growth to lag behind that of other G7 countries since the 2016 vote, which means the British economy is 3% smaller than it might have been if the UK had not voted to leave the EU."  

........ (Oh I forgot, it is all Remainer's fault!)

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-will-cost-uk-more-than-total-payments-to-eu-2020-1?r=US&IR=T. (The wild left wing brother of the Morning Star!)

 

Surely the most monumental act of economic self harm in the UK's history (Possibly anyones history).

 

Why would Scotland not want to leave neighbours who can do anything as foolish as this*. The Darien disaster (Scotland's greatest act of economic lunacy, but similar to the South Sea Bubble) pales into insignificance. 

 

*God knows what they are going to do next, a bridge to Ireland? Surely you are joking.

 

[Nigel Garvie]

21 minutes ago, Thongkorn said:

Sick of all the moaning give Scotland its freedom , part of the National debt , Return all English interests in Scotland back to England  and stop subsidizing them,  tell them get your own  Money not the English pound, Good luck to them In the EU being independant.

Sick of all the moaning...........Why not follow another thread then?

[Laughing Gravy]

31 minutes ago, Nigel Garvie said:

Yes, recent polls have shown healthy support for remaining in the EU

Some posters never learn

 

Was that in Hungary, Italy or Greece.

Edited February 17, 2020 by Laughing Gravy

[melvinmelvin]

 

Roughly 10 pages or so ago there was a Scot (islander I think) that touched on the idea of

Shetland stepping out of Scotland.

 

Couple of years ago I did read a rather lengthy and well researched msm article re political activities

on Shetland (and Orkney to some extent). (just cannot remember where)

 

Clearly, the islanders had plenty of views re EU and re Brexit and re UK.

A sizeable movement arguing that Shetland should leave Scotland and UK and have a go at

building a sovereign state.

 

Just thought I should mention it.

 

(now to beer and nip)

 

[CG1 Blue]

16 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

bloody h

 

this entry is pretty much in line with the msm snippets that RR posted a couple of pages back

 

why cannot England just leave Scotland in peace and let

Scotland decide what they feel is necessary to know

Scotland determine the temperatur of their heads

Scotland determine what they need to know about Brexit

 

it is just bloody incredible how England, MSM and inhabitants and the mostly English parties are treating

Scotland, constantly stamping and walking on Scotland and the Scots as they were imbeciles

 

the temperature in the average jock attic is none of Westminster's or England's business

 

 

So you say this is none of Westminster's business, the parliament that represents all four nations of the United Kingdom. And you say it's none of England's business, Scotland's partner in the union. And yet somehow you think it's your business to have an opinion on this, a bloke who comes from...wherever you come from ????

 

If you actually read what I wrote you'd understand that I have no problem with a 2nd indy referendum, and I think the Scots are absolutely entitled to have one. I just think the timing needs to be sensible for all concerned. 

[vinny41]

2 hours ago, Nigel Garvie said:

Yes, recent polls have shown healthy support for remaining in the EU from all member states. One look at the UK Brexit fiasco has put so many people off the idea ...... how surprising. Could it be that they noticed that we are on course to spend more on Brexit than all our EU contributions ever.

Businesses are still planning to leave right now. 

 

"Brexit is set to have cost the UK more than £200 billion in lost economic growth by the end of this year — a figure that almost eclipses the total amount the UK has paid toward the European Union budget over the past 47 years.

The analysis, found that business uncertainty had caused the UK's economic growth to lag behind that of other G7 countries since the 2016 vote, which means the British economy is 3% smaller than it might have been if the UK had not voted to leave the EU."  

........ (Oh I forgot, it is all Remainer's fault!)

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-will-cost-uk-more-than-total-payments-to-eu-2020-1?r=US&IR=T. (The wild left wing brother of the Morning Star!)

 

Surely the most monumental act of economic self harm in the UK's history (Possibly anyones history).

 

Why would Scotland not want to leave neighbours who can do anything as foolish as this*. The Darien disaster (Scotland's greatest act of economic lunacy, but similar to the South Sea Bubble) pales into insignificance. 

 

*God knows what they are going to do next, a bridge to Ireland? Surely you are joking.

 

Claim
One estimate of the “economic cost” of Brexit, £130 billion, now exceeds what we’ve paid in to the EU over 47 years.

Conclusion
There’s no definitive figure for the economic impact of Brexit. The analysis this is based on estimates the UK’s GDP is £130 billion lower in 2019 than it would have been had it followed pre-EU referendum trends. Between 1973 and 2018 the UK’s net contribution to the EU was £216 billion in real terms.


Lots of Full Fact readers have asked us to check a number of posts on social media which have claimed that “the economic cost of Brexit now exceeds what we’ve net paid-in to the EU over 47 years”.

While it’s difficult to put a single, definitive figure on the economic impact of Brexit, these claims don’t currently add up. They are based on figures which actually show the UK’s net contributions are higher than an estimated economic cost so far.

Other reports have made a more defensible claim: that Brexit will “have soon cost” or “is set to cost” the UK more than 47 years of payments to the EU budget. But these still depend on accepting an uncertain estimate for the cost of Brexit so far, plus even more uncertain estimates of the future cost. And even then, the figure at the end of 2020 is still slightly lower.

The claims are based on analysis by Bloomberg Economics which found that the “economic cost” of Brexit to the UK was £130 billion by the end of 2019. This looks at how much lower GDP is in real terms than it otherwise might have been had previous trends (from before the vote to leave the EU) continued between 2016 and 2019.

This “cost”, according to the analysis, is set to rise to £200 billion by the end of 2020.

To put that in context, the whole UK economy was worth about £2,144 billion—or £2.1 trillion—in 2018.

Following the publication of the analysis these figures were then compared on social media (not by Bloomberg) to the UK’s total net contributions to the EU.

Bloomberg Economics told us that the £200 billion figure it came up with was an estimate, as it’s impossible to be sure what the economy would have looked like if the UK had voted to remain in the EU in 2016. Many different estimates have been done of the impact of Brexit on the UK, as we’ve written about before.

We haven’t looked in detail at Bloomberg Economics’ calculations, but it’s already clear that its estimates are still less than the UK’s net contributions to the EU.

At the moment we only have figures on what the UK has contributed to the EU up to the end of 2018, so covering 45 years rather than 47. These have been gathered by the House of Commons Library. In that time the UK’s net contribution to the EU between 1973 and 2018 was about £216 billion in real terms (accounting for the way prices change over time and using 2019 prices). The net contribution was £156 billion in cash terms (not accounting for inflation).

Both of these contribution figures are higher than the “economic cost of Brexit” estimated by Bloomberg Economics up to the end of 2019. The real terms figure of EU contributions (the more meaningful of the two) is still higher than the “cost of Brexit” estimated up to the end of 2020.

If you estimate what the UK will have paid in net contributions by 2020, using the latest figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility on the financial settlement with the EU, then it comes to around £222 billion in real terms.

https://fullfact.org/europe/online-c...contributions/

[CG1 Blue]

3 hours ago, Nigel Garvie said:

Yes, recent polls have shown healthy support for remaining in the EU from all member states. One look at the UK Brexit fiasco has put so many people off the idea ...... how surprising. Could it be that they noticed that we are on course to spend more on Brexit than all our EU contributions ever.

Businesses are still planning to leave right now. 

 

"Brexit is set to have cost the UK more than £200 billion in lost economic growth by the end of this year — a figure that almost eclipses the total amount the UK has paid toward the European Union budget over the past 47 years.

The analysis, found that business uncertainty had caused the UK's economic growth to lag behind that of other G7 countries since the 2016 vote, which means the British economy is 3% smaller than it might have been if the UK had not voted to leave the EU."  

........ (Oh I forgot, it is all Remainer's fault!)

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-will-cost-uk-more-than-total-payments-to-eu-2020-1?r=US&IR=T. (The wild left wing brother of the Morning Star!)

 

Surely the most monumental act of economic self harm in the UK's history (Possibly anyones history).

 

Why would Scotland not want to leave neighbours who can do anything as foolish as this*. The Darien disaster (Scotland's greatest act of economic lunacy, but similar to the South Sea Bubble) pales into insignificance. 

 

*God knows what they are going to do next, a bridge to Ireland? Surely you are joking.

 

I think what put other people off the idea, and what caused a lack of economic growth was the antics of those trying to scupper Brexit for 3.5 years. It was all the childish spats in Parliament and the courts, and the resulting uncertainty.

If we'd had the type government we have now from day one it would have been a totally different story. Pity. 

 

[CG1 Blue]

19 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

Claim
One estimate of the “economic cost” of Brexit, £130 billion, now exceeds what we’ve paid in to the EU over 47 years.

Conclusion
There’s no definitive figure for the economic impact of Brexit. The analysis this is based on estimates the UK’s GDP is £130 billion lower in 2019 than it would have been had it followed pre-EU referendum trends. Between 1973 and 2018 the UK’s net contribution to the EU was £216 billion in real terms.


Lots of Full Fact readers have asked us to check a number of posts on social media which have claimed that “the economic cost of Brexit now exceeds what we’ve net paid-in to the EU over 47 years”.

While it’s difficult to put a single, definitive figure on the economic impact of Brexit, these claims don’t currently add up. They are based on figures which actually show the UK’s net contributions are higher than an estimated economic cost so far.

Other reports have made a more defensible claim: that Brexit will “have soon cost” or “is set to cost” the UK more than 47 years of payments to the EU budget. But these still depend on accepting an uncertain estimate for the cost of Brexit so far, plus even more uncertain estimates of the future cost. And even then, the figure at the end of 2020 is still slightly lower.

The claims are based on analysis by Bloomberg Economics which found that the “economic cost” of Brexit to the UK was £130 billion by the end of 2019. This looks at how much lower GDP is in real terms than it otherwise might have been had previous trends (from before the vote to leave the EU) continued between 2016 and 2019.

This “cost”, according to the analysis, is set to rise to £200 billion by the end of 2020.

To put that in context, the whole UK economy was worth about £2,144 billion—or £2.1 trillion—in 2018.

Following the publication of the analysis these figures were then compared on social media (not by Bloomberg) to the UK’s total net contributions to the EU.

Bloomberg Economics told us that the £200 billion figure it came up with was an estimate, as it’s impossible to be sure what the economy would have looked like if the UK had voted to remain in the EU in 2016. Many different estimates have been done of the impact of Brexit on the UK, as we’ve written about before.

We haven’t looked in detail at Bloomberg Economics’ calculations, but it’s already clear that its estimates are still less than the UK’s net contributions to the EU.

At the moment we only have figures on what the UK has contributed to the EU up to the end of 2018, so covering 45 years rather than 47. These have been gathered by the House of Commons Library. In that time the UK’s net contribution to the EU between 1973 and 2018 was about £216 billion in real terms (accounting for the way prices change over time and using 2019 prices). The net contribution was £156 billion in cash terms (not accounting for inflation).

Both of these contribution figures are higher than the “economic cost of Brexit” estimated by Bloomberg Economics up to the end of 2019. The real terms figure of EU contributions (the more meaningful of the two) is still higher than the “cost of Brexit” estimated up to the end of 2020.

If you estimate what the UK will have paid in net contributions by 2020, using the latest figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility on the financial settlement with the EU, then it comes to around £222 billion in real terms.

https://fullfact.org/europe/online-c...contributions/

And this part hits the nail on the head: 

 

"Bloomberg Economics told us that the £200 billion figure it came up with was an estimate, as it’s impossible to be sure what the economy would have looked like if the UK had voted to remain in the EU in 2016. This looks at how much lower GDP is in real terms than it otherwise might have been had previous trends (from before the vote to leave the EU) continued between 2016 and 2019."

 

It's impossible to even estimate what would have happened to the UK's GDP since 2016 if we'd voted to remain in the EU. Using previous trends is pointless, as we all know global economies are unpredictable. But it probably got a few Bloomberg employees a decent bonus for the extra publicity. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RuamRudy]

39 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

Roughly 10 pages or so ago there was a Scot (islander I think) that touched on the idea of

Shetland stepping out of Scotland.

 

Couple of years ago I did read a rather lengthy and well researched msm article re political activities

on Shetland (and Orkney to some extent). (just cannot remember where)

 

Clearly, the islanders had plenty of views re EU and re Brexit and re UK.

A sizeable movement arguing that Shetland should leave Scotland and UK and have a go at

building a sovereign state.

 

Just thought I should mention it.

 

(now to beer and nip)

 

There has been suggestions of such a move for a while now - how rooted in reality it is, I cannot say, but I can understand how Shetlanders might feel as disconnected from a metropolitan Edinburgh elite as they do from the London shower.

 

As with every other region in Scotland, both Orkney and Shetland voted to remain in the EU, although interestingly, Orkney was much more in favour of remain (63% compared to Shetland's 57%).

 

As usual, they (the single constituency of Orkney and Shetland) returned a Lib Dem at the last UK GE with 45% of the vote, but the SNP came a not too shabby second with 34%, up from 29% in 2017.

 

In 2014 they were the least supportive of independence, with 65% in favour of remaining in the UK. 

 

As for their viability as an independent nation, with a population of 44,000 people, they will be around the 10th smallest country, so clearly they could feasibly set up their own state. They have some very unique geographical challenges but they also live them year round - tough as old boots for sure. 

 

Do they want to go? I feel, probably not.

Do I want them to go? Definitely not. 

Should anyone stop them? I would say probably not.

Could they make a viable country? Of that I have no doubts.

[Thongkorn]

4 hours ago, Nigel Garvie said:

Sick of all the moaning...........Why not follow another thread then?

It's not the thread its the Wee Krankie neglecting her real job with this obsession.

[jonwilly]

The union came about when the wealthy in Scotland bankrupted themselves and the country over the Darian Project. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=darian+scotland&atb=v168-1&ia=web

England/London bought out Scotlands problem .

The current government of Scotland is in the process of doing same again with it's extreme policies, so their leader is playing the old eternal 'It's all England's fault' and so many jocks are falling for the inbred hatred again.

Go please go and have someone else, Putin, China look after you.

 

john

[RuamRudy]

8 minutes ago, jonwilly said:

The union came about when the wealthy in Scotland bankrupted themselves and the country over the Darian Project. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=darian+scotland&atb=v168-1&ia=web

England/London bought out Scotlands problem .

The current government of Scotland is in the process of doing same again with it's extreme policies, so their leader is playing the old eternal 'It's all England's fault' and so many jocks are falling for the inbred hatred again.

Go please go and have someone else, Putin, China look after you.

 

john

Those weren't Scotland's problems, but the problems of a few wealthy individuals. Their problems were exacerbated by the threat of England's Alien Act of 1705, which threatened to treat English land owned by Scots as alien property, and also threatening to ban trade with Scotland if it did not concede to the Act of Union. That is why there was rioting on the streets of Edinburgh when the people realised that they had been sold out by a parcel of rogues.

 

 Care to explain a bit more about your assessment of the FM's performance and 'extreme policies'? Your comment was big on rhetoric but rather light on substance. Also, if you could explain the 'inbred hatred' bit I would be appreciative. 

[RuamRudy]

37 minutes ago, Thongkorn said:

It's not the thread its the Wee Krankie neglecting her real job with this obsession.

In what way is she neglecting her real job? Public services in just about every area are significantly better in Scotland than those delivered by the Nasty Party in England or Labour in Wales.

[melvinmelvin]

7 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

So you say this is none of Westminster's business, the parliament that represents all four nations of the United Kingdom. And you say it's none of England's business, Scotland's partner in the union. And yet somehow you think it's your business to have an opinion on this, a bloke who comes from...wherever you come from ????

 

If you actually read what I wrote you'd understand that I have no problem with a 2nd indy referendum, and I think the Scots are absolutely entitled to have one. I just think the timing needs to be sensible for all concerned. 

 

you are quite right on one point, that I come from wherever I come from

 

what I commented on was the following text;

 

---

"I agree with that blonde lady in the audience, who basically said let's wait until we know what kind of UK we are leaving / staying in before having indyref 2. In other words, wait until the Brexit process has finished and had a bit of time to bed in, and then hold a referendum. 

 

While we're in Brexit transition it's disingenuous for the SNP to push for a referendum this year. How is it fair to make Scottish floating voters decide on such a huge issue when they don't yet know the outcome of Brexit?

A referendum this year would also add an unnecessary layer of complexity to the UK's negotiations with the EU. 

 

The SNP and passionate Scottish nationalists will of course disagree, because they want to capitalise on (temporary) anger around the brexit vote. The next vote on independence should take place when heads have cooled, and when there is more certainty over what a post Brexit UK looks like. IMO"

---

 

right now, UK is in some kind of Brino status, that may change towards the end of this year depending on how

BJ opts to handle the talks with EU.

 

I disagree with the constant focus on SNP and this chief SNP lady. SNP is just a party, although largish.

Focusing on Scotland and Scots is better in my view.

 

YOU SAY:

Wait for the Brexit process to run to completion.

Wait and gain knowedge of what UK will be the process has been completed.

Have some time in bed.

This is in my view not Westminster food but points to ponder for Scotland.

 

YOU SAY:

SNP and some others want to cap. on Brexit vote anger.

Heads (in Scotland?) should cool before a referendum is arranged.

Knowledge about post Brino UK should be acquired before a referendum.

I see no Westminster food here.

What SNP says is SNP's problem, focus on Scots.

Scotland should themselves determine what is a suitable head temperature.

Whether Scots has a preference for zilch or some or a lot of knowledge about post Brino UK

must be entirely up to Scotland. Westminster is no knowledge police.

 

YOU SAY:

A start on a exit process for Scotland now might add complexity to the EU-UK talks, yes, agree, might.

Hardly fair to let floaters in Scotland decide on huge issues without knowing the outcome of Brexit.

Leave the fairnes offered to voters in Scotland to Scottish politician and political management.

Should Westminster act as a fairnes police in Scotland?

 

-----

Look at the papers from early 17 hundred, look at the odd later agreement.

See what can be determined as regards the interface between Scotland and rest-UK,

or Westminster if you like.

And also look at conclusions from "modern" times.

The idea that Westminster must shine some greenish light in order for Scotland to arrange a referendum

is an interpretation of exisiting text. It is not spelled out as a stipulation.

The Westminster interpretation has never been tested in the courts.

 

 

I think it would serve as a reasonable coolant if babysitting of Scots and Scotland were to end.

Let the jocks sort themselves out.

 

[melvinmelvin]

6 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

There has been suggestions of such a move for a while now - how rooted in reality it is, I cannot say, but I can understand how Shetlanders might feel as disconnected from a metropolitan Edinburgh elite as they do from the London shower.

 

As with every other region in Scotland, both Orkney and Shetland voted to remain in the EU, although interestingly, Orkney was much more in favour of remain (63% compared to Shetland's 57%).

 

As usual, they (the single constituency of Orkney and Shetland) returned a Lib Dem at the last UK GE with 45% of the vote, but the SNP came a not too shabby second with 34%, up from 29% in 2017.

 

In 2014 they were the least supportive of independence, with 65% in favour of remaining in the UK. 

 

As for their viability as an independent nation, with a population of 44,000 people, they will be around the 10th smallest country, so clearly they could feasibly set up their own state. They have some very unique geographical challenges but they also live them year round - tough as old boots for sure. 

 

Do they want to go? I feel, probably not.

Do I want them to go? Definitely not. 

Should anyone stop them? I would say probably not.

Could they make a viable country? Of that I have no doubts.

 

Can mention one somewhat exotic idea that I came across;

Shetland-Orkneys-Faroe Islands forming a state together.

 

[englishoak]

20 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

You have built a strawman in your head and now are projecting it onto people about whom you know very little.

 

It is certaintly one of the more interesting takes on any topic debated on TV that I can recall. 

 

To overcome your anxiety, I propose a Heller style loyalty oath where all us scotnats declare fealty and money to the unicorn. 

 

Was that a yes or as no ? sounds like a no to me... i dont care what you lot do or dont, just stop naval gazing and twittering like a bunch of old ladies and actually make a difference or go prop up a bar somewhere. which tbh is far more a Scottish thing to do anyway.  England built the empire while Scots built the barracks....Welsh did the singing and the Irish did the digging ????

Edited February 17, 2020 by englishoak

[jonwilly]

Having done over 20 years in British Army I served with quite a few jocks, strangely most of my better friends where from north of the border.

Mates yes but they all had a deep understanding on Scotland/England relationship. Wales and N.Ireland never came into their logic.

In my years I never knew of or heard of a jock being persecuted for being a jock. Talk to any English who had served in a jock Battalion and the life was hell, insults daily it was all part of their way of life, as you know.

It was London money that built the Oil industry north of the border and Glasgow/Edinburgh could not have done it.

You Know that the FM's policies are bankrupting the country and you come on a board like this and attempt to defend the undefendable.

I am all for Scotland doing it's own thing, I served with to many good men to believe anything else. Your FM is running the country down due to her beliefs and you know it.

john

[Nigel Garvie]

11 hours ago, vinny41 said:

Claim
One estimate of the “economic cost” of Brexit, £130 billion, now exceeds what we’ve paid in to the EU over 47 years.

Conclusion
There’s no definitive figure for the economic impact of Brexit. The analysis this is based on estimates the UK’s GDP is £130 billion lower in 2019 than it would have been had it followed pre-EU referendum trends. Between 1973 and 2018 the UK’s net contribution to the EU was £216 billion in real terms.


Lots of Full Fact readers have asked us to check a number of posts on social media which have claimed that “the economic cost of Brexit now exceeds what we’ve net paid-in to the EU over 47 years”.
<snip> 
https://fullfact.org/europe/online-c...contributions/

(For full text read the original post above)

It would be helpful,  if in answering my post, which you quoted, you did not start off with a claim which I never made, without making that clear. 

 

Apart from that everything that you quote from full fact.org is reasonable, but why not just put a brief extract and a link. If you Google this topic there is masses to read as I'm sure you know.

 

The whole point is not whether the figures are precisely correct, as Bloomburg said they are estimates. However they are estimates from a leading business news source, and should be taken seriously.

 

The point is that it is UTTERLY ASTONISHING that the figures for our undoubted lost income due to Brexit are even on the same page as our contributions over 45 years. That's 45 <deleted> years for heaven's sake. Somehow we have managed to blow a not dissimilar amount of money in three pathetic Brexit years. 

 

11 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

I think what put other people off the idea, and what caused a lack of economic growth was the antics of those trying to scupper Brexit for 3.5 years. It was all the childish spats in Parliament and the courts, and the resulting uncertainty.

If we'd had the type government we have now from day one it would have been a totally different story. Pity. 

Yes it is all remainer's fault (Exactly what I predicted someone would say). If Boris had been in power after the referendum we would have left immediately and painlessly, and 50 years of common laws would have magically dissolved into the thin air. No businesses would have been lost, the city would still have full access to EU markets, and we would have all the fish we wanted. By now we would be living in a land flowing with milk and honey and money, without those beastly Germans bossing us about, and all the Immigrants we don't like would be sent back to where they came from, (even if the UK was their one and only home). Yes all Remainer's fault that Brexit hasn't turned out to be quite incredibly wonderful. It was such a brilliant idea. 

 

 I return to my point, why on earth would Scotland - or any country for that matter -want to remain tied to a country lead by loons. 

Edited February 17, 2020 by Nigel Garvie

[RuamRudy]

4 hours ago, jonwilly said:

Having done over 20 years in British Army I served with quite a few jocks, strangely most of my better friends where from north of the border.

Mates yes but they all had a deep understanding on Scotland/England relationship. Wales and N.Ireland never came into their logic.

In my years I never knew of or heard of a jock being persecuted for being a jock. Talk to any English who had served in a jock Battalion and the life was hell, insults daily it was all part of their way of life, as you know.

It was London money that built the Oil industry north of the border and Glasgow/Edinburgh could not have done it.

You Know that the FM's policies are bankrupting the country and you come on a board like this and attempt to defend the undefendable.

I am all for Scotland doing it's own thing, I served with to many good men to believe anything else. Your FM is running the country down due to her beliefs and you know it.

john

You persist in spewing out nothing but bitterness and bile  - your complete lack of substance lays bare your complete lack of knowledge on the subject yet you come on a board like this and attempt to explain that which you cannot even articulate. 

[RuamRudy]

5 hours ago, englishoak said:

 

Was that a yes or as no ? sounds like a no to me... i dont care what you lot do or dont, just stop naval gazing and twittering like a bunch of old ladies and actually make a difference or go prop up a bar somewhere. which tbh is far more a Scottish thing to do anyway.  England built the empire while Scots built the barracks....Welsh did the singing and the Irish did the digging ????

Was it a no? So because I never sat up and danced to the tune that is currently playing in your head, you take this as an affirmation? I guess you must be right about so many things, using a premise like that!

 

I am not going to challenge your assertion about the stalwarts of the empire, but it somewhat goes against the narrative relied on by some of our other posters when the topic of the less commendable aspects of the empire come up - that of 'we were all responsible for it'. 

 

The reason I raise this is that, when digging out the newspaper cuttings I posted a couple of days back where various Unionist organs were predicting that various colonial outposts could never survive without the benevolence of the empire, I came across the below article.

 

Personally, I believe that all home nations have this stain on their character. I would not lay the blame solely at the door of the English. And the reason I raise it here is not simply to bash the union, but to highlight the predatory nature of it, and to further bolster the fact that the UK has a history of patronising their outposts with tales of support and how they could not survive without it, all the while stealing everything worth stealing. 

 

British took $45 trillion out of India in 200 years

Foreign Minister S Jaishankar on Tuesday said that the British took away $45 trillion during their rule of two centuries in India. 

According to... research published by Columbia University Press, the British Raj siphoned out at least USD 44.6 trillion.

 

“The weavers in India became beggars and India went from being a world-famous exporter of finished cloth into an importer when from having 27 per cent of the world trade to less than 2 per cent. In fact, Britain’s industrial revolution was actually premised upon the de-industrialization of India."

 

 

[CG1 Blue]

16 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

you are quite right on one point, that I come from wherever I come from

 

what I commented on was the following text;

 

---

"I agree with that blonde lady in the audience, who basically said let's wait until we know what kind of UK we are leaving / staying in before having indyref 2. In other words, wait until the Brexit process has finished and had a bit of time to bed in, and then hold a referendum. 

 

While we're in Brexit transition it's disingenuous for the SNP to push for a referendum this year. How is it fair to make Scottish floating voters decide on such a huge issue when they don't yet know the outcome of Brexit?

A referendum this year would also add an unnecessary layer of complexity to the UK's negotiations with the EU. 

 

The SNP and passionate Scottish nationalists will of course disagree, because they want to capitalise on (temporary) anger around the brexit vote. The next vote on independence should take place when heads have cooled, and when there is more certainty over what a post Brexit UK looks like. IMO"

---

 

right now, UK is in some kind of Brino status, that may change towards the end of this year depending on how

BJ opts to handle the talks with EU.

 

I disagree with the constant focus on SNP and this chief SNP lady. SNP is just a party, although largish.

Focusing on Scotland and Scots is better in my view.

 

YOU SAY:

Wait for the Brexit process to run to completion.

Wait and gain knowedge of what UK will be the process has been completed.

Have some time in bed.

This is in my view not Westminster food but points to ponder for Scotland.

 

YOU SAY:

SNP and some others want to cap. on Brexit vote anger.

Heads (in Scotland?) should cool before a referendum is arranged.

Knowledge about post Brino UK should be acquired before a referendum.

I see no Westminster food here.

What SNP says is SNP's problem, focus on Scots.

Scotland should themselves determine what is a suitable head temperature.

Whether Scots has a preference for zilch or some or a lot of knowledge about post Brino UK

must be entirely up to Scotland. Westminster is no knowledge police.

 

YOU SAY:

A start on a exit process for Scotland now might add complexity to the EU-UK talks, yes, agree, might.

Hardly fair to let floaters in Scotland decide on huge issues without knowing the outcome of Brexit.

Leave the fairnes offered to voters in Scotland to Scottish politician and political management.

Should Westminster act as a fairnes police in Scotland?

 

-----

Look at the papers from early 17 hundred, look at the odd later agreement.

See what can be determined as regards the interface between Scotland and rest-UK,

or Westminster if you like.

And also look at conclusions from "modern" times.

The idea that Westminster must shine some greenish light in order for Scotland to arrange a referendum

is an interpretation of exisiting text. It is not spelled out as a stipulation.

The Westminster interpretation has never been tested in the courts.

 

 

I think it would serve as a reasonable coolant if babysitting of Scots and Scotland were to end.

Let the jocks sort themselves out.

 

You say we shouldn't focus on SNP, but focus on the Scottish people and what they want. That's nice sentiment, but it's not reality. The SNP have total dominance in the Scottish parliament, so it is the SNP who would decide, and the 55% of Scots who didn't vote for the SNP would be ignored. 

If the SNP had the power to decide on this matter, there would be an indy ref every week. 

 

That that said, if after another couple of years opinion polls show a clear swing in favour of independence, and Westminster refuse, I think the Scots would have every right to tell Westminster to do one and take matters into their own hands. But not now.  Not while polls are evenly split, and Brexit negotiations are just starting. 

 

 

 

 

 

[CG1 Blue]

13 hours ago, Nigel Garvie said:

Yes it is all remainer's fault (Exactly what I predicted someone would say). If Boris had been in power after the referendum we would have left immediately and painlessly, and 50 years of common laws would have magically dissolved into the thin air. No businesses would have been lost, the city would still have full access to EU markets, and we would have all the fish we wanted. By now we would be living in a land flowing with milk and honey and money, without those beastly Germans bossing us about, and all the Immigrants we don't like would be sent back to where they came from, (even if the UK was their one and only home). Yes all Remainer's fault that Brexit hasn't turned out to be quite incredibly wonderful. It was such a brilliant idea. 

Quite an exaggeration to what I said, but whatever floats your boat. 

[RuamRudy]

51 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

You say we shouldn't focus on SNP, but focus on the Scottish people and what they want. That's nice sentiment, but it's not reality. The SNP have total dominance in the Scottish parliament, so it is the SNP who would decide, and the 55% of Scots who didn't vote for the SNP would be ignored. 

If the SNP had the power to decide on this matter, there would be an indy ref every week. 

 

That that said, if after another couple of years opinion polls show a clear swing in favour of independence, and Westminster refuse, I think the Scots would have every right to tell Westminster to do one and take matters into their own hands. But not now.  Not while polls are evenly split, and Brexit negotiations are just starting. 

 

Can I presume that you feel equal disquiet for the 62% of Scots who voted against Brexit, or the 74% of Scots who voted for parties other than the nasty party? 

 

The difference is, however, that the SNP is not demanding independence - they are demanding the right to pose the question to the electorate, so if the number is truly 55% against (fanciful in the extreme) then there would be no material change in the status of Scotland within the UK and, I am sure, none of us would live to see indyref3.