UK election result 'blew away' argument for second Brexit vote: Labour's Starmer

[sandyf]

20 hours ago, Forethat said:

So, you are referring to an article covering a paper where it is concluded that each UK citizen could have had £13,000 in a pension fund in case the UK government HAD set aside oil and gas revenue?

 

May I remind you that using that very same principle, this time based on tax expenditure per person in Scotland each year, that each UK-citizen would have had £70,000 in a pension fund had we saved the difference between what is spent on each citizen in the rest of the Union (except Northern Ireland).

https://fullfact.org/economy/scotland-england-public-services-spending/

 

The way I see it, you can just hand back the difference before you leave. £57,000 per jock. 

Obviously a creative accountant, maybe one day you will recognise the difference between apples and oranges.

 

[sandyf]

14 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

The English and Scots entered a union back in 1707, of their own free will.

 

It was anything but "free will".

Not a lot has changed in 400 years, England still doesn't want Scotland to join ranks with the foreigners.

 

Suspicion and mistrust between the two countries had prevented the union throughout the 17th century. The Scots feared that they would simply become another region of England, being swallowed up as had happened to Wales some four hundred years earlier. For England the fear that the Scots may take sides with France and rekindle the ‘Auld Alliance‘ was decisive. England relied heavily on Scottish soldiers and to have them turn and join ranks with the French would have been disastrous.

https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/The-Act-of-Union/

[sandyf]

Ball is back in Bojo's court.

 

The Scottish parliament passed a motion demanding that Boris Johnson allow another referendum on Scotland's place in the UK, pointing to Brexit as a "material change in circumstances" since the 2014 vote.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-independence-referendum-nicola-sturgeon-snp-msp-a9308756.html?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=INDNEWS%2330012020&utm_term=IND_Headlines_Masterlist_CDP

[ThaiBunny]

13 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Ball is back in Bojo's court.

Boris had already said "sod off" before the SNP and their toadies passed this utterly pointless motion.  Nothing will happen before the next Scottish general election

[RuamRudy]

16 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

Boris had already said "sod off" before the SNP and their toadies passed this utterly pointless motion.  Nothing will happen before the next Scottish general election

Are you sure? This 'pointless motion' received Royal assent this morning and is now law. 

[Forethat]

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

Obviously a creative accountant, maybe one day you will recognise the difference between apples and oranges.

 

So what you're saying is that the Jocks own government recognising the difference in tax expenditure between Scotland and the rest of the UK is simply a result of "creative accounting"...? Good heavens...

 

https://www.gov.scot/publications/government-expenditure-revenue-scotland-gers/

 

You're not much for facts are you? Scotland is a great place, inhabited by friendly and sociable people. I can probably think of more reasons why I would want to live there than the other way around. But Scotland cost an absolute fortune to maintain. And that cost is - and has been for a very long time - picked up by the rest of the UK. In other words, from a financial perspective, you're a burden. Simple as that.

 

Sorry to be the one to break the evident news. 

[melvinmelvin]

48 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Are you sure? This 'pointless motion' received Royal assent this morning and is now law. 

 

and briefly the statute says ???

 

[Rookiescot]

47 minutes ago, Forethat said:

So what you're saying is that the Jocks own government recognising the difference in tax expenditure between Scotland and the rest of the UK is simply a result of "creative accounting"...? Good heavens...

 

https://www.gov.scot/publications/government-expenditure-revenue-scotland-gers/

 

You're not much for facts are you? Scotland is a great place, inhabited by friendly and sociable people. I can probably think of more reasons why I would want to live there than the other way around. But Scotland cost an absolute fortune to maintain. And that cost is - and has been for a very long time - picked up by the rest of the UK. In other words, from a financial perspective, you're a burden. Simple as that.

 

Sorry to be the one to break the evident news. 

The GERS figures are produced predominately by Westminster and Whitehall.

The Scottish government has to publish them by law. Yes thats right. The Scottish government has to publish figures it knows to be wrong because the Westminster parliament says they must.

Now the figures have been debunked literally hundreds of times. Just google it. Monies from oil revenue and VAT are not included. Goods which pass through English ports are not classed as Scottish. We are billed a population share of stuff like HS2, Crossrail and Hinkley Point. Stuff that is nowhere near Scotland. Indeed the Westminster government has a list containing hundreds of projects (most of which will never see the light of day) but Scotland still gets a theoretical 10% cost for each one. It also includes pension payments. Now Westminster is duty bound to keep making those payments to Scottish pensioners even after independence. Because thats the scheme they paid into.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

The GERS figures are deliberately missleading. They are a fabrication. They in no way reflect Scotlands economy.

 

But even if the figures were true. How is that an endorsement for allowing Westminster to continue running our affairs? If they are running Scotland so badly why should we continue to let them do so?

And if Scotland was REALLY costing England money do you think the Conservatives would want to keep Scotland in the union? No chance.

They would be trying to sell us off to Trump. 

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, Forethat said:

So what you're saying is that the Jocks own government recognising the difference in tax expenditure between Scotland and the rest of the UK is simply a result of "creative accounting"...? Good heavens...

 

https://www.gov.scot/publications/government-expenditure-revenue-scotland-gers/

 

You're not much for facts are you? Scotland is a great place, inhabited by friendly and sociable people. I can probably think of more reasons why I would want to live there than the other way around. But Scotland cost an absolute fortune to maintain. And that cost is - and has been for a very long time - picked up by the rest of the UK. In other words, from a financial perspective, you're a burden. Simple as that.

 

Sorry to be the one to break the evident news. 

Can you think of a reason why a government, which is perfectly content to allow ex service men to live and die on the streets, would resist all attempts to relinquish control of Scotland if it was such a burden to the rest of the UK?

[RuamRudy]

48 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

and briefly the statute says ???

 

Just in case you have some time on your hands, here is the act (a not so brief 172 pages: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2020/2/pdfs/asp_20200002_en.pdf)

 

But briefly, it sets in law the right of the Scottish parliament to hold a referendum on anything it sees fit to legislate for:

"This Act applies to any referendum held throughout Scotland in pursuance of provision made by or under an Act of the Scottish Parliament."

 

It also sets out how the relevant question will be proposed and verified as acceptable by the Electoral Commission.

 

It stipulates who is entitled to vote in a referendum.

 

Then it goes heavily into the mechanics of how a referendum will be carried out. 

[Forethat]

15 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Can you think of a reason why a government, which is perfectly content to allow ex service men to live and die on the streets, would resist all attempts to relinquish control of Scotland if it was such a burden to the rest of the UK?

"From a financial perspective, you're a burden"

 

Financial.

 

You missed that bit, didn't you? ????

[evadgib]

2 hours ago, sandyf said:

It was anything but "free will".

Not a lot has changed in 400 years, England still doesn't want Scotland to join ranks with the foreigners.

 

Suspicion and mistrust between the two countries had prevented the union throughout the 17th century. The Scots feared that they would simply become another region of England, being swallowed up as had happened to Wales some four hundred years earlier. For England the fear that the Scots may take sides with France and rekindle the ‘Auld Alliance‘ was decisive. England relied heavily on Scottish soldiers and to have them turn and join ranks with the French would have been disastrous.

https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/The-Act-of-Union/

Methinks you need to brush up on some of the fine detail...

[melvinmelvin]

11 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Just in case you have some time on your hands, here is the act (a not so brief 172 pages: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2020/2/pdfs/asp_20200002_en.pdf)

 

But briefly, it sets in law the right of the Scottish parliament to hold a referendum on anything it sees fit to legislate for:

"This Act applies to any referendum held throughout Scotland in pursuance of provision made by or under an Act of the Scottish Parliament."

 

It also sets out how the relevant question will be proposed and verified as acceptable by the Electoral Commission.

 

It stipulates who is entitled to vote in a referendum.

 

Then it goes heavily into the mechanics of how a referendum will be carried out. 

hmm, ta - the way you express yourself makes me kinda sceptical to this statute

 

x) anything it sees fit to legislate for - Meaning that Scotland can Holyrood its way out of UK? or smth else?

 

y) the Electoral Commission being a Scottish institution? Or a Westminster one?

 

z) So, the Queen is becoming active and decides who can offer views in Scottish political matters?

 

as I have opinioned before, the term vassal state comes to mind

 

 

[Forethat]

38 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

The GERS figures are produced predominately by Westminster and Whitehall.

The Scottish government has to publish them by law. Yes thats right. The Scottish government has to publish figures it knows to be wrong because the Westminster parliament says they must.

Now the figures have been debunked literally hundreds of times. Just google it. Monies from oil revenue and VAT are not included. Goods which pass through English ports are not classed as Scottish. We are billed a population share of stuff like HS2, Crossrail and Hinkley Point. Stuff that is nowhere near Scotland. Indeed the Westminster government has a list containing hundreds of projects (most of which will never see the light of day) but Scotland still gets a theoretical 10% cost for each one. It also includes pension payments. Now Westminster is duty bound to keep making those payments to Scottish pensioners even after independence. Because thats the scheme they paid into.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

The GERS figures are deliberately missleading. They are a fabrication. They in no way reflect Scotlands economy.

 

But even if the figures were true. How is that an endorsement for allowing Westminster to continue running our affairs? If they are running Scotland so badly why should we continue to let them do so?

And if Scotland was REALLY costing England money do you think the Conservatives would want to keep Scotland in the union? No chance.

They would be trying to sell us off to Trump. 

You can keep ignoring that Scotland has a 7% deficit (of GDP). Compare this to the 1% deficit for the rest of the UK. Those numbers includes the alleged (and famous) scottish oil and gas revenue. 

 

Financially, Scotland is a wreck. In all fairness, you're slightly better off than Greece, which is a positive...so tally-ho off you go!

[CG1 Blue]

10 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Just in case you have some time on your hands, here is the act (a not so brief 172 pages: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2020/2/pdfs/asp_20200002_en.pdf)

 

But briefly, it sets in law the right of the Scottish parliament to hold a referendum on anything it sees fit to legislate for:

"This Act applies to any referendum held throughout Scotland in pursuance of provision made by or under an Act of the Scottish Parliament."

 

It also sets out how the relevant question will be proposed and verified as acceptable by the Electoral Commission.

 

It stipulates who is entitled to vote in a referendum.

 

Then it goes heavily into the mechanics of how a referendum will be carried out. 

I can't find any news outlets saying that this act makes a material difference. From what I gather it's a kind of 'this is what we want' bill? I could be wrong.  

 

I think if the SNP were that confident of winning indy ref 2, they would propose a sensible timetable. Something like early 2022 would be a decent compromise, and might make the UK government more amenable to agreeing to it. 

 

How on Earth do they expect the UK government and the EU to negotiate the future trade arrangements throughout 2020, while both parties wouldn't know if the UK includes Scotland or not? We have to deal with a huge constitutional change over the next 11 months. No sane government would further complicate things with an independence referendum running throughout the same period. 

 

Sturgeon is simply trying to capitalise on anger from pro-EU Scots, and she knows that anger is dissipating. Her chance for power is slipping away! 

 

[melvinmelvin]

11 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

I can't find any news outlets saying that this act makes a material difference. From what I gather it's a kind of 'this is what we want' bill? I could be wrong.  

 

I think if the SNP were that confident of winning indy ref 2, they would propose a sensible timetable. Something like early 2022 would be a decent compromise, and might make the UK government more amenable to agreeing to it. 

 

How on Earth do they expect the UK government and the EU to negotiate the future trade arrangements throughout 2020, while both parties wouldn't know if the UK includes Scotland or not? We have to deal with a huge constitutional change over the next 11 months. No sane government would further complicate things with an independence referendum running throughout the same period. 

 

Sturgeon is simply trying to capitalise on anger from pro-EU Scots, and she knows that anger is dissipating. Her chance for power is slipping away! 

 

 

I kinda understand what you are saying

but - again, this really shows the imperial thinking in Westminster and England

 

why should Westminster determine when politicians in Scotland can start working on stepping out of UK

 

still trying to be a colonial super power

 

[vogie]

7 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

I kinda understand what you are saying

but - again, this really shows the imperial thinking in Westminster and England

 

why should Westminster determine when politicians in Scotland can start working on stepping out of UK

 

still trying to be a colonial super power

 

Westminster did not determine anything, the Scots had a vote on it and decided to remain within our union.

[CG1 Blue]

9 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

I kinda understand what you are saying

but - again, this really shows the imperial thinking in Westminster and England

 

why should Westminster determine when politicians in Scotland can start working on stepping out of UK

 

still trying to be a colonial super power

 

I think it shows the pragmatic thinking of the UK government, not bowing to a nationalist movement who are trying to capitalise on a mood swing. 

 

Maybe you should think about the 55% of Scots who do not want a repeat of the chaos, bitterness and divisiveness that was caused by the 2014 indy ref. Family members and former friends who stopped speaking with each other, etc. etc. Maybe those people would prefer to wait a bit longer for the wounds to heal? 

 

I'm not sure why you have taken the side of the nationalists and not the unionists. 

[RuamRudy]

59 minutes ago, Forethat said:

"From a financial perspective, you're a burden"

 

Financial.

 

You missed that bit, didn't you? ????

So what do we contribute to ameliorate our financial burden? Is there a trade off?

[TheDark]

38 minutes ago, Forethat said:

You can keep ignoring that Scotland has a 7% deficit (of GDP). Compare this to the 1% deficit for the rest of the UK. Those numbers includes the alleged (and famous) scottish oil and gas revenue. 

 

Financially, Scotland is a wreck. In all fairness, you're slightly better off than Greece, which is a positive...so tally-ho off you go!

I'm not going to check if those number are valid. But let's assume those are.

 

What would happen to the Scottish national psyche, once Scotland gains freedom from the English majority which has dictated how Scottish people should live their lives for ages?

 

If you have a person, who works for a company as employee, resigns, creates company of his or hers own, what happens to this person's productivity?

 

The person can now have both the responsibilities as well as profits of his own work. That makes the person work twice as hard as he did before. 

 

Similarly Scotland, when given the chance, to live her own life and determine her own destiny, will do a whole lot better than when being under England's ruling. It's simply how people and nations do. 

 

So it's rather futile to say that Scotland can't make a life on her own. 

[RuamRudy]

48 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

hmm, ta - the way you express yourself makes me kinda sceptical to this statute

 

x) anything it sees fit to legislate for - Meaning that Scotland can Holyrood its way out of UK? or smth else?

 

y) the Electoral Commission being a Scottish institution? Or a Westminster one?

 

z) So, the Queen is becoming active and decides who can offer views in Scottish political matters?

 

as I have opinioned before, the term vassal state comes to mind

 

 

All referenda are advisory so no matter what the outcome of a referendum might be, it isn't as simple as saying that vote and it will become so. What it does, however, is demonstrate a clear will. 

 

The electoral commission is the only one - the UK one. As we are part of the UK, they would be the arbiter. 

 

My understanding is that Brenda isn't inclined to deny any bills which her governments pass. In reality, she had no choice but to sign. 

[TheDark]

8 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

I think it shows the pragmatic thinking of the UK government, not bowing to a nationalist movement who are trying to capitalise on a mood swing. 

Have we all forgotten Brexit already? Or has brexit become a banned word already?

[RuamRudy]

43 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

I can't find any news outlets saying that this act makes a material difference. From what I gather it's a kind of 'this is what we want' bill? I could be wrong.  

 

I think if the SNP were that confident of winning indy ref 2, they would propose a sensible timetable. Something like early 2022 would be a decent compromise, and might make the UK government more amenable to agreeing to it. 

 

How on Earth do they expect the UK government and the EU to negotiate the future trade arrangements throughout 2020, while both parties wouldn't know if the UK includes Scotland or not? We have to deal with a huge constitutional change over the next 11 months. No sane government would further complicate things with an independence referendum running throughout the same period. 

 

Sturgeon is simply trying to capitalise on anger from pro-EU Scots, and she knows that anger is dissipating. Her chance for power is slipping away! 

 

No, you are right. Any and all referenda are advisory. However, sandyf has previously mentioned the UN resolution on the rights of people to self determination. He explained it better, but basically a body of people under the control of another government don't need its approval to secede if they can demonstrate that they are unified in their wish to secede. I believe the UK was instrumental in defining the resolution. 

 

But you, and many others, are missing the point about waiting to see the outcome of Brexit. We didn't want it then and, we even more strongly don't want it now. It could be utopia, but we aren't interested and don't want to hang around to see. That said, few in Scotland believe it will be positive for us. 

 

Sturgeon is a politician. Of course she is using whatever means at her disposal to accomplish her political aims. She is no different to every single politician in any other party. 

 

I am not so sure why you think the anger is dissipating though. If anything, it is ramping up considerably, and Johnson is only pouring more fuel on the fire. More power to his elbow! 

[Forethat]

2 minutes ago, TheDark said:

So it's rather futile to say that Scotland can't make a life on her own. 

Did anyone say that? Name him...

[RuamRudy]

19 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

I think it shows the pragmatic thinking of the UK government, not bowing to a nationalist movement who are trying to capitalise on a mood swing. 

 

Maybe you should think about the 55% of Scots who do not want a repeat of the chaos, bitterness and divisiveness that was caused by the 2014 indy ref. Family members and former friends who stopped speaking with each other, etc. etc. Maybe those people would prefer to wait a bit longer for the wounds to heal? 

 

I'm not sure why you have taken the side of the nationalists and not the unionists. 

What wounds? I literally know nobody who lost friends or family as a result of indyref1. In fact, I don't even know how some of my own friends voted, nor do I care. If there was lasting rancour, it was within families who already had issues. 

[evadgib]

33 minutes ago, TheDark said:

Have we all forgotten Brexit already? Or has brexit become a banned word already?

There's another 24hrs yet; The term will then be 'rejoiners' & prefixed by 'hard' re some of the more persistent offenders & those who didn't know wot they were voting for.

After 4 years I can't wait ????

Edited January 30, 2020 by evadgib

[CG1 Blue]

24 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

No, you are right. Any and all referenda are advisory. However, sandyf has previously mentioned the UN resolution on the rights of people to self determination. He explained it better, but basically a body of people under the control of another government don't need its approval to secede if they can demonstrate that they are unified in their wish to secede. I believe the UK was instrumental in defining the resolution. 

 

But you, and many others, are missing the point about waiting to see the outcome of Brexit. We didn't want it then and, we even more strongly don't want it now. It could be utopia, but we aren't interested and don't want to hang around to see. That said, few in Scotland believe it will be positive for us. 

 

Sturgeon is a politician. Of course she is using whatever means at her disposal to accomplish her political aims. She is no different to every single politician in any other party. 

 

I am not so sure why you think the anger is dissipating though. If anything, it is ramping up considerably, and Johnson is only pouring more fuel on the fire. More power to his elbow! 

I agree Johnson is pouring fuel on the fire; I mean I can imagine he's exactly the type of Englishman the Scots love to hate! But the polls are not indicating a majority for independence despite Johnson being PM, so that's why I think Brexit anger has dissipated. 

 

What are your thoughts on the SNP's Alex Neil's comments? He seems to be taking a more sensible pragmatic approach to me:

 

SNP MSP Alex Neil has urged the party to consider staying outside the EU if Scotland becomes independent.

He also claimed it would not be possible to finalise Scotland's future as an independent nation in Europe until the rest of the UK confirms its relationship with the bloc.

Scottish Government statistics revealed Scotland's main trading partner remains the rest of the UK, with exports valued at an estimated £51.2 billion in 2018.

Mr Neil wrote: "If an independent Scotland joins the EU, that could lead to a hard border between Scotland and England, a proposition that would scupper any realistic chance of winning a second independence referendum.

"Until the UK-EU free trade agreement, or no agreement, is known it is not possible to finalise a policy.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp-msp-independent-scotland-should-stay-out-of-eu-to-avoid-hard-border-with-england-1-5082392

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TheDark]

32 minutes ago, evadgib said:

There's another 24hrs yet; The term will then be 'rejoiners' & prefixed by 'hard' re some of the more persistent offenders & those who didn't know wot they were voting for.

After 4 years I can't wait ????

So I can only assume having highly nationalistic movement, is a privilege reserved only for the English.  

 

Ok. Your message received loud and clear.

[evadgib]

10 minutes ago, TheDark said:

So I can only assume having highly nationalistic movement, is a privilege reserved only for the English.  

 

Ok. Your message received loud and clear.

The only nation in the world without their own parliament?

Yeah, right ????

[Scott]

One post removed.   Continue baiting and trolling and face a suspension.  Keep it civil.