Scotland's Sturgeon hints at legal move if independence vote blocked

[Dene16]

5 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Are you suggesting that around 56% of the Scottish electorate is unable to make informed decisions for themselves? 

In reality yes, it is no different to any other country, it could be said the same of the Brexit vote. For the last 30 years a labour government has come into power under a thriving economy however a tory government has only come into power after a labour government has trashed our economy (this is a simple fact). This is because the general public want to believe the propaganda that is being feed to them ( i cannot perceive any other reason) A recent example being, in the last election, Jeremy Corbyn promised all the UK students free education even though he would of had to of borrowed billions and crippled the country, this resulted in him gaining the majority vote of the younger generation 

6 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Remaining in the UK, with Brexit and our corrupt and incompetent Tory party leading us out of the mire they have partly created does not seem, to me, to be a more appealing alternative. 

Firstly, the so called idea behind Brexit was so that we could have control over our economy and not be controlled by people who had no interest in/or idea of our singular welfare. Now please tell me if i am wrong but isn't that exactly the same as what you are claiming. I did not want to leave the EU but due to their belligerent refusal to allow us to change the freedom of movement they forced our hand, believing Brexit would never happen. You do not live in the UK where, for lack of a better word, huge ghettos of migrants now exist in a lot of cities. The UK could not sustain the continued influx of so many migrants and it was my belief it was  a time bomb waiting to happen.

I don't know where your idea of corrupt comes from but i can certainly concur that the Tory party has turned us into the laughing stock of the world over the handling of Brexit

7 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

I struggle with this argument about an independent future leading to a poorer country.

I don't mean to suggest that independence will lead to a poorer country at all. In fact i believe Scotland would be fine. However there is likely to be a period of increased taxation if the oil subsidies continue to decline and to enact the policies that independence is suggesting. Even Nicola Sturgeon has had to admit that the decline of the oil industry has had a profound affect on the Scottish economy.(that is not implying that it is a reason why independence should not happen)

The Scottish people are being lead to believe that being in the EU is the Holy Grail but look at  Greece, Italy and more importantly Ireland and what happened there. i have friends in Ireland  and believe me they thought it was great for 18 months now they wish they could turn the clock back. Scotland should be looking at staying in the common market ,yes, and possibly a deal such as Norway has .

[Mavideol]

On 12/2/2020 at 9:25 AM, Rookiescot said:

 

Why?

What would Brexitland do if we did just leave and say stick your debt?

they may be forced to buy lots of  ""lotion""  555

 

 

[RuamRudy]

10 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Silence speaks volumes and no, I stated an independent Scotland has nothing to offer the EU and will be a country taking and not giving.

 

Yes, your silence does indeed speak volumes - you are unable to articulate why an independent Scotland has nothing to offer the EU but insist on repeating it nonetheless.

 

10 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Like now Scotland gets 15 billion more than it puts in the UK. So what will Scotland have to offer?

 

 

Every single part of the UK gets more than it puts in, with the exception of London. That is how  every single country in the world, with the possible exception of North Korea, actually functions. In Scotland's case, the UK exchequer takes in the region of 60 billion pounds from Scotland and returns around 30 billion by way of the Barnett formula. They then purport to spend another 25 billion or so on Scotland's behalf, hence the 'deficit'. 

I am wholly confident in saying that Scotland could, if having full control of its own affairs, make much better use of that money, hopefully with most of it not ending up on unwanted wastes of money such as HS2 or Brexit, Trident or in the pockets of Tory friends and donors. 

So rather than relying on an incompetent and corrupt party which we have not elected since 1955 to spend 10s of billions on our behalf, we could do a far better job ourselves.

 

10 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

It will have to join the Euro. it hasn't got its own currency. I could go on but again and for the final time.

 

 

It does have its own currency - the British pound. 

10 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

I could go on but again and for the final time.

 

Go on - fill us in on your vast knowledge of Scottish and international affairs (although I suggest you steer clear of international finance because you seem a bit lost there).

 

You are more than willing to opine at headline level - show us, for once, that you have a grasp that is more than simply the front page splash from the Daily Express.

 

10 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

What has an independent Scotland got to offer the EU from a financial point of view other than being a thorn in the UK side which the EU would love.

 

And here it comes down to it - your English exceptionalism shines brightly. To paraphrase you, the EU will only accept Scotland so as to be a thorn in little Britain's side. Believe it if you like, but when reality bites you will be utterly bewildered, I am sure. 

[RuamRudy]

4 hours ago, Dene16 said:

In reality yes, it is no different to any other country, it could be said the same of the Brexit vote. For the last 30 years a labour government has come into power under a thriving economy however a tory government has only come into power after a labour government has trashed our economy (this is a simple fact). This is because the general public want to believe the propaganda that is being feed to them ( i cannot perceive any other reason) A recent example being, in the last election, Jeremy Corbyn promised all the UK students free education even though he would of had to of borrowed billions and crippled the country, this resulted in him gaining the majority vote of the younger generation 

 

With all due respect, it sounds like you are the perfect British citizen, unwilling to challenge the status quo or conceive of any other means of managing or organising ourselves. If Corbyn implemented his social reforms whilst maintaining the same fiscal structures and policies as previous administrations, then you are possibly correct in that we would be on a path to certain bankruptcy. 

But with record poverty levels, food bank usage through the roof, pensions and benefits the lowest in western Europe and basic public services increasingly unaffordable, it is surely clear that the current neo-liberal flavour of capitalism which we 'enjoy' is not working for the majority? I didn't follow Corbyn's plans too closely but I am certain he was not simply advocating change on public expenditure. We need a wholesale change of tack, a fundamental reappraisal of how we want our country to manage itself.

TV posters especially are quick to cry 'socialism' whenever they think of a labour government, but their willingness to subsidise the rich at their own expense is limitless.  

 

 

 

[Laughing Gravy]

14 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

It does have its own currency - the British pound

As part of the United Kingdom not as an independent Scotland. The clue is in the British.

 

As for the rest no surprise as the question wasn't answered because it can''t with any conviction.

 

I am actually half Irish as well as half English, a parent from each country, so yours about exceptionalism shines brightly is thin. It is called reality.

 

Yes i look forward to Scotland joining the EU. When will that be then.

[Bell1234]

On 12/1/2020 at 7:01 AM, pacovl46 said:

Surely if the UK have the right to leave the EU then Scotland has the right to leave the United Kingdom! What goes around comes around and karma is a “beach!” ????

Karma? If you give the English the vote then Scotland would be gone the next day.. Karma haha we couldn't care less.

[Rookiescot]

2 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

As part of the United Kingdom not as an independent Scotland. The clue is in the British.

 

As for the rest no surprise as the question wasn't answered because it can''t with any conviction.

 

I am actually half Irish as well as half English, a parent from each country, so yours about exceptionalism shines brightly is thin. It is called reality.

 

Yes i look forward to Scotland joining the EU. When will that be then.

 

You are equating British with English. 

[Rookiescot]

16 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

With all due respect, it sounds like you are the perfect British citizen, unwilling to challenge the status quo or conceive of any other means of managing or organising ourselves. If Corbyn implemented his social reforms whilst maintaining the same fiscal structures and policies as previous administrations, then you are possibly correct in that we would be on a path to certain bankruptcy. 

But with record poverty levels, food bank usage through the roof, pensions and benefits the lowest in western Europe and basic public services increasingly unaffordable, it is surely clear that the current neo-liberal flavour of capitalism which we 'enjoy' is not working for the majority? I didn't follow Corbyn's plans too closely but I am certain he was not simply advocating change on public expenditure. We need a wholesale change of tack, a fundamental reappraisal of how we want our country to manage itself.

TV posters especially are quick to cry 'socialism' whenever they think of a labour government, but their willingness to subsidise the rich at their own expense is limitless.  

 

 

 

 

Neo liberalism is socialism for the rich. Profits are private, loses are public and a lack of willingness to tackle tax avoidance and evasion. 

[herfiehandbag]

On 12/2/2020 at 9:35 AM, Rookiescot said:

 

Where is the list of things Brexitland could do if Scotland said stick your debt?

Still being formulated?

A rather late answer I know; but unless you had, from day one, introduced your own currency along with all the institutions and infrastructure needed to guarantee it ( a step which the Nationalist cause is remarkably reluctant to discuss, preferring to wait "until the time is right") then you would be needing  to use our currency; which may pose a problem if you refuse to acknowledge any debt!

 

In addition,I suppose, if we look at the geography of the matter, an independent Scotland would need to import a great many things either from or through England. Tariffs on that flow would be a (very) small start on addressing that debt (in reality a sanction, but presented as reclaiming monies owed), and would concentrate your minds on resolving the matter.

[Rookiescot]

30 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

A rather late answer I know; but unless you had, from day one, introduced your own currency along with all the institutions and infrastructure needed to guarantee it ( a step which the Nationalist cause is remarkably reluctant to discuss, preferring to wait "until the time is right") then you would be needing  to use our currency; which may pose a problem if you refuse to acknowledge any debt!

 

In addition,I suppose, if we look at the geography of the matter, an independent Scotland would need to import a great many things either from or through England. Tariffs on that flow would be a (very) small start on addressing that debt (in reality a sanction, but presented as reclaiming monies owed), and would concentrate your minds on resolving the matter.

 

The pound is a fully tradeable fiat currency so there would be little to stop Scotland using the pound. Scotland is also a net exporter so the flow of currency would be from south to north.

Scotland has currently unutilized ports and docks which could bypass any tariffs if they were an impedance and of course those tariffs could be leveled on both sides of the border. 

So in reality there is little Westminster could do if Scotland chose such a course of action. However I do not think Scotland would do that. I have always advocated that Scotland should take its share of the debt because I think it is the right thing to do but it cannot be dismissed altogether because it would be used as part of the negotiations of the "divorce settlement". 

And as we can see from Brexit these things do not always go smoothly. 

I also agree that a Scottish currency  would be the preferable option and although work is being done to set out what would be needed its not widely reported in the MSM. 

[herfiehandbag]

1 hour ago, Rookiescot said:

 

The pound is a fully tradeable fiat currency so there would be little to stop Scotland using the pound. Scotland is also a net exporter so the flow of currency would be from south to north.

Scotland has currently unutilized ports and docks which could bypass any tariffs if they were an impedance and of course those tariffs could be leveled on both sides of the border. 

So in reality there is little Westminster could do if Scotland chose such a course of action. However I do not think Scotland would do that. I have always advocated that Scotland should take its share of the debt because I think it is the right thing to do but it cannot be dismissed altogether because it would be used as part of the negotiations of the "divorce settlement". 

And as we can see from Brexit these things do not always go smoothly. 

I also agree that a Scottish currency  would be the preferable option and although work is being done to set out what would be needed its not widely reported in the MSM. 

 If you wish to obtain someone else's  currency to use for ones own economic activity, even if it is  a fully tradeable fiat currency such as the Pound Sterling, you would have to have something else to trade for it. If the currency owner is not particularly interested in the trade then you have major problems.

 

Scotland may be a net exporter, but what if England were to source those imports from elsewhere - I cannot think off hand of anything which England gets from Scotland which it could not get elsewhere. I know this will grate, but no longer in the EU we can effectively buy what we want from who we want without being subject to third party controls. New Zealand lamb, Argentine beef, Canadian salmon - you get the picture. Whisky may be a bit of a problem, we will just have to drink Somerset Cider Brandy, it is jolly good - even if the chap who makes it, Julian Temperley (whom I know slightly) is a first rate wally!

 

Of course Scotland could do the same, using all it's underutilised ports, but to do so would require hard currency, which rather takes us back to my first paragraph!

 

The sort of economic schism along the border which would likely result from a refusal of Scotland to accept it's share of the UK debt would hurt on both sides, but would perhaps be ruinous to Scotland, painful to England.

 

The whole matter, debt and currency, is so central to the business that it should be included from the start. If it is not thought through then the whole project, even if it gets to and past the referendum stage, will fail. Scotland will be the loser.

 

I have said before, I am a West Country Englishman. If Scotland is indeed serious about independence (which i have also said before I doubt) then the path is clear,  campaign for the next election (next year?) on the basis of having a referendum (with or without Westminster's consent) to give a clear mandate; or possibly with the intention of a Scottish Parliament with an indisputable mandate beginning an independence process. In both cases I doubt whether Westminster would, or could stop it. But do not be blinded by the emotion, kilts and waving saltires, no more than we may be by any sentimental attachment to the Union  (I have none); undoing the United Kingdom will be hard, expensive and involve considerable sacrifices. Sacrifices which will probably hurt Scotland more than England. Knowing and stating, in reasonable detail how you intend to conduct the new country's economic affairs, currency and debt, is an integral part of the independence process, which needs to be understood by both parties from the start. It is the responsibility of the Scottish National Party to face that.

Edited December 5, 2020 by herfiehandbag

[2530Ubon]

If Scotland wishes to be independent, than independent it should be.

 

However, I do hope the Scottish people are smart enough to read through all the BS that he SNP has come out with. Unfortunately the English were far too stupid, and didn't see the lies Boris and Nigel were spouting from their mouths until it was too late. They even had a few court judgements against the brexiteers that said they lied and cheated their way to the 'yes' vote.

Unfortunately, we too were denied a second referendum after those lies had been exposed. Mostly because Corbin (the leader of the opposition) hated the EU just as much as his Tory counterparts, and refused to back a second referundum.

 

Independence would have so many ramifications that joining the EU would not be an easy thing. Scotland would need to spend a vast amount of money just to have sufficient infrastructure to run as an independent country. Border controls, passport issuance, a currency they could control, an armed forces just to name a few.

 

On another independence thread (there seems to be a lot of these now), I had an interesting conversation regarding oil and The Shetlands seeking independence and claiming aroound 50% of the oil in the north sea. That conversation was actually a little pointless, because although it was proven that this would be the case (the other chap tried to claim that Scotland would have all of the continental shelf and waters surrounding a sovereign state - a little bit silly, as if this was the case, then why couldn't the UK simply deny an independent Scotland any of the UK's continental shelf.), the point seems a bit mute.

 

Mostly because there is no money left in extracting oil now that prices are at rock bottom, and there does not seem to be any recovery in the near future. Oil production in the sea reached it's peak a long time ago, and there isn't much left WORTH extracting due to economics. Analysis by oil consultancy Wood Mackenzie published last month predicted that 140 of the 330 fields in the UK North Sea may close in the next five years, even if the price of oil returns to $85 a barrel.

 

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/economics-and-finance/collapsing-oil-price-final-nail-in-coffin-scottish-independence-coronavirus-sturgeon-referendum

According to analysis published by Alex Kemp and his colleagues at the University of Aberdeen, a third of the remaining resources could now be left in the ground, and even some existing producing fields could be in jeopardy if prices stay at current levels. Profits and therefore tax revenues will be minimal and because government pays back a share of the decommissioning costs as fields are closed down, the net tax take is likely to be negative.

 

With oil being the SNP's major card to play for an economically independent Scotland, this now must be seen in the correct context. Where would an independent Scotland get it's money from? The Institute for Fiscal Studies summarises on page 46 the major public spending cuts needed, with many different scenarios. Cuts range from 8 -27% 8 percent being the most optimal choice, but that is mostly dependent on North Sea oil revenues - which have stagnated. A conclusion on page 54 states;

An independent Scotland would have the freedom to make its own decisions about spending priorities and the appropriate design of the tax system, but it would be constrained by the necessity to deliver a significant cut in spending and/or increase in tax revenues in order to put its public finances in a sustainable long-run position

https://www.ifs.org.uk/comms/r88.pdf

 

What are Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP doing talking about another vote now anyway? If I were living in Scotland (my family are all Scots born and bred, my parents are both scots but I was born south of the border) I would be incensed that they are talking about this constantly in the midst of a major pandemic. People lives are being lost - some of that is her fault with the care home debacle, the 'massaged' figures she released and the secret outbreak in the capital. There are much more important things to deal with right now.

 

All of this is not to say Scotland shouldn't seek independence, but voters should certainly scrutinize whether they would be better off or not.

[2530Ubon]

2 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

 

The pound is a fully tradeable fiat currency so there would be little to stop Scotland using the pound.

Fiat money is a government-issued currency that isn't backed by a commodity such as gold. Fiat money gives central banks greater control over the economy because they can control how much money is printed. Most modern paper currencies, such as the U.S. dollar, are fiat currencies.

 

Several countries around the world use the currency of another state - most commonly the dollar, used in Ecuador, Zimbabwe and El Salvador. For an example closer to home, Montenegro currently uses the euro, despite not being a member of the European Union.

 

The drawback is that when using someone else's currency without permission, you have no input on monetary policy, such as setting interest rates.

This could create problems if, for example, one country was in recession and required a cut in interest rates, but the other country - which had the power to set monetary policy - was growing strongly and decided to raise rates instead.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-44256059

In an interview last year with BBC Newsnight, Lord King - a former Bank governor - said: "I don't think that's a big question. I think the problem for those who want to argue for independence is that in terms of this monetary solution, it certainly removes in my view the argument against independence, but it does so at the cost of making absolutely clear that Scotland would have no independent say over monetary policy.

"It would have to just accept the monetary policy coming out of the Bank of England in London, and it would also mean the supervision of the Bank of England."

 

Ideally, Scotland would wish to create it's own currency, but this will take a long time, as it wouldn't want to peg the currency against the pound - control of the currency would still be in the hands of the Bank of England. So a completely new currency with a new independent central bank would be required. It would be necessary not just to print banknotes but also to reprogram the banks’ computers and convert corporate and government accounts. ATM's, vending machines and all coin/note pay stations will have to be retrofitted. It’s worth recalling that it took 2 years to complete the changeover from Europe’s legacy currencies to the euro. A credible plan for Scotland would require policymakers to start preparing now, so whilst there is a lot of talk about independence, I would like to see some firm details instead of the often given "We'll talk about it when it's neccessary"

[RuamRudy]

5 hours ago, Bell1234 said:

Karma? If you give the English the vote then Scotland would be gone the next day.. Karma haha we couldn't care less.

But England (1) doesn't need to bother because Westminster is a defacto English parliament; (2) it hasn't the balls or the ability to stand on its own two feet. 

[RuamRudy]

4 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

A rather late answer I know; but unless you had, from day one, introduced your own currency along with all the institutions and infrastructure needed to guarantee it ( a step which the Nationalist cause is remarkably reluctant to discuss, preferring to wait "until the time is right") then you would be needing  to use our currency; which may pose a problem if you refuse to acknowledge any debt!

 

In addition,I suppose, if we look at the geography of the matter, an independent Scotland would need to import a great many things either from or through England. Tariffs on that flow would be a (very) small start on addressing that debt (in reality a sanction, but presented as reclaiming monies owed), and would concentrate your minds on resolving the matter.

 

Does Scotland currently have no ports and could it not further develop them? If our corrupt an incompetent Nasty Party can convert Kent into a Brexit-shambles lorry park in a matter of weeks, do you not suppose Scotland could manage something similar (albeit with more competence and less corruption)? As it happens, we have significant deep water ports to the east and west of the country. We are fully capable. 

 

But I fear you also fail to understand the nature of the debt which successive useless English governments have racked up. This isn't like a high street bank loan with interest and capital being repaid to the lender. 

 

And all this pathetic sabre rattling  - save it for down the pub when you are showing off your bulldog tattoos. 

[2530Ubon]

45 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

But I fear you also fail to understand the nature of the debt which successive useless English governments have racked up. This isn't like a high street bank loan with interest and capital being repaid to the lender.

Now you've shown that you don't understand this complex topic. It is not the English government that has 'racked up' debts. Its the UK government - Which contains Members of Parliament from Scotland.(MPs)

 

Read this paper to get some further information. Importantly ;

The level of debt and how an independent Scottish Government would deal with it is a hugely important issue. Given that it is currently running a deficit – its spending exceeds its tax revenue – Scotland will be dependent on the commercial money markets to supply funds to pay for that part of the costs of public services which cannot be paid from current revenues.

https://www.centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk/news-and-opinion/scottish-independence-debt-and-assets

 

Seeing as Scotland spends more than it receives, and Scottish members of parliament have been involved in voting on legislation involving the UK as a whole it's ridiculous to claim that an English government is responsible for all of the debt. It's a marriage, and the divorce should be treated as such. Now, stop your sabre rattling and deal with facts. Nationalistic nonsense like this is what either puts people off voting, or, more worryingly, convinces them that you're correct!

Edited December 5, 2020 by 2530Ubon

[RuamRudy]

2 minutes ago, 2530Ubon said:

Now you've shown that you don't understand this complex topic. It is not the English government that has 'racked up' debts. Its the UK government - Which contains Members of Parliament from Scotland.(MPs)

 

Read this paper to get some further information. Importantly ;

The level of debt and how an independent Scottish Government would deal with it is a hugely important issue. Given that it is currently running a deficit – its spending exceeds its tax revenue – Scotland will be dependent on the commercial money markets to supply funds to pay for that part of the costs of public services which cannot be paid from current revenues.

https://www.centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk/news-and-opinion/scottish-independence-debt-and-assets

 

 

At no point have I ever suggested that deficit or debt were simple matters that could be ignored; what I have responded to are all these posts which state 'you will need to pay your debt' as if there was to be a bulk transfer of hard currency on day one to wipe out any historic obligations. Any suggestion of the sort is utterly incorrect and shows ignorance of national debt facilities. I am more than happy to discuss these matters on respectful terms, but I do confess to getting frustrated at those who dispense their lack of knowledge with patronizing arrogance and a complete lack of self awareness. 

 

 

10 minutes ago, 2530Ubon said:

Seeing as Scotland spends more than it receives, and Scottish members of parliament have been involved in voting on legislation involving the UK as a whole it's ridiculous to claim that an English government is responsible for all of the debt.

 

Every single part of the UK with the exception of the city of London spends more than it makes. Every country in the world spends more than it makes. It is completely disingenuous to repeatedly state that Scotland runs a deficit without adding the additional caveat that it is simply doing what every country does, albeit without access the economic levers that most countries can employ, and without any say over more than half the spending attributed to us. 

 

The UK national debt has almost doubled since the tories came to power in 2010. Scotland has rejected the Tories at every single election since 1955. It might be a UK debt, but it was racked up by a party enable by English voters. I am not dismissing any obligations to it; I am, once more, pointing out to those who don't understand what they are talking about and keep saying that Scotland has to clear its debts, that the debt was massively created by a party that we did not elect or support. 

 

15 minutes ago, 2530Ubon said:

Now, stop your sabre rattling and deal with facts. Nationalistic nonsense like this is what either puts people off voting, or, more worryingly, convinces them that you're correct!

 

I am too old to simply ignore patronising and arrogant posts, especially when they are so painfully incorrect in their statements. Maybe a goal for 2021. 

 

 

[herfiehandbag]

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Does Scotland currently have no ports and could it not further develop them? If our corrupt an incompetent Nasty Party can convert Kent into a Brexit-shambles lorry park in a matter of weeks, do you not suppose Scotland could manage something similar (albeit with more competence and less corruption)? As it happens, we have significant deep water ports to the east and west of the country. We are fully capable. 

 

But I fear you also fail to understand the nature of the debt which successive useless English governments have racked up. This isn't like a high street bank loan with interest and capital being repaid to the lender. 

 

And all this pathetic sabre rattling  - save it for down the pub when you are showing off your bulldog tattoos. 

What an astonishingly ignorant response - did it touch a nerve?

 

I was having a discussion with another poster "Rookiescot" as it happened, and for some reason you felt the need to weigh in, not with any sort of contribution, rather a flood of abuse. You say elsewhere in this thread that you no longer have the patience to reply to posts which you deem to be arrogant and incorrect. It rather seems actually that you don't want to see any posts which do not agree with your own views, so you are just attempting to bully the posters.

 

Bulldog tattoos - I don't have any - "up your kilt Jock!"

Edited December 5, 2020 by herfiehandbag

[RuamRudy]

6 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

What an astonishingly ignorant response - did it touch a nerve?

What is ignorant about it?

[2530Ubon]

10 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

At no point have I ever suggested that deficit or debt were simple matters that could be ignored; what I have responded to are all these posts which state 'you will need to pay your debt' as if there was to be a bulk transfer of hard currency on day one to wipe out any historic obligations. Any suggestion of the sort is utterly incorrect and shows ignorance of national debt facilities. I am more than happy to discuss these matters on respectful terms, but I do confess to getting frustrated at those who dispense their lack of knowledge with patronizing arrogance and a complete lack of self awareness.

That's fair enough, I confess I would be irritated at the notion.

 

12 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Every single part of the UK with the exception of the city of London spends more than it makes. Every country in the world spends more than it makes. It is completely disingenuous to repeatedly state that Scotland runs a deficit without adding the additional caveat that it is simply doing what every country does, albeit without access the economic levers that most countries can employ, and without any say over more than half the spending attributed to us. 

You're right about this of course. I was tying my post in with the last one I made regarding a future independent Scotland. Scotland already runs a 15.1 billion pound deficit, and with the oil revenues plummeting even further, then large social spending cuts must be made. Perhaps free tuition, prescriptions and a myriad of other benefits would evaporate overnight. I wish the UK to remain 4 nations because we are all better off within.

 

Spending per head is significantly higher in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland than it is in England.[2]

Scotland has historically collected more tax per person than has the rest of the UK, although following a decline in the oil price in 2014, Scotland produced slightly less revenue than England per capita in 2014–15.[3][4] As of 2014 and the release of the GERS report, Scotland had a higher deficit relative to the UK deficit as a whole and received an increased net subsidy from UK government borrowing, this deficit was attributed to declining oil revenues as the price of crude oil has fallen. This condition is predicted to only get worse should oil revenues fall further.[5][6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

 

[RuamRudy]

15 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

What an astonishingly ignorant response - did it touch a nerve?

 

I was having a discussion with another poster "Rookiescot" as it happened, and for some reason you felt the need to weigh in, not with any sort of contribution, rather a flood of abuse. You say elsewhere in this thread that you no longer have the patience to reply to posts which you deem to be arrogant and incorrect. It rather seems actually that you don't want to see any posts which do not agree with your own views, so you are just attempting to bully the posters.

 

Bulldog tattoos - I don't have any - "up your kilt Jock!"

 

Forgive me for assuming that a post you make on a public forum was for the exclusive consumption of specific individuals. Possibly you should consider including a list of posters whom you wish to respond and those you wish not to respond?

 

A flood of abuse? Can you be more specific? What was this flood of abuse that has got you so upset? My pointing out your mischaracterisation of national debt servicing is possibly pointed, but I reject any suggestion that it was insulting. 

 

As for the final paragraph in your post, with your talk of the use of punitive tariffs and sanctions used as tools of some notion of remediation, that is nothing but jingoism, hence my bulldog mention, figurative rather than literal. 

[bkkcanuck8]

On 11/30/2020 at 11:12 PM, CorpusChristie said:

 

  Yes, but democracy isnt about keep voting UNTILL you get what you want .

  May as well have a vote once a month until you get the result you want ?

What are you saying, Democracy is about voting for something and it is final forever?  So you can only vote for a one party state....

 

Democracy as typically implemented is about recurring voting regularly because people change their minds about issues and who is best to represent them...

[pacovl46]

8 hours ago, Bell1234 said:

Karma? If you give the English the vote then Scotland would be gone the next day.. Karma haha we couldn't care less.

So why are they refusing to let them vote again then?!

[2530Ubon]

38 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

So why are they refusing to let them vote again then?!

 

Bell1234 was talking nonsense.... A poll taken in August 2020

 

Edited December 5, 2020 by 2530Ubon

[herfiehandbag]

4 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Forgive me for assuming that a post you make on a public forum was for the exclusive consumption of specific individuals. Possibly you should consider including a list of posters whom you wish to respond and those you wish not to respond?

 

A flood of abuse? Can you be more specific? What was this flood of abuse that has got you so upset? My pointing out your mischaracterisation of national debt servicing is possibly pointed, but I reject any suggestion that it was insulting. 

 

As for the final paragraph in your post, with your talk of the use of punitive tariffs and sanctions used as tools of some notion of remediation, that is nothing but jingoism, hence my bulldog mention, figurative rather than literal. 

Of course I don't regard my exchanges with other posters as a private conversation, that is a silly suggestion. If however you were to read my exchange with the other, and take it in context then maybe you would see why weighing in with the sort of abusive comments which you did was at least unnecessary, unduly offensive and frankly making a fool of yourself.

[Rookiescot]

14 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

Of course I don't regard my exchanges with other posters as a private conversation, that is a silly suggestion. If however you were to read my exchange with the other, and take it in context then maybe you would see why weighing in with the sort of abusive comments which you did was at least unnecessary, unduly offensive and frankly making a fool of yourself.

 

Good grief I go on the beer for 24 hours and when I come back a war has started ????

If I may be so bold as to suggest the RR's frustration is not directed at you personally but in general we get a lot of comments on here with a distinctly anti Scottish flavour. I am not suggesting you are one of those commentators for a second. I always find your posts fair and try to respond in kind.

I understand where RR is coming from because some of the posts regarding Scottish independence are made with astonishing levels of ignorance on the matter. Again not yours I hasten to add.

Apologies to Ruamrudy if I have spoken out of turn.

[CorpusChristie]

20 hours ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

What are you saying, Democracy is about voting for something and it is final forever?  So you can only vote for a one party state....

 

Democracy as typically implemented is about recurring voting regularly because people change their minds about issues and who is best to represent them...

 

   So, we have a referendum every four years ?

Scotland leaving and (or not ) rejoining again every four years , just isnt workable .

   Just look at Brexit , if another referendum vote today went to remainers , we would be applying to join again , (which could take 10-20 years ) , before we've even properly left .

   In four years time , we could be applying to leave again, before we've even joined 

  It just doesn't work that way 

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, Rookiescot said:

 

Good grief I go on the beer for 24 hours and when I come back a war has started ????

If I may be so bold as to suggest the RR's frustration is not directed at you personally but in general we get a lot of comments on here with a distinctly anti Scottish flavour. I am not suggesting you are one of those commentators for a second. I always find your posts fair and try to respond in kind.

I understand where RR is coming from because some of the posts regarding Scottish independence are made with astonishing levels of ignorance on the matter. Again not yours I hasten to add.

Apologies to Ruamrudy if I have spoken out of turn.

 

If I jumped the gun, then of course I must apologise to herfiehandbag. If the post to which I responded was the punchline to a multi post riff, I must admit that I never noticed that and assumed that his final paragraph was written in earnest rather than, as I now understand, in jest. 

 

So, lesson to me - don't tilt at windmills. Sorry, herfie. 

[bkkcanuck8]

1 minute ago, CorpusChristie said:

 

   So, we have a referendum every four years ?

Scotland leaving and (or not ) rejoining again every four years , just isnt workable .

   Just look at Brexit , if another referendum vote today went to remainers , we would be applying to join again , (which could take 10-20 years ) , before we've even properly left .

   In four years time , we could be applying to leave again, before we've even joined 

  It just doesn't work that way 

No, but if you state something boldly about the one of the major reasons for staying in the UK is as part of the UK you will remain a member of the EU and as an independent country Scotland would have to start the process outside of the EU (we will call this 'Project Fear')... then take all of the UK out of the EU against the will of the majority of the Scottish people -- I think that warrants a significant enough change to warrant a referendum on whether Scotland should continue to be part of the UK or takes it's chances trying to stay part of the EU.   Referendums to leave should be left up to Scotland as part of self determination (the reverse is not true since you need all parties to agree).  The fact that after 300+ years of union - that the referendum was close - may be an indicator that maybe something is wrong with the Union as it is anyways.

[vogie]

Just now, bkkcanuck8 said:

No, but if you state something boldly about the one of the major reasons for staying in the UK is as part of the UK you will remain a member of the EU and as an independent country Scotland would have to start the process outside of the EU (we will call this 'Project Fear')... then take all of the UK out of the EU against the will of the majority of the Scottish people -- I think that warrants a significant enough change to warrant a referendum on whether Scotland should continue to be part of the UK or takes it's chances trying to stay part of the EU.   Referendums to leave should be left up to Scotland as part of self determination (the reverse is not true since you need all parties to agree).  The fact that after 300+ years of union - that the referendum was close - may be an indicator that maybe something is wrong with the Union as it is anyways.

So what are your thoughts if Scotland had won the independence referendum in 2014, they would have been forced to leave the EU would they not? Would you still be blaming England for Scotlands departure?