1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

 

That's right - 22 polls in row showing that we want nothing to do with the rancid, corrupt politics of Westminster and the greedy selfishness of the Nasty Party, then one poll at the height of the most difficult period in recent SNP history - and the best the yoons can do is scrape 50/50! Oh man, I was actually a touch worried about how it was playing out but thankfully most people seem still see that being in the UK has been a disaster for Scotland all along, and the only way we can better our country is stop our neighbouring country for interfering as they do, and from looting our pockets. 

I did warn you when you were putting those dodgy polls up and you were cartwheeling around your kitchen that you would regret it, you wouldn't listen, you never do.

Just now, vogie said:

I did warn you when you were putting those dodgy polls up and you were cartwheeling around your kitchen that you would regret it, you wouldn't listen, you never do.

 

Dodgy? You are getting cock a' hoop because of 1, yet the 22 previous are all dodgy? 

You've told us often enough that you don't like polls - are you selective depending upon what they say?

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Dodgy? You are getting cock a' hoop because of 1, yet the 22 previous are all dodgy? 

You've told us often enough that you don't like polls - are you selective depending upon what they say?

I am certainly not getting "cock a'hoop" over any poll, but should you have access to it I might give it one eyes worth.????????????

1 hour ago, vogie said:

I did warn you when you were putting those dodgy polls up and you were cartwheeling around your kitchen that you would regret it, you wouldn't listen, you never do.

 

I thought you didnt believe polls Vogie?

You said that many times when polls showed support fir independence as high as 58%.

Now you trumpet the result of one poll from survation (always returns a lower support for independence) for a unionist newspaper?

This is indeed a dramatic turn of events.

19 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

 

I thought you didnt believe polls Vogie?

You said that many times when polls showed support fir independence as high as 58%.

Now you trumpet the result of one poll from survation (always returns a lower support for independence) for a unionist newspaper?

This is indeed a dramatic turn of events.

Yes but in the interest of balance I know some of you nationalists are religiously in awe of Mickey Mouse polls that show the light striking your side of the street, however when the polls start to retreat faster than Friedrich Paulus 6th army from Stalingrad, it's a case of "All quiet on the Western Front" 

But you keep believing that a SNP under the leadership of N Sturgeon is good for Scotland if you must, but I am not interested in a leader that is destroying part of the UK. 

We have been telling you for ages that it will all end in tears, you wouldn't listen. 

So it's goodnight from me and its goodnight from myself. 

1 minute ago, vogie said:

Yes but in the interest of balance I know some of you nationalists are religiously in awe of Mickey Mouse polls that show the light striking your side of the street, however when the polls start to retreat faster than Friedrich Paulus 6th army from Stalingrad, it's a case of "All quiet on the Western Front" 

But you keep believing that a SNP under the leadership of N Sturgeon is good for Scotland if you must, but I am not interested in a leader that is destroying part of the UK. 

We have been telling you for ages that it will all end in tears, you wouldn't listen. 

So it's goodnight from me and its goodnight from myself. 

 

So the other 22 polls were micky mouse but this one by survation (always shows a lower support for independence) is somehow the holly grail of polls?

Paulus did not retreat from Stalingrad. He was refused permission to do so by Hitler. Consequently he was surrounded. So I'm not sure of the relevance of that. 

All quiet on the Western front also has me somewhat confused given it was a movie about the first world war. Not the second. And was somewhat distant from Stalingrad.

Your glee over the troubles of Sturgeon is well founded in my opinion.  Something does smell off regarding the actions of the Scottish government and the Crown prosecution service. However who was behind it and why has yet to be established. 

1 minute ago, Rookiescot said:

 

So the other 22 polls were micky mouse but this one by survation (always shows a lower support for independence) is somehow the holly grail of polls?

Paulus did not retreat from Stalingrad. He was refused permission to do so by Hitler. Consequently he was surrounded. So I'm not sure of the relevance of that. 

All quiet on the Western front also has me somewhat confused given it was a movie about the first world war. Not the second. And was somewhat distant from Stalingrad.

Your glee over the troubles of Sturgeon is well founded in my opinion.  Something does smell off regarding the actions of the Scottish government and the Crown prosecution service. However who was behind it and why has yet to be established. 

109 pages on this topic.....I reckon if there hadn't been two world wars there would only be about 50.

1 minute ago, Surelynot said:

109 pages on this topic.....I reckon if there hadn't been two world wars there would only be about 50.

 

If there had not been 2 world wars then I suspect some would still be going on about the battle of Trafalgar or maybe Agincourt.  

4 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I see we are back to the 'too stupid' argument again, with a bit of t'too poor' thrown in for good measure.  

 

Interestingly, there are always reasons not leave, but never reasons to stay; that is a bit of a challenge though. 

That's the third time you have repeated the "'too stupid' argument again, with a bit of t'too poor'" on this thread, although you missed out the "too wee" on this occasion.

 

Keep repeating the narrative, people will start to believe you.  It's working for me already.

14 hours ago, sandyf said:

I couldn't agree more. The Scottish government made an error over the investigating officer but that does not equate to innocence.

Very unlikely the case will ever come back to court.

"However, they have so far refused to do so, citing legal privilege. In January 2019, the Government was forced to admit it had acted unlawfully and its investigation had been 'tainted by apparent bias' after Mr Salmond successfully challenged its investigation into complaints against him".

 

Plus half a million of public funds given to Salmond. I wouldn't be too sure. This will not go away and rightly so.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9314169/Holyrood-inquiry-Sturgeons-Deputy-Minister-agrees-release-advice-received-Salmond.html

 

10 hours ago, Surelynot said:

109 pages on this topic.....I reckon if there hadn't been two world wars there would only be about 50.

Yeah and there's only about 3 Scots Nats on the forum. Just shows you the ferocity of a vocal extremist minority. Or is it that empty vessels make the most noise?

 

Anyway, the Scottish nasty party continues to unravel. Ripping the UK apart wasn't enough for them, they now have to rip themselves apart. Finally they have had their arm twisted into releasing the legal advice under the threat of a no confidence vote.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56231222

 

Oh what a tangled web we weave when we first practice to deceive.

16 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Compare apples with apples please.

 

The English number is from 2019; the Scottish is from 2020 during the pandemic. Are there any more inaccuracies in your 'logic'?

 

That's a bit embarrassing! My bad.

 

For clarity's sake, are you saying that (1) the original statement - 'England is being financed by Scotland' - is correct and/or (2) England's GDP per capita is not greater than Scotland's and/or (3) You consider the conclusions reached by the original source to be valid?

 

 

 

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Yeah and there's only about 3 Scots Nats on the forum. Just shows you the ferocity of a vocal extremist minority. 

For me I 'm following the debate without really taking part, but we have seen that "a vocal extremist minority" can win even against basic common sense. 

 

Now I'm still wondering why the champions of "freedom from EU shackles" are denying the Scots "freedom from English shackles". The same reasoning should be applied. 

 

Furthermore, while EU shackles were largely a product of Brexiteers propaganda, English shackles on Scotland are real. And a real problem when the Scots are forced to leave the European Union while they wanted to stay. 

32 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

That's a bit embarrassing! My bad.

 

For clarity's sake, are you saying that (1) the original statement - 'England is being financed by Scotland' - is correct and/or (2) England's GDP per capita is not greater than Scotland's and/or (3) You consider the conclusions reached by the original source to be valid?

 

 

 

 

At national level, every country within the UK is running a deficit. If you zoom into micro detail, you will find huge disparities. I read earlier this week that Islay, an island with a population of a little more than 3,000 people, contributes more to the exchequer than the city of Birmingham. I have been unable to verify the contribution from Brum, but Islay certainly appears to be punching far above its weight:

 

THE FLIPSIDE OF THE ISLAY WHISKY BOOM

 

Compare that with Eigg and the latter probably doesn't come off too well.

 

But to address your questions: 

 

1) I am not convinced of a financial transfer in either direction. The mandarins in Whitehall seem very adept at managing their closed book of accounts when it comes to attributing 'costs' to the devolved nations. What I do think, however, is that National Infrastructure Projects are mostly dominated in England but are paid for by all the parts of the UK - so Scots pay for London Crossrail, London sewage upgrades, HS2 etc. 

 

2) I think that the means of estimating it are so byzantine that the numbers are largely meaningless at anything other than UK level, even if the competition was relevant. There are countries with comparable standards of living as Scotland but with lower GDP. Must Scotland have a proven GDP higher than that of England in order to prove itself viable?

 

3) I haven't verified any of the article's figures in any way, but what it seems to be saying that the potential for growth in Scotland is significant. I don't think the author is stating that the 'wealth' listed in the table, for example, is anything other than potential. 

So it's certainly an unorthodox means of measuring the wealth of nations, and he seems to ignore the service industry which is a huge part of the economy both in England and in Scotland. 

 

So, in summary, the suggestion that English taxpayers are subsidising Scots is not correct, but I would also disagree with the broad brush statement that Scots are subsidising the English either (not the case a couple of decades ago, but that horse has bolted).

 

As was shown this week, the UK is printing its way through the current pandemic. There is very little borrowing taking place - Sunak is just printing more money to support all of the UK. Of course, all of the UK will be expected to pay that back, but what he is doing is not something that only he is capable of doing - other countries are doing exactly the same. 

43 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

At national level, every country within the UK is running a deficit. If you zoom into micro detail, you will find huge disparities. I read earlier this week that Islay, an island with a population of a little more than 3,000 people, contributes more to the exchequer than the city of Birmingham. I have been unable to verify the contribution from Brum, but Islay certainly appears to be punching far above its weight:

 

THE FLIPSIDE OF THE ISLAY WHISKY BOOM

 

Compare that with Eigg and the latter probably doesn't come off too well.

 

But to address your questions: 

 

1) I am not convinced of a financial transfer in either direction. The mandarins in Whitehall seem very adept at managing their closed book of accounts when it comes to attributing 'costs' to the devolved nations. What I do think, however, is that National Infrastructure Projects are mostly dominated in England but are paid for by all the parts of the UK - so Scots pay for London Crossrail, London sewage upgrades, HS2 etc. 

 

2) I think that the means of estimating it are so byzantine that the numbers are largely meaningless at anything other than UK level, even if the competition was relevant. There are countries with comparable standards of living as Scotland but with lower GDP. Must Scotland have a proven GDP higher than that of England in order to prove itself viable?

 

3) I haven't verified any of the article's figures in any way, but what it seems to be saying that the potential for growth in Scotland is significant. I don't think the author is stating that the 'wealth' listed in the table, for example, is anything other than potential. 

So it's certainly an unorthodox means of measuring the wealth of nations, and he seems to ignore the service industry which is a huge part of the economy both in England and in Scotland. 

 

So, in summary, the suggestion that English taxpayers are subsidising Scots is not correct, but I would also disagree with the broad brush statement that Scots are subsidising the English either (not the case a couple of decades ago, but that horse has bolted).

 

As was shown this week, the UK is printing its way through the current pandemic. There is very little borrowing taking place - Sunak is just printing more money to support all of the UK. Of course, all of the UK will be expected to pay that back, but what he is doing is not something that only he is capable of doing - other countries are doing exactly the same. 

 

So your answer to each of the questions I posed is 'Not proven'?

 

Just now, RayC said:

 

So your answer to each of the questions I posed is 'Not proven'?

 

 

I have no information which would prove either position to be correct. Do you?

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Yeah and there's only about 3 Scots Nats on the forum. Just shows you the ferocity of a vocal extremist minority. Or is it that empty vessels make the most noise?

 

Anyway, the Scottish nasty party continues to unravel. Ripping the UK apart wasn't enough for them, they now have to rip themselves apart. Finally they have had their arm twisted into releasing the legal advice under the threat of a no confidence vote.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56231222

 

Oh what a tangled web we weave when we first practice to deceive.

"Yeah and there's only about 3 Scots Nats on the forum. Just shows you the ferocity of a vocal extremist minority. Or is it that empty vessels make the most noise?"

This is much more about the English not wanting to let the Scots decide themselves. You're blaming the Scots for wanting to decide their own future while ignoring the English wanting to dominate the Scots.

 

"Anyway, the Scottish nasty party continues to unravel. Ripping the UK apart wasn't enough for them, they now have to rip themselves apart. Finally they have had their arm twisted into releasing the legal advice under the threat of a no confidence vote."

So just let them go and it isn't your problem anymore.

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I have no information which would prove either position to be correct. Do you?

 

Which rather begs the question, why did you endorse the post containing the statement 'England is being financed by Scotland', if you were unsure of its'  correctness or its' supporting source's validity?

2 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I have no information which would prove either position to be correct. Do you?

Couple of articles.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_GVA_per_capita

https://fullfact.org/economy/comparing-scottish-uk-growth-rates/

 

The statement in the Fullfact article is particularly relevant: "She may have been referring to something like GDP per head. It’s lower in Scotland than in the UK as a whole, but only by 2-3%"

 

I'm probably hoping against hope that there is no tangential discussion about the merits of GVA as an economic measure, or a questioning of how 'Fullfacts' arrived at their conclusion.

On 3/1/2021 at 3:28 PM, JonnyF said:

Where did I suggest this was the first political drama in Scotland?

 

Oh that's right, I didn't.

OK, maybe you are just a drama queen, "It's really shocking what's going on in Scotland now"

On 3/1/2021 at 3:29 PM, JonnyF said:

 

When did Boris break international law?

Where did I say he did?

 

Oh that's right, I didn't. It was someone else.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/internal-market-bill-breaks-international-law

20 hours ago, vogie said:

. You must realise that independence is a lost cause, the Scots were losing interest even before the Sturgeon/Salmond Show. 

Hold that thought if it makes you feel united.  More clarity will come in May, but for now.

 

A majority (65 per cent) said the coronavirus crisis has made them realise how divided the countries that make up the UK are, with 61 per cent reporting a decreasing feeling of national unity and 59 per cent saying it has made the break-up of the Union more likely - a future which rose to 70 per cent in Scotland.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/edelman-trust-barometer-coronavirus-pandemic-b1808812.html

1 minute ago, sandyf said:

A majority (65 per cent) said the coronavirus crisis has made them realise how divided the countries that make up the UK are, with 61 per cent reporting a decreasing feeling of national unity and 59 per cent saying it has made the break-up of the Union more likely - a future which rose to 70 per cent in Scotland.

You're a bit behind in your surveys ....... latest says 50/50 and falling after all the corruption with the SNP leaks out.

You're also assuming the EU will want Scotland to join after the 5-10 year membership application process.

1 hour ago, RayC said:

 

Which rather begs the question, why did you endorse the post containing the statement 'England is being financed by Scotland', if you were unsure of its'  correctness or its' supporting source's validity?

 

Because there is historical evidence to suggest that it has. 

Also, although I am not convinced that the article backed up the assessment of the poster, I felt that the article itself was of interest, hence my 'like'.

But if you are equally as uncertain of the relative positions, why did you rush to try to disprove the article such that you cited data from two very different periods as evidence? 

6 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

You're a bit behind in your surveys ....... latest says 50/50 and falling after all the corruption with the SNP leaks out.

You're also assuming the EU will want Scotland to join after the 5-10 year membership application process.

And you are assuming the people want snp, and eu. 

 

Let them decide what they want.

53 minutes ago, RayC said:

Couple of articles.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_GVA_per_capita

https://fullfact.org/economy/comparing-scottish-uk-growth-rates/

 

The statement in the Fullfact article is particularly relevant: "She may have been referring to something like GDP per head. It’s lower in Scotland than in the UK as a whole, but only by 2-3%"

 

I'm probably hoping against hope that there is no tangential discussion about the merits of GVA as an economic measure, or a questioning of how 'Fullfacts' arrived at their conclusion.

 

If you apportion the 90%  of the £16 billion that is in the 'extraregio territory' to Scotland (because - why wouldn't you?) that makes Scotland's per capita contribution above £32K exceeding every other part of the UK with the exception of London and the South East. 

 

15 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

You're a bit behind in your surveys ....... latest says 50/50 and falling after all the corruption with the SNP leaks out.

You're also assuming the EU will want Scotland to join after the 5-10 year membership application process.

I am not behind or assuming anything. You rally ought to read what is posted before talking garbage.

The survey was quite recent and about the pandemic, nothing to do with he SNP.

 

You are making an assumption, that I am in favour of independence. That is not the case at this point in time I only support the right of Scotland to make it's own decisions. I did not support independence in 2014 and I would need to see a viable plan for that to change.

In light of the brexit saga the people of Scotland have every right for an alternative future put before them.

Any issue with the EU has little bearing on the right to self determination. Far too much rhetoric from the brexiteers that stabbed Scotland in the back.

7 minutes ago, sandyf said:

I am not behind or assuming anything. You rally ought to read what is posted before talking garbage.

The survey was quite recent and about the pandemic, nothing to do with he SNP.

 

You are making an assumption, that I am in favour of independence. That is not the case at this point in time I only support the right of Scotland to make it's own decisions. I did not support independence in 2014 and I would need to see a viable plan for that to change.

In light of the brexit saga the people of Scotland have every right for an alternative future put before them.

Any issue with the EU has little bearing on the right to self determination. Far too much rhetoric from the brexiteers that stabbed Scotland in the back.

'Far too much rhetoric from the brexiteers that stabbed Scotland in the back'..

Thats a bit rich..

Are they only supposed to vote the way you want them too?? they use their Democratic right to vote as they see fit,and for that you call them back back stabbers!!

I wasn't allowed to vote,as i was not being located in Scotland at the time of the election,,but i would have been a Brexiteer,and also have voted to remain in the Union,which,i am sure has the best interests of Scotland at heart,rather than be handcuffed to masters/dictators in Brussels.

A post has been removed.

 

If you want your post to remain up stop using derogatory names for politicians to suit your own agenda

1 hour ago, Jimbo53 said:

'Far too much rhetoric from the brexiteers that stabbed Scotland in the back'..

Thats a bit rich..

Are they only supposed to vote the way you want them too?? they use their Democratic right to vote as they see fit,and for that you call them back back stabbers!!

I wasn't allowed to vote,as i was not being located in Scotland at the time of the election,,but i would have been a Brexiteer,and also have voted to remain in the Union,which,i am sure has the best interests of Scotland at heart,rather than be handcuffed to masters/dictators in Brussels.

 

I'm sure that one vote would have made a tremendous difference to the result.

We were told that if we wanted to remain in the EU we had to vote to remain in the UK.

England and Wales then voted us out of the EU.

You could call that back stabbing.