3 Things that will make your relationship successful in Thailand

[SaintLouisBlues]

3 minutes ago, sn1per said:

Thanks for the heads up, but I still have all the lies, spin, false info and scare stories ringing in my head from Brexit.  I think we could get a sensible strategy worked out, but only if we left the press, politicians and bureaucrats out of it

Have you thought about a detox - no newspapers, turn off your Internet access for a few days. You're not going to leave press, politicians and especially bureaucrats out, so a detox seems your only option to stop the ringing in your head

[sn1per]

15 minutes ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

Have you thought about a detox - no newspapers, turn off your Internet access for a few days. You're not going to leave press, politicians and especially bureaucrats out, so a detox seems your only option to stop the ringing in your head

 

Detox is for quitters

[RuamRudy]

I'll work on that for you and others who maybe interested, but if my old memory serves me right, there was an in-depth article in one of the rags about this maybe a year ago.  It also listed the "shocking things".   [emoji6]  
 
Only people who actually live in Scotland get to see the way it is run - hence my comments about "policing" the Assembly.

Well, clearly the people who live in Scotland are generally pleased with their performance or they would not be repeatedly handed the mandate to govern.

[jpinx]

11 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Well, clearly the people who live in Scotland are generally pleased with their performance or they would not be repeatedly handed the mandate to govern.

In reducing numbers.  The only reason they are still in power is because there's not been a Holyrood election again,,,,  yet.

[RuamRudy]

6 hours ago, jpinx said:

In reducing numbers.  The only reason they are still in power is because there's not been a Holyrood election again,,,,  yet. [emoji6]

 

I think that you took that from the same article that mentioned the unknown 'shocking' things?

In the 2011 Holyrood election the SNP took slightly more than 44% on a turnout of 50.4%.  In 2016 they took 46.5% of the constituency votes on a turnout of 55.6%.

In the 2010 UK GE, they took 19.9% of the Scottish vote to give them 6 of 56 MPs.  In the 2015 GE, they took 50% of the vote to give them 56 of 59 MPs.

I hope to God that they don't get complacent, but the numbers are not at critical levels quite yet.

 

[7by7]

6 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Now I am in a bit of a quandary - if I point out just how anti-Scottish the Telegraph is (they like us for our pheasant beating skills and our ability to make the whisky they drink, but they don't like it when we forget our place and start to get uppity) I lay myself open to accusations of paranoia, but any objective reader would surely acknowledge that the Telegraph loves Scotland and hates Scots. So I am going to suggest that anyone who wants a credible debate on this matter should, at the very least, take everything the Telegraph says with a fistful of salt. That said, I certainly don't recall anything from the Yes campaign that came close to the sickening thugs who draped themselves in their union flags and rampaged across Glasgow city centre. 

 

Typical shoot the messenger tactics.

 

Had you bothered to read the linked to Telegraph report you would know that it contains incidents of intimidation from both sides.

 

As I have already said, the behaviour of the skinhead thugs was appalling. But the incident occurred AFTER the result was known! So please explain how it influenced the way people voted.

 

6 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

I fully agree with your closing statement - here is the Wikipedia page dedicated to BBC criticism, with a lengthy section on accusations of anti independence bias from academics, The National Union of Journalists, The Scotsman (hardly a pro-indy newspaper), the Audience Council Scotland, The Sunday Times, former BBC employees and media professionals. Are they all cherry picking too?

 

 

So the BBC is your primary source of information? That could explain so much...

Ah part of a Wikipedia article about accusations; no cherry picking there, then!

 

It is a fact of life; the left say that the BBC is biased towards the right; the right say it is biased towards the left.

 

6 years old; but interesting: UK media bias: BBC and Channel 4 beat Sky and ITV on political balance

 

No, the BBC is not my primary source of information; but as we were discussing accusations of BBC bias I pointed out to you that those of us in the UK are better placed to judge than you in Thailand as we have far more access to their output than do you.

 

6 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

 

Correct, my apologies -  but as the Daily Mail said, "Afterwards she [the queen] took the highly unusual step of stopping to converse with wellwishers outside the church – while aides pointedly invited surprised photographers to come and take pictures of her exchanges with the locals.".
 

 

Then we must disagree about just how negative her words are - such as shame that she tarnished her decades of service by betraying her supposedly sacred oath. I thought she was better than that.

 

Highly unusual, not unprecedented; she's done so before.

 

When asked by a member of the public (who you doubtless believe to be a plant from No. 10) she stated that it was an important decision and voters should think carefully before deciding. What about that do you disagree with? Do you think it was not an important decision; that voters should not have thought carefully before deciding; or is it both which you find disagreeable?

 

6 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

 

Yes, disappointing in the extreme - but with a turnout of almost 85%, it is still remarkable for any British plebiscite in recent years. I cannot help but wonder if the playing fields had been lever, how the result may have fared.

 15% of Scottish voters didn't care enough about the issue to vote. I think it is reasonable to assume that Yes supporters did care enough about the issue and so most of that 15% were not Yes supporters.

 

Level playing field? Still making excuses for the fact that nearly two thirds of Scottish voters either voted to remain in the Union or cared so little about Scottish independence that they didn't bother to vote.

 

6 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

 

Absolutely not! I am actually quite stunned by your suggestion. Why should be continue to live under a very far from perfect situation when we have the power to make things vastly better. You may want to give up, but that to me is shameful.

 

Because that is what the majority of Scottish voters wanted! Just as the majority of UK voters wanted to leave the EU.

 

I believe in democracy, even when it means decisions are made with which I disagree; shame that you don't.

 

By all means carry on campaigning from Thailand, just as Connery does from Switzerland (isn't it odd that so many vociferous Scottish independence supporters love Scotland so much that they live elsewhere?), for another referendum; but stop whingeing about and finding excuses for your defeat at the last one.

[jpinx]

7 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Typical shoot the messenger tactics.

........ 

 

You make some very valid points from your side of the wall (Hadrian's).  Too many wannbe Scots talk too much and do too little. The population of Scotland has gradually been "anglified" over many generations, and now it's being "europeanised", but the real Scots continue to leave for wider horizons, creating a minimally Scottish electorate, and a massively Scottish expat pool of "commentators" with the best of intentions but the least idea of what life in Scotland is actually like.  Conquest by creeping immigration is a very old tactic -- Russia and England are/were expert at this - witness Crimea and Northern Ireland......

 

 

[RuamRudy]

14 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Typical shoot the messenger tactics.

 

Had you bothered to read the linked to Telegraph report you would know that it contains incidents of intimidation from both sides.

 

As I have already said, the behaviour of the skinhead thugs was appalling. But the incident occurred AFTER the result was known! So please explain how it influenced the way people voted.

 

I have never denied that there are idiots on both sides of the argument, however all through the referendum campaign, our corrupt media connived to paint a picture of thuggish behaviour from Yes voters only, the Telegraph being a particularly avid proponent of that narrative. THAT narrative, as part of the larger Project Fear, directly contributed to the poisoning of public opinion to suggest that Nationalists were somehow fascists, Anti English etc. The reality, as we all see, is that the only thuggish behaviour came from the BNP, the Orange Order, UKIP and myriad other repulsive hate organisations - laughingly, all playing their part in trying to paint the SNP and the Yes vote as being  racist!

14 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Ah part of a Wikipedia article about accusations; no cherry picking there, then!

 

How is it cherry picking? You told me that you couldn't find any evidence of complaints of BBC bias and I provide you with 8 independent and credible accusations of bias (not including those from Salmond). How do you suggest that I present you with myriad evidence in a way that cannot be ridiculously labelled as cherry picking?

 

14 hours ago, 7by7 said:

No, the BBC is not my primary source of information; but as we were discussing accusations of BBC bias I pointed out to you that those of us in the UK are better placed to judge than you in Thailand as we have far more access to their output than do you.

 

 

As I implied previously, an utterly ridiculous sentiment to make.

 

14 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Highly unusual, not unprecedented; she's done so before.

 

 

Please provide examples relating to events prior to the Scottish Independence Referendum. 

 

14 hours ago, 7by7 said:

When asked by a member of the public (who you doubtless believe to be a plant from No. 10) she stated that it was an important decision and voters should think carefully before deciding. What about that do you disagree with? Do you think it was not an important decision; that voters should not have thought carefully before deciding; or is it both which you find disagreeable?

 

Do you think that she believed that we (the Scottish people) needed her to advise us of the magnitude of the referedum? Are you suggesting that she was fearful that we might act in haste, and could only think logically if she was to break her oaths? What a selfless woman she must be, in your eyes.

 

14 hours ago, 7by7 said:

15% of Scottish voters didn't care enough about the issue to vote. I think it is reasonable to assume that Yes supporters did care enough about the issue and so most of that 15% were not Yes supporters.

 

Level playing field? Still making excuses for the fact that nearly two thirds of Scottish voters either voted to remain in the Union or cared so little about Scottish independence that they didn't bother to vote.

 

Your expectation of Scottish people is, while heartwarming, misguided. I think it is remarkable that so many people were engaged in the debate, given how little interest people take in politics these days. But I am making no excuses for anyone - we simply learn  from the mistakes and the weak defences and try to build on those so that things are better prepared next time.

14 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Because that is what the majority of Scottish voters wanted! Just as the majority of UK voters wanted to leave the EU.

 

I believe in democracy, even when it means decisions are made with which I disagree; shame that you don't.

 

Just as a stolen election sits uneasily with those on the losing side (see the US outrage over the supposed Russians interference in the US election, for example) the knowledge that dirty tricks and smears won the day with the Scottish Referendum makes me angry. If all had been open, fair and transparent (i.e. democratic) then of course I would accept it, however this was not the case. 

 

14 hours ago, 7by7 said:

By all means carry on campaigning from Thailand, just as Connery does from Switzerland (isn't it odd that so many vociferous Scottish independence supporters love Scotland so much that they live elsewhere?), for another referendum; but stop whingeing about and finding excuses for your defeat at the last one.

 

As I suggested to you previously, I would never assume to know anything about you - but clearly you assume to know all about me. Unfortunately a cursory glance at my profile would show you that you are wrong in your very first statement, but as you are wrong in so many other ways too, I am not overly surprised. But you know absolutely nothing of me or my relationship with Scotland now or in the past; you do not know of my ties, connections, assets (financial or otherwise), my family, friends, my visits home, my frequency of interactions with Scotland, Scottish people or Scottish debate but you are happy to sit in your ivory tower and pontificate as if, somehow, you are the voice of knowledge and reason. Of course, you have the BBC.

[RuamRudy]

14 hours ago, jpinx said:

 

You make some very valid points from your side of the wall (Hadrian's).  Too many wannbe Scots talk too much and do too little. The population of Scotland has gradually been "anglified" over many generations, and now it's being "europeanised", but the real Scots continue to leave for wider horizons, creating a minimally Scottish electorate, and a massively Scottish expat pool of "commentators" with the best of intentions but the least idea of what life in Scotland is actually like.  

 

 

Hugely patronising to those of us both home and abroad - I assure you that I have a lifetime of knowledge of what Scotland is actually about, knowledge that is definitely not out of date.

 

While it is true that the majority of people who were born in Scotland voted to leave the UK (a hugely encouraging fact that gives me hope for the next time) they were outvoted by incomers (a term I do not use in the pejorative sense). Hopefully the combined effect of the ongoing dismal efforts of the Westminster government and opposition as they make hash after hash of Brexit, and the counterpoint example of the Scottish government's competent, confident performance will help them see that there is nothing to fear and everything to gain from leaving the UK. 

 

[jpinx]

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Hugely patronising to those of us both home and abroad - I assure you that I have a lifetime of knowledge of what Scotland is actually about, knowledge that is definitely not out of date.

 

While it is true that the majority of people who were born in Scotland voted to leave the UK (a hugely encouraging fact that gives me hope for the next time) they were outvoted by incomers (a term I do not use in the pejorative sense). Hopefully the combined effect of the ongoing dismal efforts of the Westminster government and opposition as they make hash after hash of Brexit, and the counterpoint example of the Scottish government's competent, confident performance will help them see that there is nothing to fear and everything to gain from leaving the UK. 

 

No patronising needed, the people who shout loudest from their residence in a  far-off land are not what Scotland needs.  Scotland needs Scots people, not the mish-mash of incomers from England, and now Europe.  How many people living in Scotland nowadays can dance an eightsome reel and recite a verse of Burns?

[RuamRudy]

2 minutes ago, jpinx said:

How many people living in Scotland nowadays can dance an eightsome reel and recite a verse of Burns?

 

You would be surprised. My old primary school was recently replaced with a combined Gaelic / English medium version - Gaelic schools are increasing in numbers, as are the number of Gaelic speakers, albeit modestly. Of course, Gaelic was never a Scotland-wide language but it indicates an increase in interest in the culture. Doric, Lallans and the other Scots variants were never really under threat. 

 

As for Scottish country dancing, I often go to see my nephew teach button box to other youngsters on the feis, and the country dancing is as enthusiastic as ever. 

[jpinx]

11 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

You would be surprised. My old primary school was recently replaced with a combined Gaelic / English medium version - Gaelic schools are increasing in numbers, as are the number of Gaelic speakers, albeit modestly. Of course, Gaelic was never a Scotland-wide language but it indicates an increase in interest in the culture. Doric, Lallans and the other Scots variants were never really under threat. 

 

As for Scottish country dancing, I often go to see my nephew teach button box to other youngsters on the feis, and the country dancing is as enthusiastic as ever. 

The examples given were only that - examples.  The real Scottish people know who they are.   As for the "Stolen Referendum",  it could come and go now with no change apart from more frustration.  The proposal to hold a UK-wide referendum has a lot of merit, but what MP is going to dare put that idea forward in Westminster?

[7by7]

RuamRudy, I am not going to respond to all of your last post addressed to me as you are merely repeating yourself and so my responses would also be mere repetition.

 

However, I will respond to a couple of points.

 

8 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

22 hours ago, 7by7 said:

but as the Daily Mail said, "Afterwards she [the queen] took the highly unusual step of stopping to converse with wellwishers outside the church – while aides pointedly invited surprised photographers to come and take pictures of her exchanges with the locals.".

Please provide examples (of the Queen speaking to well wishers) relating to events prior to the Scottish Independence Referendum. 

 Do you know the difference between 'highly unusual' and 'unprecedented?' It appears not.

 

Even 'highly unusual' is not really that accurate. How generations of well-wishers have greeted the Queen and members of the Royal Family outside Sandringham church on Christmas Day

 Can't seem to copy it, but a picture there of the Queen and other royals talking to the crowd in 1993. Is that far enough before the Scottish referendum for you?

 

Here's one a bit closer to the referendum; Jan 2012: The Queen meets well-wishers at Flitcham church

Quote

Wearing a hot pink coat with black accessories, the Queen chatted to the public and received flowers from a queue of children after the service.

 

Of course, most of the conversations between Her Majesty and members of the public are of no interest to the press; but on this occasion it was. No one, as far as I can find, has quoted what Her Majesty was actually asked, but it was obviously to do with her thoughts on the referendum in Scotland.

 

It seems to me she gave as diplomatic a reply as possible:

 

"It's an important decision." Well, surely you must agree with that!

 

She hoped people would “think very carefully about the future” before voting. Are you saying people should vote without thinking?

 

8 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Do you think that she believed that we (the Scottish people) needed her to advise us of the magnitude of the referedum? Are you suggesting that she was fearful that we might act in haste, and could only think logically if she was to break her oaths? What a selfless woman she must be, in your eyes.

She was asked a question; she responded with as diplomatic a reply as possible:

 

The Union is, by all accounts, very dear to the Queen's heart, so I do not dispute that she wished for a 'No' vote. But she takes her Coronation oath and constitutional responsibilities very seriously, which is why she will never contemplate retiring. The idea that she could be persuaded to break her oath on this occasion is both ludicrous and an insult to Her Majesty.

 

8 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

As I suggested to you previously, I would never assume to know anything about you - but clearly you assume to know all about me. Unfortunately a cursory glance at my profile would show you that you are wrong in your very first statement,

 

As this is a Thai forum I assumed that you lived in Thailand, not the Philippines. My mistake.

 

But my point is still valid. Those of us in the UK have far more access to all of the UK's media than those of you who live abroad.

 

Can you get BBC Alba in Manila? I can in England, though I don't watch it as I don't speak Scottish Gaelic.

 

[jpinx]

9 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

You would be surprised. My old primary school was recently replaced with a combined Gaelic / English medium version - Gaelic schools are increasing in numbers, as are the number of Gaelic speakers, albeit modestly. Of course, Gaelic was never a Scotland-wide language but it indicates an increase in interest in the culture. Doric, Lallans and the other Scots variants were never really under threat. 

 

As for Scottish country dancing, I often go to see my nephew teach button box to other youngsters on the feis, and the country dancing is as enthusiastic as ever. 

To answer the earlier query about Scotland and the EU.....

To join the EU now your deficit has to be 3% of GDP or below (Maastricht Treaty).  UK deficit currently 4%, but we are in already.  This is to prevent another Greek situation. The latest online published Scot Gov results are here

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/08/2132

or 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37167975

But since then Scotland has climbed to 9.5% of GDP.   Greece is currently 7.2 and Spain 5.1.   North Sea oil is returning zip at the moment in reality. Plus if Scotland came out of the UK it would be in line to pay for a percentage of decommissioning platforms.   The other problem is that to join the EU at present you have to take the Euro.

[RuamRudy]

17 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

On 1/4/2017 at 11:23 AM, RuamRudy said:

 

On 1/3/2017 at 8:46 PM, 7by7 said:

but as the Daily Mail said, "Afterwards she [the queen] took the highly unusual step of stopping to converse with wellwishers outside the church – while aides pointedly invited surprised photographers to come and take pictures of her exchanges with the locals.".

Please provide examples (of the Queen speaking to well wishers) relating to events prior to the Scottish Independence Referendum. 

 Do you know the difference between 'highly unusual' and 'unprecedented?' It appears not.

 

While I am not going to start bleating about your disregard for the forum rules or debate etiquette in general, I will point out that the answer you gave above was to a question I never actually asked because you changed my question in your quoting of my text. So I will repeat my question - provide examples where, prior to the Scottish Referendum, the queen has made public comment on contemporary political matters. Please do not (1) change my text in any way; (2) try to obfuscate with irrelevance.

 

17 hours ago, 7by7 said:

my point is still valid. Those of us in the UK have far more access to all of the UK's media than those of you who live abroad.

 

Can you get BBC Alba in Manila? I can in England, though I don't watch it as I don't speak Scottish Gaelic.

 

I repeat, you know nothing about me, my ties to the UK or the time I spend there. You have made several incorrect assumptions about me in this debate. Surely you should have learnt by now that your reliance upon your assumptions is one of your weaknesses?

 

As for BBC Alba, I can watch it, should I choose to do so, when I am in the UK. However, not being a Gaelic speaker, I choose not to.   

[RuamRudy]

17 hours ago, jpinx said:

To answer the earlier query about Scotland and the EU.....

To join the EU now your deficit has to be 3% of GDP or below (Maastricht Treaty).  UK deficit currently 4%, but we are in already.  This is to prevent another Greek situation. The latest online published Scot Gov results are here

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/08/2132

or 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37167975

But since then Scotland has climbed to 9.5% of GDP.   Greece is currently 7.2 and Spain 5.1.   North Sea oil is returning zip at the moment in reality. Plus if Scotland came out of the UK it would be in line to pay for a percentage of decommissioning platforms.   The other problem is that to join the EU at present you have to take the Euro.

 

While the cutting up of the pie is the responsibility of the Scottish government, the size of the pie is wholly decided by Westminster. 

 

An Independent Scotland would have full control of the levers of the economy, allowing Scots the freedom to take their own decisions on how to tackle the challenges ahead. Of course there would be difficulties and pain, but there have been difficulties and pain by the bucketful since Osborne embarked upon his failed QE, and our unwanted Westminster government is showing little appetite from straying from his path too much, so if more pain was inevitable, I would much prefer it came from Holyrood with wisdom than from Westminster with callous disregard.

Edited January 5, 2017 by RuamRudy

[jpinx]

10 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

While the cutting up of the pie is the responsibility of the Scottish government, the size of the pie is wholly decided by Westminster. 

 

An Independent Scotland would have full control of the levers of the economy, allowing Scots the freedom to take their own decisions on how to tackle the challenges ahead. Of course there would be difficulties and pain, but there have been difficulties and pain by the bucketful since Osborne embarked upon his failed QE, and our unwanted Westminster government is showing little appetite from straying from his path too much, so if more pain was inevitable, I would much prefer it came from Holyrood with wisdom than from Westminster with callous disregard.

The sentiment is ok, but the reality is that EU has been in the throes of QE for a while as well.  More of the same bad medicine everywhere we turn -- no? 

Westminster cutting up the pie makes no difference to the bad economic policies making a deficit.  Holyrood knows how much they're going to get and they could keep their spending within their income -- like any good housewife.

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, jpinx said:

The sentiment is ok, but the reality is that EU has been in the throes of QE for a while as well.  More of the same bad medicine everywhere we turn -- no? 

Westminster cutting up the pie makes no difference to the bad economic policies making a deficit.  Holyrood knows how much they're going to get and they could keep their spending within their income -- like any good housewife.

 

Here is an interesting perspective from an admittedly partisan source, but he makes a reasonable point - one that should not only be considered in a Scottish Independence perspective, but one for any government willing to admit that the current QE model doesn't work.

 

" At this time, with the global economy mired in semi-permanent deflation, the correct government response anywhere is not just to run a budget deficit but to increase it. In fact, many economists – including fervent defenders of neoliberal orthodoxy – are talking about the need for so-called “helicopter money”, by which the central bank simply prints cash and puts it directly into your bank account to spend, no strings attached. "

Edited January 5, 2017 by RuamRudy
edited to add an excerpt from the article

[jpinx]

20 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Here is an interesting perspective from an admittedly partisan source, but he makes a reasonable point - one that should not only be considered in a Scottish Independence perspective, but one for any government willing to admit that the current QE model doesn't work.

 

" At this time, with the global economy mired in semi-permanent deflation, the correct government response anywhere is not just to run a budget deficit but to increase it. In fact, many economists – including fervent defenders of neoliberal orthodoxy – are talking about the need for so-called “helicopter money”, by which the central bank simply prints cash and puts it directly into your bank account to spend, no strings attached. "

Everyone with a calculator has their own take on how to run the economy, but the reality is that the EU has certain entry requirements , and Scotland doesn't meet them.  That's a fact -- not an opinion   

 

Using a quote from a Marxist is not going to cut any ice -- those policies have failed on numerous occasions around the world.  Trying to "spend your way out of debt" has to be the greatest oxymoron around, and the stupidest idea in financial circles.

Edited January 5, 2017 by jpinx

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, jpinx said:

Everyone with a calculator has their own take on how to run the economy, but the reality is that the EU has certain entry requirements , and Scotland doesn't meet them.  That's a fact -- not an opinion   

 

 

Everyone with even a hint of a pulse seems to have an opinion on whether Scotland would be accepted into the EU, but even if the answer was no, I would still defer back to my earlier point - I would much rather we make our own bugger's muddle rather than continue to endure an unelected English tory government doing it.

 

1 hour ago, jpinx said:

 

Using a quote from a Marxist is not going to cut any ice -- those policies have failed on numerous occasions around the world.  Trying to "spend your way out of debt" has to be the greatest oxymoron around, and the stupidest idea in financial circles.

 

Maybe you should alert the Chinese of the above - their Keynesian approach to infrastructure investment was a significant driver in the country avoiding the recession that rest of the world endured - and continues to endure. But I fear that we are going off topic so shall desist pursuing that. 

Edited January 5, 2017 by RuamRudy

[jpinx]

15 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Everyone with even a hint of a pulse seems to have an opinion on whether Scotland would be accepted into the EU, but even if the answer was no, I would still defer back to my earlier point - I would much rather we make our own bugger's muddle rather than continue to endure an unelected English tory government doing it.

 

 

Maybe you should alert the Chinese of the above - their Keynesian approach to infrastructure investment was a significant driver in the country avoiding the recession that rest of the world endured - and continues to endure. But I fear that we are going off topic so shall desist pursuing that. 

Yea yea :)  Everyone says that about the chinese economy, but anything more different to the Scottish economy can hardly be imagined  

I take your point -- better one's own mess than one imposed on you, but the question won't arise if the EU entrance requirements can not be met

 

 

[7by7]

5 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

While I am not going to start bleating about your disregard for the forum rules or debate etiquette in general, I will point out that the answer you gave above was to a question I never actually asked because you changed my question in your quoting of my text.

 I did not change your text in any way, except to only quote the parts I was actually responding to; which I made very clear I was doing.

 

Go back and read the relevant posts if you do not believe me.

 

You obviously do not care for the answer, as it blows your conspiracy theory apart, but at least I did answer it!

 

Which is more than you have done when asked questions on the matter, so I will ask you for a third time in the probably vain hope that this time you will answer.

 

The Queen said in response to a question from a member of the public that the Scottish independence referendum was an important decision. Do you agree or disagree? Was it important or not?

 

She also said that she hoped people would think carefully before voting. What do you find objectionable to that? Perhaps you feel that thinking carefully would cause people to vote 'No.' Maybe you are correct in that belief as nearly two thirds of Scottish voters either voted 'No' or didn't care enough about Scottish independence to vote at all!

 

5 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

So I will repeat my question - provide examples where, prior to the Scottish Referendum, the queen has made public comment on contemporary political matters. Please do not (1) change my text in any way; (2) try to obfuscate with irrelevance.

 

Queen caught on camera saying Chinese officials were 'very rude'

 

Remarks overheard by the press, just as her remarks concerning the Scottish independence referendum were.

 

Ok that example is from after the Scottish referendum; but there was this with Michelle Obama in 2009.

Seen at the time by some as tacit approval of Obama's presidency. Apart from handshakes, the Queen doesn't voluntarily touch anyone except family in public, and when people breach etiquette by touching her, it happens, she doesn't return the gesture.

 

Going back even further, it was widely reported at the time, and since, that the Queen called Margaret Thatcher "uncaring and socially divisive;" comments leaked by Her Majesty's press secretary. 

 

5 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

I repeat, you know nothing about me, my ties to the UK or the time I spend there. You have made several incorrect assumptions about me in this debate. Surely you should have learnt by now that your reliance upon your assumptions is one of your weaknesses?

 

As for BBC Alba, I can watch it, should I choose to do so, when I am in the UK. However, not being a Gaelic speaker, I choose not to.   

 

I assumed that you lived in Thailand, that was wrong; I now know that according to your profile you live in Manila.

 

So I am not assuming that you do not live in the UK, I am believing your profile; unless your profile is wrong!

 

It is not an assumption that someone who lives outside the UK doesn't have the same 24/7 access to all the BBC's output as someone who lives in the UK; it is a fact, even if that person does visit the UK regularly. Not all BBC output is put on the iPlayer. Plus, not all live BBC broadcasts are available online outside the UK, as I have discovered when attempting to listen to TMS in Thailand.

 

I do assume that you passionately believe in Scottish independence; am I wrong in that assumption?

 

But your passion means you cannot accept that nearly two thirds of your fellow Scots don't share your view and so you desperately search for other reasons for your defeat in the referendum.

 

Including claiming the appalling behaviour of skinhead thugs after the vote had closed and the result had been announced intimidated some people into voting 'No!'

[7by7]

5 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

While the cutting up of the pie is the responsibility of the Scottish government, the size of the pie is wholly decided by Westminster........

 

Yes, Scotland does receive an unfair share of public spending. Probably

Quote

Identifiable spending per capita in Scotland is a bit higher than in Wales, London and north-eastern England, quite a bit lower than in Northern Ireland, and much higher than in southern and eastern England. Again, as needs to be repeated frequently, some of this spending is entirely reasonable. It costs more, per capita, to provide education, health, transport and so on in sparsely populated parts of Scotland. Scotland makes up less than a tenth of the British population but fully a third of the landmass.

But, still, £800 a year more per person? Sure, many of these figures are estimates and it is difficult to be as precise as the numbers claim. They remain, however, the Scottish government’s own figures.

 

I am surprised, though, that you are unaware of the changes which started to come into effect from 6th April 2016. Maybe it's because you don't have as much access to UK news as you think?

 

See the explanatory videos provided by the Scottish Parliament

 

 

[jpinx]

16 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Everyone with even a hint of a pulse seems to have an opinion on whether Scotland would be accepted into the EU, but even if the answer was no, I would still defer back to my earlier point - I would much rather we make our own bugger's muddle rather than continue to endure an unelected English tory government doing it.

 

 

Maybe you should alert the Chinese of the above - their Keynesian approach to infrastructure investment was a significant driver in the country avoiding the recession that rest of the world endured - and continues to endure. But I fear that we are going off topic so shall desist pursuing that. 

One thing that the Scots need to remember is the SNP has had a totally clear desk from which to run the country for ten years already, and still have not addressed the most basic issues of education and health effectively.  Ten years is a hugely long time in politics and really there is no excuse for the continuing problems.  They couldn't even build a bridge within budget!  This longevity of opposition-free governance is/was/should-have-been a golden opportunity for the SNP to lead Scotland forward into the last referendum with flags flying and money in the bank. To not improve performance, but continue to bleat for another referendum smacks of a level of contempt for the electorate's collective intelligence which will surely reap it's rewards in due time -- but they don't care - they'll all be on nice fat index-linked pensions by then,........

 

.....end of morning rant :)

 

P.S.  I still believe Scotland should be independent, but without the snp and only after a UK-wide referendum -- so I'm not holding my breath

Edited January 6, 2017 by jpinx

[RuamRudy]

On 1/6/2017 at 10:45 AM, jpinx said:

One thing that the Scots need to remember is the SNP has had a totally clear desk from which to run the country for ten years already, and still have not addressed the most basic issues of education and health effectively.  Ten years is a hugely long time in politics and really there is no excuse for the continuing problems.  They couldn't even build a bridge within budget!  This longevity of opposition-free governance is/was/should-have-been a golden opportunity for the SNP to lead Scotland forward into the last referendum with flags flying and money in the bank. To not improve performance, but continue to bleat for another referendum smacks of a level of contempt for the electorate's collective intelligence which will surely reap it's rewards in due time -- but they don't care - they'll all be on nice fat index-linked pensions by then,........

 

.....end of morning rant :)

 

P.S.  I still believe Scotland should be independent, but without the snp and only after a UK-wide referendum -- so I'm not holding my breath

 

This morning's BBC UK news feed: 

- Southern Train Drivers on Strike

- Bonfire of Childrens' Rights Opposed

- Hunt Casts Doubt on 4hr A&E Target

- Campaigners Launch Legal Challenge to Snoopers' Charter

 

Add to that tube driver strikes, BA Cabin Crew, Sellafield workers holding a vote on strike action ect ect ect

 

Under no circumstances would I ever suggest that the Scottish government was perfect, but you are criticising them when our Westminster government has proven themselves to be woefully incompetent day in, day out.  Compared to Downing Street, Holyrood is vastly more effective. 

 

You did mention earlier in the thread the SNP's 'shocking' performance - have you been able to find the article that you lifted this soundbite from?

[jpinx]

13 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

This morning's BBC UK news feed: 

- Southern Train Drivers on Strike

- Bonfire of Childrens' Rights Opposed

- Hunt Casts Doubt on 4hr A&E Target

- Campaigners Launch Legal Challenge to Snoopers' Charter

 

Add to that tube driver strikes, BA Cabin Crew, Sellafield workers holding a vote on strike action ect ect ect

 

Under no circumstances would I ever suggest that the Scottish government was perfect, but you are criticising them when our Westminster government has proven themselves to be woefully incompetent day in, day out.  Compared to Downing Street, Holyrood is vastly more effective. 

 

You did mention earlier in the thread the SNP's 'shocking' performance - have you been able to find the article that you lifted this soundbite from?

Please don't try to start a game of pingpong about specific problems.  There is no claim that Scotland is better, or Westminster worse.  Those squabbles are unproductive.  What is interesting is how SNP are proposing to run Scotland, especially given the deficit of 9.4% of GDP they have managed to achieve.

 

Just to follow up on the tax issue in Scotland, here are the scary facts that the snp still haven't faced up to. 

Only 350,000 people in Scotland pay the 40% tax, that is for those earning over £45,000.   

Only 18,000 people in Scotland pay the 45%, those earning over £150,000. 

So there is virtually no tax-base on which to build an independent economy.

Next is the 48 billion offshore decommissioning bill for the platforms, of which Scotland will have the lion's share.

 

 

 

[RuamRudy]

On 1/5/2017 at 7:55 PM, 7by7 said:

 I did not change your text in any way, except to only quote the parts I was actually responding to; which I made very clear I was doing.

 

 

Unfortunately I am not so adept at copying from multiple pages, but my exact text from post #68 was:

"Please provide examples relating to events prior to the Scottish Independence Referendum. "

 

You quoted me in your reply thus:

On 1/4/2017 at 7:58 PM, 7by7 said:

On 1/4/2017 at 11:23 AM, RuamRudy said:

 

On 1/3/2017 at 8:46 PM, 7by7 said:

but as the Daily Mail said, "Afterwards she [the queen] took the highly unusual step of stopping to converse with wellwishers outside the church – while aides pointedly invited surprised photographers to come and take pictures of her exchanges with the locals.".

Please provide examples (of the Queen speaking to well wishers) relating to events prior to the Scottish Independence Referendum. 

 Do you know the difference between 'highly unusual' and 'unprecedented?' It appears not.

The text in parenthesis was not mine so I presume you added it, in contravention of Rule 16 of the Forum rules? Furthermore, your intervention changed the context of the question from the one I asked to that which you wanted to answer. I appreciate that it gave you another opportunity for a cheap dig at me personally, and you certainly seem like one who never ducks such an opportunity, but it was pretty underhand nonetheless.

 

As for the rest of your rant, the narrative you try to weave is as disjointed and irrelevant as your other comments, but you are correct in one respect - we are poles apart in view and unlikely to agree on much so I see no point continuing the dialog with you unless you drop the personal attacks and conform to acceptable forum behaviour. The TV forum has become much less combative over the past few months since another aggressive military man seems to have backed off - the void he left is much better left unfilled.

[RuamRudy]

13 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Please don't try to start a game of pingpong about specific problems.  There is no claim that Scotland is better, or Westminster worse.  Those squabbles are unproductive.  What is interesting is how SNP are proposing to run Scotland, especially given the deficit of 9.4% of GDP they have managed to achieve.

 

Just to follow up on the tax issue in Scotland, here are the scary facts that the snp still haven't faced up to. 

Only 350,000 people in Scotland pay the 40% tax, that is for those earning over £45,000.   

Only 18,000 people in Scotland pay the 45%, those earning over £150,000. 

So there is virtually no tax-base on which to build an independent economy.

Next is the 48 billion offshore decommissioning bill for the platforms, of which Scotland will have the lion's share.

 

 

 

 

I am definitely not trying to do that - I am trying to show that managing a government is far from easy, and you seem to be holding the SNP to a standard that no other government is held to. But, by all means they should be held to account at every opportunity - and I agree that structural changes need to be made.

 

I can remember an SNP slogan from the 80s (or maybe even the 70s, although I was much to young to understand the implications) - Vote For Us and We Will Resign.

 

To me, that was the perfect slogan - the SNP may be the vehicle to independence, but once we achieve that, I would expect them to fracture into left and right, because Independence is not the preserve of one political dogma, but attracts those of all persuasion; I would not be surprised to see a Tory resurgence in an independent Scotland. 

 

With regards the decommissioning of the oil platforms, I speak with a little background knowledge as, in a previous job, I was responsible for asset accounting for a North Sea field for one of the majors. The law, as I understood it at the time, was that oil companies had to basically create a decommissioning pot for each of their assets. The interest from these accounts would be credited as income against the platform etc., and help offset decreasing returns. I cannot confirm, however, if that law still stands now.

 

However as the bulk of the money from the North Sea was squandered by Thatcher/Westminster, I think that there is no doubt that the liability for decommissioning, if not residing with the oil companies themselves, is the responsibility of Westminster and, if Independence comes first, proportionately with Holyrood, much as Scotland is expected to take on a proportionate share of the UK national debt.

[jpinx]

17 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I am definitely not trying to do that - I am trying to show that managing a government is far from easy, and you seem to be holding the SNP to a standard that no other government is held to. But, by all means they should be held to account at every opportunity - and I agree that structural changes need to be made.

 

I can remember an SNP slogan from the 80s (or maybe even the 70s, although I was much to young to understand the implications) - Vote For Us and We Will Resign.

 

To me, that was the perfect slogan - the SNP may be the vehicle to independence, but once we achieve that, I would expect them to fracture into left and right, because Independence is not the preserve of one political dogma, but attracts those of all persuasion; I would not be surprised to see a Tory resurgence in an independent Scotland. 

 

With regards the decommissioning of the oil platforms, I speak with a little background knowledge as, in a previous job, I was responsible for asset accounting for a North Sea field for one of the majors. The law, as I understood it at the time, was that oil companies had to basically create a decommissioning pot for each of their assets. The interest from these accounts would be credited as income against the platform etc., and help offset decreasing returns. I cannot confirm, however, if that law still stands now.

 

However as the bulk of the money from the North Sea was squandered by Thatcher/Westminster, I think that there is no doubt that the liability for decommissioning, if not residing with the oil companies themselves, is the responsibility of Westminster and, if Independence comes first, proportionately with Holyrood, much as Scotland is expected to take on a proportionate share of the UK national debt.

The lack of independent income for Scotland is the key to it's failure as an independent country.  Where is the revenue-stream to fund the government - no matter what colour they might be.... ?

 

 

Edited January 10, 2017 by jpinx

[RuamRudy]

50 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Please don't try to start a game of pingpong about specific problems.  There is no claim that Scotland is better, or Westminster worse.  Those squabbles are unproductive.  What is interesting is how SNP are proposing to run Scotland, especially given the deficit of 9.4% of GDP they have managed to achieve.

 

Just to follow up on the tax issue in Scotland, here are the scary facts that the snp still haven't faced up to. 

Only 350,000 people in Scotland pay the 40% tax, that is for those earning over £45,000.   

Only 18,000 people in Scotland pay the 45%, those earning over £150,000. 

So there is virtually no tax-base on which to build an independent economy.

 

A bit out of date, but this BBC report was from mid 2014, before the oil crash occurred:

 

In 2012-13

Tax revenue generated by Scotland = £53bn

9.1% of UK tax revenue came from Scotland

8.3% of the UK population live in Scotland

£10,000 tax per head in Scotland

£9,200 tax per head, rest of UK

Source: Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS)

 

A more recent analysis shows that:

Even without oil, Scotland’s GDP per head is less than 1% lower than the rest of the UK’s. 

and

Less than a year ago, the FT reported that the Fraser of Allander Institute, the country’s premier economic think-tank, was expressing faith in the robust character of Scotland’s economy. “The oil industry is very, very important and in many ways the jewel in the Scottish economy,” said Brian Ashcroft, the institute’s chief economist, “but the Scottish economy is much bigger than the oil industry and there are lots of areas that will benefit from lower oil prices.” 

 

I have had to do a bit of spreadsheet engineering to reply on your taxpayer comment. Please bear with me, and also correct me if I made a mistake, but my analysis is this:

 

Total number of UK tax payers = 30.1 million (taken from Table 2.1 on this UK gov website) 

The same table shows that the number of higher rate tax payers is 4.41 million. I calculate that to be 14.65% of the UK tax payer base.

 

This BBC page states that the population of Scotland is 8.3% of the UK as a whole. Therefore we can assume that, all things being equal, the total number of Scottish tax payers should be 2.5 million. 

 

You came up with a number of 350,000 Scots in the higher rate tax band - that equates to 14% of the Scottish workforce in the higher tax band, not a massive difference between the UK as a whole, a number that will undeniably be skewed upwards by the disproportionately high salaries of the SE of England.