When will indyref2 happen?

[Theyellowbox]

17 minutes ago, TheBruce said:

The current system is totally fucked up and has created nothing but division.

It's not the nats have the people of Scotland divided and at each other's throats, but that great Tory in Labour clothing named Blair who gave us this shit and Boris doing a great job of keeping it going. We will never prosper in this current system of devolution.

Politics was never an arena for fair paly and integrity, but these last twenty years have seen it nose dive to the depths of total dishonesty and corruption. There's not a party out there you could trust or vote for, that's if you could even work out what any of them stood for anymore. It's all self serving identity politics. The infrastructure of the whole of the UK is in crises. Governments and individuals alike burdened with record debt and no signs of ever getting out of it as costs rise and wages depressed, but the elite can turn in record profits, and not having to pay any tax for the privillage. The gap between the rich and poor widens every minute the clock ticks.

The future of the young mortgaged off. The new norm of offspring living with parents into their 30's. Can't get on the mortgage ladder as wages are so shit and not a council house to be had.

Yes a great reset is needed, just not the one governments have planned for us. Plutocracy rule ok!

The politicians don't lie and more or any less than they ever did. Its just in the past it was never as clear and we all had access to less information that we do now.

You can hardly blame Blair for devolution. It pre dates him and was the increasing want of the Scottish people limg before he was on the scene.

No, the current set up isn't fit for purpose, but I'd argue devolution has, rather than added to the problem, has more shined a light on why and how scotlamd could do things better with either more or full independence.

As pointed out above, the downside of a federal system is unless there is a truly equal central parliament for foreign and monetary policy, then it will not work. Easier to set up from scratch, but if we had regional parliaments and still westminster making the key decisions in isolation and being south east centric, then everyone else is worse off.

Works in Germany as it was already several states pre unification, but did stop the others complaining about it being Prussian centric for decades. 

[git-intae-thum]

11 minutes ago, TheBruce said:

Spoken like a true yesser.

The world has changed. The political dynamic has changed. Power brokers are no longer governments, but global corporations who now influence every strategic aspect of government policy making.

Governments no longer serve the people that voted for them, but serve their corporate masters.

As I've said, governments have turned us into the fools they have always wanted.

I'm not saying indy would be a failure, but the chances of success is small. Also our track record on domestic policy since devolution that we have full control over is littered with failure.

To be clear Scotland is a cottage industry that cannot balance it's books. If it were a business it would already be closed down. 75% of our meagre trade is with England. Don't be thinking that on any indy, the English will be making it easy. Haggis, whisky and tartan are not staples that will sustain a nation. 

Indy would also bring massive uncertainty for a nation that produces little more than the centre of a donut. Borrowngs that all governments need would be at high rates. Not counting the 10% of UK debt of two trillion and counting that we would inherit, wouldn't see us off to a great start. As for joining the EU for handouts, it aint happening, as we would never meet the criteria and Sturgeon herself making soundings away from the idea, particularly when a hard border would be needed with our biggest trading partner in England.

She needs to come out with a coherent plan on her economic modelling, costings, investment. infrastructure and so on. She's had long enough to do so, but as yet it remains all sound bytes and jam tomorrow.

 

 

 

What a load of rubbish.

We are talking about the same Scotland aren't we.

The Scotland that "exports £17,455 per head per year, while the UK exports £8,626"

The only nation in the UK that has a positive balance of payments.....(and has since records began) yet we are miraculously saddled with this huge ficticious debt whilst saddled to the UK.

Aye...no one can survive on whisky right enough.....but the UK economy needs it...It makes up more than 20% of the entire UK food and drink export.

This too wee, too poor, too stupid argument only applies to unionist minds these days.

[speckled tangerine]

26 minutes ago, TheBruce said:

Spoken like a true yesser.

The world has changed. The political dynamic has changed. Power brokers are no longer governments, but global corporations who now influence every strategic aspect of government policy making.

Governments no longer serve the people that voted for them, but serve their corporate masters.

As I've said, governments have turned us into the fools they have always wanted.

I'm not saying indy would be a failure, but the chances of success is small. Also our track record on domestic policy since devolution that we have full control over is littered with failure.

To be clear Scotland is a cottage industry that cannot balance it's books. If it were a business it would already be closed down. 75% of our meagre trade is with England. Don't be thinking that on any indy, the English will be making it easy. Haggis, whisky and tartan are not staples that will sustain a nation. 

Indy would also bring massive uncertainty for a nation that produces little more than the centre of a donut. Borrowngs that all governments need would be at high rates. Not counting the 10% of UK debt of two trillion and counting that we would inherit, wouldn't see us off to a great start. As for joining the EU for handouts, it aint happening, as we would never meet the criteria and Sturgeon herself making soundings away from the idea, particularly when a hard border would be needed with our biggest trading partner in England.

She needs to come out with a coherent plan on her economic modelling, costings, investment. infrastructure and so on. She's had long enough to do so, but as yet it remains all sound bytes and jam tomorrow.

To add, having Swinney as the first Chancellor of The Exchequer of Scotland should be enough to see off even the smallest of investors and the smallest of enterprises closing overnight. Then there is the foreign office portfolio. So I suppose yet another job for Humza. He's failed at everything else. Might as well let him fail at that too and give him a full house. Those under Sturgeon are rank amateurs and incompetents and would give the toughest the fear. Can you seriously have faith in such a crew in charge of an independent and sovereign nation state on a world stage? You'd be the bravest man in the lan

 

[Burning Barns]

12 minutes ago, TheBruce said:

Spoken like a true yesser.

The world has changed. The political dynamic has changed. Power brokers are no longer governments, but global corporations who now influence every strategic aspect of government policy making.

Governments no longer serve the people that voted for them, but serve their corporate masters.

As I've said, governments have turned us into the fools they have always wanted.

I'm not saying indy would be a failure, but the chances of success is small. Also our track record on domestic policy since devolution that we have full control over is littered with failure.

To be clear Scotland is a cottage industry that cannot balance it's books. If it were a business it would already be closed down. 75% of our meagre trade is with England. Don't be thinking that on any indy, the English will be making it easy. Haggis, whisky and tartan are not staples that will sustain a nation. 

Indy would also bring massive uncertainty for a nation that produces little more than the centre of a donut. Borrowngs that all governments need would be at high rates. Not counting the 10% of UK debt of two trillion and counting that we would inherit, wouldn't see us off to a great start. As for joining the EU for handouts, it aint happening, as we would never meet the criteria and Sturgeon herself making soundings away from the idea, particularly when a hard border would be needed with our biggest trading partner in England.

She needs to come out with a coherent plan on her economic modelling, costings, investment. infrastructure and so on. She's had long enough to do so, but as yet it remains all sound bytes and jam tomorrow.

To add, having Swinney as the first Chancellor of The Exchequer of Scotland should be enough to see off even the smallest of investors and the smallest of enterprises closing overnight. Then there is the foreign office portfolio. So I suppose yet another job for Humza. He's failed at everything else. Might as well let him fail at that too and give him a full house. Those under Sturgeon are rank amateurs and incompetents and would give the toughest the fear. Can you seriously have faith in such a crew in charge of an independent and sovereign nation state on a world stage? You'd be the bravest man in the land.

I agree with this part, but not much else.  

The old adage that we do a majority of trade with England, is never caveated with the fact that we could choose to do the majority of our trade with Europe instead, as Ireland did before.  Europe is a much more populous trading block, or "market", than the nations and territories currently in England's sphere of influence (which isn't many).  Not only that, Scots would also have the right to live, work or study in 27 different nations. 

We already have more resources to work with than some of these countries, so the idea that we couldn't join them and be self sustainable ourselves makes no sense outside of Brit Nat propaganda.  As the current century progresses, water will become the new oil.  We'll have loads.  England?  Not so much.  Obviously, the UK's solution will be to steal ours, no doubt, or flood some more of Wales perhaps.  They even plan to drill the North Sea again, for their own benefit, of course

Holyrood ain't perfect, but a lot to be proud of has been achieved there too.  "Littered with failure" more suits the UK government, in my opinion, particularly since 2016.  Since the turn of this century, we've had to endure at least four of the worst PMs ever, in terms of rank incompetence.

[speckled tangerine]

2 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

What a load of rubbish.

We are talking about the same Scotland aren't we.

The Scotland that "exports £17,455 per head per year, while the UK exports £8,626"

The only nation in the UK that has a positive balance of payments.....(and has since records began) yet we are miraculously saddled with this huge ficticious debt whilst saddled to the UK.

Aye...no one can survive on whisky right enough.....but the UK economy needs it...It makes up more than 20% of the entire UK food and drink export.

This too wee, too poor, too stupid argument only applies to unionist minds these days.

Mate, he joined on the 5th August and just happens upon the Independence section of the politics forum - as you do. 

The posting style trots out the same old pish just like a number of other banned posters who's names escape me but it wouldn't surprise me if he's another stooge either paid by SIU, or instructed to spam sites like this by the Scottish Tories or whomever.

We see you Bruce. Nice try.

[Antlion]

5 hours ago, TheBruce said:

 

The list goes on. However, none of it means we can't be successful on an indy, but it is a very tall order. Sturgeon needs to up her game on the economic case or another failure on an indy ref if she gets it, will be the end of her and the SNP.

BTW, sovereign debt is real and we own around 10% of it. Like it or not.

That explains why so many nations with far less are finding it just too much and desperately seeking to merge with their larger neighbours. Oh wait…

[The_Kincardine]

11 hours ago, git-intae-thum said:

What a load of rubbish.

We are talking about the same Scotland aren't we.

The Scotland that "exports £17,455 per head per year, while the UK exports £8,626"

The only nation in the UK that has a positive balance of payments.....(and has since records began) yet we are miraculously saddled with this huge ficticious debt whilst saddled to the UK.

You have to tell ScotGov this as it is clearly misrepresenting Scotland's financial figures.  In its most recent GDP Quarterly National Accounts it shows Scotland running a trade deficit every year since 1998.    You can download the spreadsheet for yourself from here but I  helpfully took a screenshot:

I am baffult as to why an SNP government would lie to us like this and can sense the sinister hand of Westminster behind it.

[Aufc]

Personally, i dont think anyone can tell you accurately what the financial position of an Independent Scotland will be. There are so many variables to it that it is impossible to predict. So then the decision can only really be an emotive one as to whether you want to see Scotland be independent. I can't see why Scotland can't eventually prosper. Of course it will be tough to begin with the actual benefits of becoming independent possibly not be realised in my lifetime which I am fine with. So i would really be voting with the views of my children and their children etc in mind. 

Obviously most rangers fans wont vote for it because they are staunch as f**k. 

[Dawson Park Boy]

16 minutes ago, Aufc said:

Personally, i dont think anyone can tell you accurately what the financial position of an Independent Scotland will be. There are so many variables to it that it is impossible to predict. So then the decision can only really be an emotive one as to whether you want to see Scotland be independent. I can't see why Scotland can't eventually prosper. Of course it will be tough to begin with the actual benefits of becoming independent possibly not be realised in my lifetime which I am fine with. So i would really be voting with the views of my children and their children etc in mind. 

Obviously most rangers fans wont vote for it because they are staunch as f**k. 

That’s a fair point.

Yes, it will be an emotional vote.

Yes, Scotland could and would survive as an independent country but at what cost?

People like you are willing to take the leap of faith but how many others?
You need to make the case which hasn’t happened so far.

People like me feel British and Scottish so staying within the UK and all our shared heritage is much preferable.

Brexit was emotional but easier to sell as there was no shared language or history.

 

[Benjamin_Nevis]

People like you are willing to take the leap of faith but how many others?
You need to make the case which hasn’t happened so far.

You and your fellow racists did the same over Brexit, you daft old c**t.

[Antlion]

44 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

That’s a fair point.

Yes, it will be an emotional vote.

Yes, Scotland could and would survive as an independent country but at what cost?

People like you are willing to take the leap of faith but how many others?
You need to make the case which hasn’t happened so far.

People like me feel British and Scottish so staying within the UK and all our shared heritage is much preferable.

Brexit was emotional but easier to sell as there was no shared language or history.

 

Let’s see - how many people were willing to vote for the blank cheque of Brexit? As for no shared language or history - your ignorance of something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

By the way, share heritage doesn’t cease to exist with a change in the constitutional. You sound like the type of person who would have opposed women’s suffrage because, dash it all, it there was a proud tradition of excluding women from politics.

Edited September 10, 2021 by Antlion

[Theyellowbox]

5 hours ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

That’s a fair point.

Yes, it will be an emotional vote.

Yes, Scotland could and would survive as an independent country but at what cost?

People like you are willing to take the leap of faith but how many others?
You need to make the case which hasn’t happened so far.

People like me feel British and Scottish so staying within the UK and all our shared heritage is much preferable.

Brexit was emotional but easier to sell as there was no shared language or history.

 

Frankly if there was anyone out there who voted for independence because of the current government in Westminster alone, they they shouldn't get a vote as that is too short sighted. However, as you say it is in part emotive. What people will have to and are weigh(ing) up is the long term disregard from westminster for Scotland aswell as what the future might hold.

Yes, it is fair to say there is no clear plan for what the future of Scotland would look like in an independent Scotland, but then, there is no clear plan for what Scotland would look like in a future UK either.

Ultimately it comes down to which uncertain future folk feel most comfortable and optimistic about, one where we are linked to the overall UK view of the future or one where we can shape our own. Economically, we will all have a figure in our head as to what cost we put on independence either way. If you are pro union, what financial benefit of independence would sway you? £100/£200 a month better off? Equally, what cost of independence would each of us accept being worse off by? That will be the deciding factor here and what both sides need to win on.

You may be right on brexit being easier because if a lack of share heritage and history, but increasingly, I would say Scotland is diverging away from the rest of the UK there too. Just look at the response of the general public to covid, imigration, brexit, social care etc.

You could argue someone in Dundee has more in common aside from language with someone in Dusseldorf than Doncaster.... 

Edited September 10, 2021 by Theyellowbox

[git-intae-thum]

13 hours ago, TheBruce said:

As they say in business, you can't eat turnover.

Now let's talk load of rubbish. We are currently running a BoP deficit of 22% of GDP .gov.scot versus the UK at 14%. Stop listening to sound bytes, then get clued up on economics ffs.

England remains our largest trading partner by far at 60%. As well as the geography that facilitates this, our cost base is comparable versus the much lower cost bases in eastern EU, where we cant compete. 

We are a 75% service based economy, mainly hospitality and tourism, so tinkering around the edges in our export business won't deliver us much.

With our commitment to carbon neutral targets, not much hope in oil. 

The list goes on. However, none of it means we can't be successful on an indy, but it is a very tall order. Sturgeon needs to up her game on the economic case or another failure on an indy ref if she gets it, will be the end of her and the SNP.

BTW, sovereign debt is real and we own around 10% of it. Like it or not.

Surely a parody post....

but if serious.......maybe learn what balance of payments before telling other folk to get clued up on economics.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

5 hours ago, Antlion said:

You sound like the type of person who would have opposed women’s suffrage because, dash it all, it there was a proud tradition of excluding women from politics.

This is the boy who admits both him and his equally awful wife "hate" seeing women on TV. Clearly a pair of utter cretins. 

[Dawson Park Boy]

7 minutes ago, Day of the Lords said:

This is the boy who admits both him and his equally awful wife "hate" seeing women on TV. Clearly a pair of utter cretins. 

God, what a nutter.

I think you’ll find that I stated that we both preferred seeing and hearing male pundits commentating on male football.

Quite happy for female pundits to deal with women’s football.

You always seem to turn everything into ‘hate’, ‘racism’, or any of the isms or phobias you can think of.

You definitely seem to have a problem.

[Dawson Park Boy]

20 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

Frankly if there was anyone out there who voted for independence because of the current government in Westminster alone, they they shouldn't get a vote as that is too short sighted. However, as you say it is in part emotive. What people will have to and are weigh(ing) up is the long term disregard from westminster for Scotland aswell as what the future might hold.

Yes, it is fair to say there is no clear plan for what the future of Scotland would look like in an independent Scotland, but then, there is no clear plan for what Scotland would look like in a future UK either.

Ultimately it comes down to which uncertain future folk feel most comfortable and optimistic about, one where we are linked to the overall UK view of the future or one where we can shape our own. Economically, we will all have a figure in our head as to what cost we put on independence either way. If you are pro union, what financial benefit of independence would sway you? £100/£200 a month better off? Equally, what cost of independence would each of us accept being worse off by? That will be the deciding factor here and what both sides need to win on.

You may be right on brexit being easier because if a lack of share heritage and history, but increasingly, I would say Scotland is diverging away from the rest of the UK there too. Just look at the response of the general public to covid, imigration, brexit, social care etc.

You could argue someone in Dundee has more in common aside from language with someone in Dusseldorf than Doncaster.... 

Very decent and fair summary.

More along similar lines is what this debate needs.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

On 02/07/2021 at 11:42, Dawson Park Boy said:

Funnily enough, my wife is much more prejudiced than me which is saying something.

She hates female commentators on tennis and football. She can’t see why women are commentating on men’s football when they have their own game?

 

47 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

I think you’ll find that I stated that we both preferred seeing and hearing male pundits commentating on male football.

You really are as dumb as f**k 

Edited September 10, 2021 by Day of the Lords

[Antlion]

45 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

God, what a nutter.

I think you’ll find that I stated that we both preferred seeing and hearing male pundits commentating on male football.

Quite happy for female pundits to deal with women’s football.

Yeah, that still makes you sound like a pair of utter shite-hawks (which I expect is, bafflingly, your intent; gotta keep that sweet, sweet negative attention rolling in, eh?). 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

This is surely the same person with multiple accounts?

[JamieThomas]

12 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

This is surely the same person with multiple accounts?

Clearly.

Have to admit "shared heritage" gave me a chuckle though.