You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
And how do the SNP climb out of the hole that they have created for themselves?
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/debt-solutions/bankruptcy/
Well they might have to if they can’t get the half the population of Scotland that purportedly support independence to cough up 33.3p each to fund a campaign for another referendum. 🤣
How much did you financially contribute to either of the Brexit campaigns?
If you did, do you think that made your position stronger than someone who didn't?
I don’t thing you understand what ‘life expectancy’ is a measure of.
no, I understand exactly what it is a measure of. I also understand that it IS a simple tool for highlighting inequalities, and that those effects are at least in part the cumulative effect over entire lifetimes so it may be a useful indicator of how cultures, policies, geography, diets, ecconomic, genetics, inherited wealth etc all combine to give an average metric on the “health” of a population. BUT the underlying assumption behind the metric is that living longer is better. I’m challenging that assumption - there must come a point when actually a grim and miserable existence in a care home is such a poor quality of life that the presumption that a bigger number is better is nonsense.
im not for one minute suggesting that the inequalities in the U.K. are not real but I’d rather we found a better way to measure and describe them than the average age people die at, given that most people who make it to that age have already reached a point where their quality of life is considerably poorer than it was 10 years before. Implying (as the poster did) that it was something a governement even with unlimited resources could fix in 14 years ignores impact of the first half of your life on the second half.
Well they might have to if they can’t get the half the population of Scotland that purportedly support independence to cough up 33.3p each to fund a campaign for another referendum.
Perhaps the people of Scotland are smarter than you think - and thought donating to a nebulous campaign for a referendum that isn’t happening yet and with the funds being held by one political party was not a great idea.
Wonder if Nicola ever visited her mother in law?
"Nice camper van mum. Where did that come from?
"Och, it's your new battle bus. Did Peter no tell ye he wanted to hide it on my driveway for a couple of years?"
How much did you financially contribute to either of the Brexit campaigns?
I think the majority of us posting on this thread think brexit a collosal mistake. I certainly wasn't about to contribute to a campaign for a referendum for it but if you think this would be the same thing I find this interesting. I've drawn parallels between brexit and Scottish independence before and it got people quite upset.
Perhaps the people of Scotland are smarter than you think
I don't think people who identify as Scots are, on average, any smarter or not than the rest of the UK's general population. I think if the roughly half of the population of Scotland were really that motivated to see independence come about they might feel inclined to contribute towards a campaign fund put together by the dominant political party in the region, as the amount of money being asked for was quite small. Unless they didn't trust the SNP? As it turns out with hindsight that may well have been the right call but did a couple of million people in Scotland not trust them before all this came out? Why did they keep re-electing them?
The other option is that enough people just aren't that bothered with independence. If 3 million people can't raise 1 million between them it looks like that may be the case, doesn't it? Unless it really was a matter of trust? You only need 1 million people to say to themselves 'hey! I can get behind that - have a pound' and you could be at the target by tea time. We'll never know the make-up of contributions that totaled the 600k but it seems more likely that a smaller number of more motivated people contributed more than a quid each? But then sturgeon started on the whole 'now is not the time' thing I guess. I imagine if you'd contributed a noticeable sum to the campaign you might be a bit grumpy about that.
I’ve drawn parallels between brexit and Scottish independence before and it got people quite upset
Thats because the parallels are simply not there. Its a very different set of motivations. its a very different set of consequences. This has been pointed out repeatedly but we still get folk trying to make this false claim. Its no wonder people get annoyed when told " its all about xenophobia and isolationism / exceptionalism " when actually its the opposite
I'm no ideological nationalist.. However I am convinced that independence will make Scotland a better place to live. Richer, fairer and generally beeter.
you can disagree but please do not try to claim its anything like brexit. The most superficial understanding shows it is not.
I’ve drawn parallels between brexit and Scottish independence before and it got people quite upset.
People who have no understanding about Scotland (but feel entitled to comment as if they are the leading authority on the place) have been making that link since 2016 on every indy thread. Despite having it explained repeatedly someone new is always ready to repeat the same thing as if they are the first person who has made this observation.
It got old the first half dozen times it happened. You have to be at least the 20th or 30th person to have done it. Go back an read any of the other threads for all the reasons it is wrong and unless you have some new insight that makes this relevant please stop going on about it. At this point it's just trolling.
However, since I'm feeling generous, here is the TLDR. Brexit was about becoming North Korea in terms of autonomy whilst gaining the trading opportunities of the EU, US, and China combined, ie, an impossible pipe dream driven by racism.
Indy is about becoming a normal small European country of which there are many examples already, ie, not a racist pipedream.
In other words, no, not the same at all no matter how much British Nationalists wish it so.
Unless they didn’t trust the SNP?
Yes, many, possibly most, indy supporters don't trust the SNP. It's not a mystery.
At this point it’s just trolling
Dude - I didn't bring it up.
Edit - oh I see tj reacted too. I have my opinion on this comparison and you have yours. I don't bring it up because I accept your position differs from mine and it gets none of us anywhere. I was responding to squirrelking's post.
its a very different set of consequences.
If an independent Scotland re-joined the EU, we know that the EU would insist on a hard border. Scotland's largest trading partner is the rest of the UK. At the very least there would be years of disruption even if Scotland could re-align it's industries to face the rest of Europe - which I have no doubt it's capable of doing. It would still take decades. In theory, like many other small nations within the EU, Scotland is on the face of it, no different and perhaps wealthier than a good deal of them, but the realities of Scotland's geography - (like the UK's as whole with brexit) in comparing it to those nations cannot be ignored away.
I don't think the independence campaign is like Brexit, the starting positions are clearly different but I think you can compare the two events as they're probably broadly similar in the amount of disruption and unforeseen outcomes that they'd cause.
Edit: and any ruling political party having won an Independence campaign/ vote would be foolish to ignore how Brexit unfolded and the events it casued.
in comparing it to those nations cannot be ignored away.
And once the NI solution is implemented why can't that be applied to the Scotland/England border?
If anything, it should be even simpler to implement due to the fact there are far fewer crossing points. I think if you only include the ones you could drive a van across you're talking about 6 crossings.
but I think you can compare the two events as they’re probably broadly similar in the amount of disruption and unforeseen outcomes that they’d cause.
Its not unforeseen. Its obvious. But the benefits far outweigh the negatives. there are clear positive benefits that would occur straight away
Brexit has no benefits.
And once the NI solution is implemented why can’t that be applied to the Scotland/England border?
Not going to happen. there will have to be a hard border. its pie in the sky to think otherwise
However it will increase the rUK isolation and cause significant damage to the ruk economy so will provide a further reason for the rUK to get closer to the EU
Not going to happen. there will have to be a hard border. its pie in the sky to think otherwise
Because?
I don't think the EU is as intransigent to unique situations among its members as people in the UK like to pretend.
Then there's the Euro debate, There was a poll recently (last year I think) that suggested that support for independence falls to 39% if Scotland has to take on the Euro. While it can certainly continue to use Sterling, with or without the BoE agreement,I can't imagine that the EU would be happy to accept a new member using that currency.
I imagine if you’d contributed a noticeable sum to the campaign you might be a bit grumpy about that.
"Campaign"
You don't have to win every battle to win a war.
I'm not grumpy, I understand it'll e a long 'haul', just a set-back but sat here looking at the 5h1tshow that is UK politics and imagining that folk would choose it when they've another option is lost on me.
Then there’s the Euro debate, There was a poll recently (last year I think) that suggested that support for independence falls to 39% if Scotland has to take on the Euro. While it can certainly continue to use Sterling, with or without the BoE agreement,I can’t imagine that the EU would be happy to accept a new member using that currency.
Sweden and Denmark?
Anyway, EFTA membership doesn't have that requirement. Even full EU membership isn't always 'full' EU membership.
There are certainly issues but I've yet to see one that doesn't have a conceivable solution.
,I can’t imagine that the EU would be happy to accept a new member using that currency.
What you have to remember is the pound is not englands currency nor would it be after independence. Its the UK currency and would remain part owned and controlled by iScotland.
Using the pound can only be during the transition
Bruce - because of the size of Scotlands economy and the fact that NI has a unique situation because of the good friday agreement.
Bruce – because of the size of Scotlands economy and the fact that NI has a unique situation because of the good friday agreement.
What do you mean by the size of Scotland's economy?
How does the GFA affect the border agreement? Do you mean the only reason the EU would be willing to look at alternative solutions is because of the GFA?
If so, I don't think the EU is as unbendable as the majority in the UK believe. I certainly wouldn't be making any absolute statements regarding the border.
Remember, there is also Gibraltar (which is still being negotiated). Between NI and Gibraltar I would imagine there is a workable solution. That's before we look at the Norway/Sweden border (Norway being outside the CU and therefore the border is very much relevant for goods).
I think you're talking about this with an unfounded level of confidence.
UK currency and would remain part owned and controlled by iScotland.
Don't disagree with that assessment at all. Do you think the EU would be content to have a new member using that currency joining the Union? I can certainly see it becoming a major part of any talks about joining, and I can foresee Scotland's dilemma. Adopting the Euro is as unpopular in Scotland as it was in the UK before Brexit, and economically there are clear issues over using either. I'm sure they'd be a way around it, the EU is master of fudge after all, but either way presents Scotland with problems.
Do you mean the only reason the EU would be willing to look at alternative solutions is because of the GFA?
Yes
What do you mean by the size of Scotland’s economy?
the only reason the EU can accept the cross border arrangements is NI trade is tiny. Scotland is multiples of the size of NI
I think its daft to rely on a NI type solution. A great bonus if it happens but far better to plan for the worst case scenario when the worst case is the most likely
There are certainly issues but I’ve yet to see one that doesn’t have a conceivable solution.
Oh without a doubt, all the issues are solvable, whether they are acceptable politically is another matter altogether though. I mean I can foresee some (if not all the governments) of the rUK being very keen on iScotland becoming a member of the EU, it would solve huge amounts of issues for companies who trading with the EU before Brexit. I can also foresee that the EU would be aware of that as well.
A great bonus if it happens but far better to plan for the worst case scenario when the worst case is the most likely
Absolutely, although I suspect the EU would have no problem making allowances for iScotland. The reason the worst case scenario contingencies will be needed will be because of the rUK government.
But I don't consider that to be a good unionist argument. 'We have to stay or the beatings will get worse...'
I don't think anyone thinks that a good unionist argument Bruce but let's be honest - if that point ever comes where do the rUK's government's responsibilities lie? Are they going to be looking out for the Scottish people? Further, if the Westminster government is so craven and venal that the Scots must have independence at any cost, these are the people the Scots will be negotiating with. Will they suddenly develop a sense of fairness and benevolence? Or will they play rough?
On the topic of fundraising it should be noted that the SNP is the dominant political party in the independence movement but... The SNP is not the only political party in the independence movement nor is it the only national organisation in the independence movement. AUOB and SIC being two others. In addition to that there are dozens if not hundreds of local groups. Most of these groups survive on the work of volunteers and on fundraising so the SNP fundraising appeal is just one among many. If it does'nt reach a target that does'nt necessarily mean there is less support for independence
The whole story gets worse by the day, nothing but in-fighting and blaming others, the Westminster MPs are struggling to get their accounts in order as well, Stephen Flynn is talking as if it's the previous incumbents fault, Ian Blackford is stating something different.
Got to say, it's not been a good year for them, still not sure why Blackford stood down, belief was behind the scenes it was a bit of a coup to get a new front bench sorted, now with the stuff about finances coming out it looks like we'll have weeks of them ripping into each other, and the greens as well, as they're not making it any easier to govern!
Then there’s the Euro debate, There was a poll recently (last year I think) that suggested that support for independence falls to 39% if Scotland has to take on the Euro.
I think the currency question is far too complex to be distilled into a polster's question. I mean no disservice to the people of Scotland, but frankly its too complex an issue for the typical voter to get their head around in any detail. The question asked is about currency. Frankly I'd be surprised if >50% of people would care about whether the coins/notes say Euro or Pound but that is how the question is presented by the media.
Much more important in reality is the central bank and the fiscal policies that comes with. I doubt that the average person walking along princes's st or bucannan st can explain the roll of the BoE never mind the ECB and the differences that would entail. What does matter to people on the ground is ease of transactions - as we become increasingly electronic the currency itself might not be critical but things like UK pensions, mortgages, payroll etc become complex and you start to think about it a lot more. The temptation is to say "oh, that's too complex lets stick to what we know".
I think the currency (and indeed many of the other hot topics) is used a bit like a belligerent spouse arguing about access to the kids in a divorce though. There are sensible and rational solutions if everyone wants to find them, and whilst briefly you might hold things together by using them as leverage all you do by refusing to have the discussion is drive the wedge deeper in the long run.
Will they suddenly develop a sense of fairness and benevolence? Or will they play rough?
Who knows - but if they play rough they will come out of it even more damaged - even if they inflict a bit of extra damage on iScotland
It would be a two way argument with things in iScotlands gift that rUK would want and need
nickc
Full MemberDon’t disagree with that assessment at all. Do you think the EU would be content to have a new member using that currency joining the Union? I can certainly see it becoming a major part of any talks about joining, and I can foresee Scotland’s dilemma. Adopting the Euro is as unpopular in Scotland as it was in the UK before Brexit, and economically there are clear issues over using either.
Euro myths aside... since I think pretty much everyone now knows that an independent scotland wouldn't be under any pressure to take the euro, and most people know we wouldn't actually be allowed to even if we wanted to... and of course if an indy movement said "we'll take the euro" and the scottish public said "aye OK", it'd take about 2 seconds for the unionists to switch from "you'll have to take it" to "you won't be allowed to"...
There's no major issue with "dollarisation" with the pound for purposes of joining the EU. None at all with a parallel scottish pound pegged to stirling which is the easiest and most likely option. (Which would be called the tillicoultry, because it's near stirling.) That doesn't stop us meeting the copenhagen criteria or entering pre-accession. Ironically, the UK possibly couldn't do that just now due to the rule of law issues.
Where it does become a pretty much insurmountable problem is with future convergence to the euro, you just can't do that if you don't have complete control of your own currency, which is kind of ironic. Not because it's banned but just because all of the convergence rules assume you have that and just can't be met otherwise, and it'd be politically damn nearly impossible to change that. But, as we know, you only have to commit to joining the euro in the future.
Anyway, this is all indy rather than SNP chat but I guess in the lack of more news that's inevitable?
What you have to remember is the pound is not englands currency nor would it be after independence. Its the UK currency and would remain part owned and controlled by iScotland.
Minor hiccup - If Scotland became independent it would LEAVE the UK. Independence is not about the break up of the UK, it is about if Scotland wants to be part of the UK. If there is a vote for Independence, then there will be a lot of haggling over the assets. But since the pound is controlled by the Bank of England and the UK Government, post Independence, Scotland would have very little (if any) control of the pound.
Yep. There was a longstanding argument that part of the negotiations would see Scotland want to keep influence on and unlimited use of sterling, and in return would not demand a proportional share of BOE assets, reserves, etc. But it was imo mostly from people who were desperate to keep sterling no matter what, for whatever reason (mostly because it was seen as an easy winner of swing voters, I think).
Never seemed likely to work out that way- what would scotland gain from a minority "influence" that would be ignored? In the end if we use sterling or sterling-parallel in any way, we're following whatever the RUK does with it, and that's not necessarily a problem but why give up anything in negotiations for that? And for the RUK, giving up even an irrelevant amount of control over Our Pahnd would be a PR disaster. It seemed much like the national debt arguments, all just driven by vote-winning in the referendum, on both sides.
It would be a two way argument with things in iScotlands gift that rUK would want and need
I have sort of seen this argument before. Now where was it.
Oh yeah.
It would be a two way argument with things in UKS gift that EU would want and need
in my opinion, and many others there ARE lots of parallels between SNP/independence and brexit
just because you guys have a different view doesn't mean it's wrong to point it out. you've made your minds up that you want independence so nothing said will change your view.
stating there are facts proving it us different is just bollox. its just information you use to support you view whilst ignoring alternative information.
I mean there is even a battlebus.
fast forwarding to a small eu country conveniently skips decades of disruption, cost and misery for many.
I believe many voted for brexit because they wanted CHANGE. thinking a vote would bring about an improvement. it did not. there was change. it got worse. that is the starkest parallel I can draw.
And as explained to you many times its a completely false comparison that you draw because you do not understand the issues.
Its completely the reverse of brexit. The motivations are different, the problems are different and most importantly independence for Scotland has advantages as well as disadvantages
stating there are facts proving it us different is just bollox. its just information you use to support you view whilst ignoring alternative information which YOU use to support your view whilst ignoring alternative information
FTFY
I am fine with folk disagreeing about Scots independence if they base their argument on reality.
We have folk on here who are ideological unionists - thats fine. I understand the position and its a real one. Thats up to them We have folk on here who whilst understanding the issues think the risk is too great. thats fine. Again its a rational position
What is galling is folk who do not understanding the issues making these false comparisons with brexit. Its explained to them that there is no equivalence. They just keep repeating it. Thats irritating
do you really deny that there are no advantages to self governance? that there is no advantages in rejoining the EU? That there is no advantages in being able to have the economic polices we vote for and social policies etc etc
Of course there will be disadvantages as well and costs of transition. I believe on balance in my lifetime it would make the country a better place to live.
you don't like Westminster "ruling"
you think you'll be better without Westminster.
swap Westminster for EU and it looks like a parallel
I expect there will be some benefit. but on balance I believe they will be outweighed by the negatives for the entire country. instead of spending time and money on solving unavoidable issues we will be again causing ourselves a whole load of pain and problems
politicians lie and don't tell the truth. that's why I jokingly point out the lying boris and his nhs funding claim written kn the side of the battlebus. they say what they want they need to get you to believe. is the SNP honest and can you trust the facts you've been fed? recent events with the SNPs leadership makes me think they may also not been quite as honest either.
and all the talk is for the benefit of Scotland. what about everyone else? or is it "we're off tough shit?" that's why I don't like it, it's divisive and sometimes can even come across as anti English.
anyway I actually don't think people are stupid enough to vote for splitting up the country further after the cockup that was brexit and the SNP seem to have put a nail in the coffin of it with their incompetence
Scotland has very little power in the UK. We have a fixed budget and no say over large swathes of the economy. We were dragged out of the EU against our will clearly and democratically expressed
UK in the EU had all those powers. so there is your false equivalence laid bare
the relationship between Scotland and England in the UK is nothing like the relationship between the UK and the EU when we were in. If it were we could have veto brexit!
and all the talk is for the benefit of Scotland. what about everyone else?
Its about self determination. Its nothing to do with England. We have to stay in the union to our detriment because it might hurt england if we leave?
i don't accept everything the SNP say. I get info from a wide variety of sources, assess it and decide accordingly. the independence movement is a lot wider than the SNP and plenty of info is available
if they base their argument on reality.
And there's the rub, your reality isn't the same as someone else's.
And as explained to you many times its a completely false comparison that you draw because you do not understand the issues.
It feels very patronising to be told “you do not understand the issues”, “people who have no understanding of Scotland” etc. I have lived in Scotland for over 30 years. To me there is a clear similarity with Scottish independence and Brexit. Now, I may be wrong, but people are going to have to convince the majority of people in Scotland of their plan and to dismiss people’s comments as trolling is unlikely to be effective imho.
tjagain
Full MemberIts completely the reverse of brexit. The motivations are different, the problems are different and most importantly independence for Scotland has advantages as well as disadvantages
Even for those who believe all that, there's also still tons of parallels, that's not exclusive.
The currency arguments definitely were very brexit-ish. IMO mostly because the smart arguments didn't poll well and the less sensible arguments did. Again, on both sides. The motivations being really different but the outcomes being similar but neither side really wanted to talk about the realities- remainers wanted to screech about the euro and leavers wanted the comforting hug of the pound. Foundations of a really bad argument tbf.
We have a fixed budget and no say over large swathes of the economy.
Well apart from the ability to vary income tax, but I guess that doesn't fit the narrative?
Or that there are no parallels about making trade more difficult with our biggest trading partner...
Or being able to create new 'better' trading deals with other further away trading partners...
The one thing I admire about the SNP, is their marketing. Independence can be whatever you want it to be, provided you don't actually want details about what it will actually be. Of course those who promoted Brexit never done anything like that...
We're told that we're the sickman of Europe (again) We get our economic policy set for the south east of England We've had devolution for 20 odd years out of the last 300 so responsibility for the economy and longer term problems affecting Scotland lies where the power lies with the UK government (or other world wide factors.)
There's plenty of flaws with the SNP government as there were with the previous Holyrood administrations but at least we in Scotland can vote them out. In Westminster we're pretty much an irrelevance.
not sure I agree, didn't the tories have to turn to the DUP to prop up their government? how many seats do they have? 7 or 8? I don't know exactly how many SNP have but I'm pretty sure it's quite a dew more
if NS had been leader of a main stream party I could have voted for last election I would have done. why can't Scottish politicians make Westminster better?
why can't we have a scot PM, what's stopping it from happening? if it can be shown more devolution works in favour or the majority, I would support it
It's still my opinion it's ideology based not logic. just like brexit.
I remember a lovely old dear handing me a leaflet explaining to me how the nhs was going to be so much better post brexit. she clearly passionately believed it. she wasn't voting leave because she wanted to stick it to the foreigners, she genuinely believed the line she had been sold
just googled there has been a Scottish pm, a while back to be fair
Born 12 October 1866, James Ramsay MacDonald was the first Labour Prime Minister and came from a working class family. He grew up in Lossiemouth, Scotland</blockquot
oh and gorden brown!
do you really deny that there are no advantages to self governance?
Perhaps you can spell them out because I know someone listed all the major political parties in Scotland earlier in this thread and listed the reasons that they couldn't vote for any of them. Are these the people who are going to deliver a fairer and more reasonable governance?
just googled there has been a Scottish pm, a while back to be fair
2007-2010 wasnt that long ago.
Depending on your definition of Scottish then Tony Blair as well.
Independence can be whatever you want it to be, provided you don’t actually want details about what it will actually be.
Plus you always have someone else to blame for any problems.
yep been reading. didn't realise either was actually Scottish! although it seems an interesting backstory to blair that he didn't want to be seen as scottish
so actually there have been Scots running the UK. maybe not the right type of Scots?
According to wiki, 7 of the last 57 Prime Ministers have been born in Scotland. None from Wales, N Ireland or the West Country. Make of that what you will.
The problems are not with the people but with the way politics works in Westminster. Elections can be won in England alone and until recently often in the south east of England. Too many institutions such as the BBC based in London. BBC Scotland news editorial policy is decided in London. The Uk central bank is based in London. Roughly 2/3 of UK fish is caught in Scotland, but Scotland was never at the table when negotiating quotas with the EU.etc etc FPTP has to go along with HoL and we need a written constitution, which enshrines federalism and works on a subsidiarity principle.
Advantages of independence?
Self determination - we get a government we vote for not what England votes for. tories have not won an election in Scotland for 70 years. think how much better off we would be without allthose tory governments.
Freedom to set economic policies to suit the country
Freedom to alter the tax system radically if we vote to do so
ability to raise money as any independent country does be it by borrowing or issuing currency
EU membership with all its advantages
A modern democratic system suitable for the 21st century
An electricty system that does not penalise us for being in the north
the ability to invest in industry like renewables
All the normal things an independent country can do that we are stopped from doing by Westminster
etc etc
Elections can be won in England alone and until recently often in the south east of England.
England has 84% of the UK population and 82% of the MPs.
SE England (inc London) has just under a third of the UK population and 24% of the MPs.
Scotland has 8% of the population and 9% of the MPs...
Scot Nats have to get over this delusion that they're entitled to get 25% or 50% of the say in the UK, and then feeling hard done by when they don't get it. No, Scotland doesn't get a veto on the government of the UK. Neither does any other region or subregion. If the UK were controlled by London, then Brexit would never have happened, and Labour would have had an absolute majority for the last 25 years.
That's quite a separate argument to saying "Scotland would be better off if it were independent", which is silly, but for other reasons.
Gauss - what do you think the parallels with brexit are? Genuine question and lets see if we can show you differnt
The only one I can see is trade disruptionwith rUK and that at least unlike brexit has a balance in improved trade with EU countries whereas brexit has no trade upside
When I say no parallels its meant in motivation and reasons
Scot Nats have to get over this delusion that they’re entitled to get 25% or 50% of the say in the UK
They don't want that. They want Scotland to have 100% of the say for Scotland. You know, like every other country in the world gets to have for their own country, excluding NI, Wales and Scotland
They don’t want that. They want Scotland to have 100% of the say for Scotland.
So they dont want to join the EU then?
What Bob said!
We don't care what happens in England - its a foreign country
Dissonance - yes we do because there we get a say in things and unlike you pretend the EU does not stop countries being independent and deciding for themsleves
Name one thing the EU has stopped the UK doing that would have been to the benefit of the UKs citizens?
EU membership with all its advantages
Yeah...one pretty notable disadvantage: creating a costly, time-consuming and moronic trade, currency and immigration barrier with the only country with which Scotland has a land border, to which it sells 61% of exports, 66% of power, the majority of agricultural exports...
It was totally stupid for the UK to exchange free trade with the EU for the promise of free trade with the UAE or New Zealand or Singapore. It would even more stupid for Scotland to exchange free trade with rUK for the promise of free trade with the EU.
Scot Nats have to get over this delusion that they’re entitled to get 25% or 50% of the say in the UK,
Not an arguement that I actually made but never mind.
As for power, green energy companies in Scotland pay more to be connected to the grid. Why is that?
yes we do because there we get a say in things and unlike you pretend the EU does not stop countries being independent and deciding for themsleves
Sorry are you seriously claiming that all the EU countries can do exactly as they please regardless of whats agreed under EU law? This is just as deluded a stance as the brexiteers the opposite way.
Now its reasonable to say that it is reasonable and sensible to move some decision making to the EU parliament especially when, as in the past, most decisions went the UKs way but the claim I was responding to and that you seem to be doubling down on is it was "100% of the say".
Dissonance – yes we do because there we get a say in things and unlike you pretend the EU does not stop countries being independent and deciding for themsleves
Sovereignty and independence is a legal fiction. Of course no country is truly sovereign: they are all constrained by the realities of power and money. There is a trade-off between sovereignty and being part of a union - whether British or European.
The idea that there is no trade off for EU membership is just naive. The idea that it's a worthwhile trade off - that is at least an idea within the bounds of reality.
Name one thing the EU has stopped the UK doing that would have been to the benefit of the UKs citizens?
I imagine there is a raft of stuff about that from UKIP if you'd like to go googling. sure there was something about Brussels sprouts
I don't really see the relevance though. I don't see many holding their hands up saying they think brexit and leaving the eu was a great idea. the benefits of being part of the eu outweighed the negatives.
UK was far less intertwined with the eu than Scotland and UK is.
and I'm interested to know why you think the eu would be desperate to welcome in an independent Scotland. its sets a rather dangerous precedent for their own countries with areas that want to breakaway and have independent rule. like catalan for example
what happens if parts of Scotland decide they want to get their own 'freedom' from Edinburgh?
everyone is stronger when they stand together.
what happens if parts of Scotland decide they want to get their own ‘freedom’ from Edinburgh?
they would have the democratic right to do so.
its sets a rather dangerous precedent for their own countries with areas that want to breakaway and have independent rule. like catalan for example
another old canard. It sets no precedent since brexit. Well understood and acknowledged even by the spanish. Its just a newly independent country applying - like the former Yugoslavia countries.
Name one thing the EU has stopped the UK doing that would have been to the benefit of the UKs citizens?
this is an important point as you claimed that you cannot be an independent country in the EU. I can give a whole lists of thing that Scotland would like but cannot have in the UK but could as independent in the EU. Or is it that the pooling of sovereignty in the EU and[partnership of equals and the subservient place of Scotland in the UK are rather different?
everyone is stronger when they stand together.
Ah yes - the bundle of sticks. which european leader liked that and what was it called? 🙂
your mixing me up with another poster you are arguing with I'm afraid. I'm pro EU and pro UK
and it is about the rest of the UK as much as it is about Scotland. you'll never get support when it's clear it's going to make an already not great economic position worse. show how its a win for everybody.
the fact your OK with ever smaller parts seeking independence proves your viewpoint is completely ideological.
and if I was the Spanish government I'd be very concerned. I don't believe a word of what a politician may hVe said about it.
Its not for Scotland to show how it would be a win for rUK
its completely irrelevant. We cannot leave because it might effect rUK? really?
I am no ideological separatist. ideally i would like a federal UK with a modern constitution in the EU. But thats not on offer. Independence is the next best thing.
Of course if say the western isles vote for independence from Scotland then i would accept it. I believe in democracy.
As for power, green energy companies in Scotland pay more to be connected to the grid. Why is that?
Because they are remote. So more infrastrucutre needs to be built to connect them to the grid. It's a hidden cost of wind energy which compared to traditional gas/coal/nuclear needs a much more extensive transmission system
In general terms, generators located closer to areas of demand pay less, with those in more remote areas paying more to transmit power onto the system. This results in higher costs for the delivery of renewable projects in Scotland compared to other parts of GB, with particular disparity in the north of Scotland which are furthest away from the biggest areas of demand in the south of England.
https://www.ssen-transmission.co.uk/information-centre/tnuos/
Thanks IRC. That page is informative.
The fake "market" in electricity generation is a classic example of why we would be better off independent.
If independent Scotland builds electricity generation plants of whatever sort to power people in Scotland it would be cheaper to connect to the scottish grid. Scottish government had ( years ago) really good plans for green and self sufficient electricity generation. It was unable to be put into place partly because of these charges and partly because the Scottish government was unable to invest because of the financial setup.
Independent Scotland would be able to invest in generation that would then provide cheaper electricity to Scotland without these absurd charges
Independent Scotland would be able to invest in generation that would then provide cheaper electricity to Scotland without these absurd charges
Indy Scotland would be in a deep hole for electricity. Torness is due to close. Thereafter we have wind, a bit of hydro and one gas power station. When the wind drops in winter we would be relying on importing gas/nuclear from England. When the wind blows we would export cheap power as there would be an over supply or even more than now pay wind farms to stop producing. The costs of Scotland's wind farms would fall on Scottish consumers rather than the whole UK. Bills would go up. What was the UK Government’s response during the 2014 referendum?
The UK Government argued, that it saw no basis to justify continued cost sharing between GB consumers for shared renewables support or for the costs of electricity or gas transmission following independence. More generally, it argued that the integrated GB energy market for electricity and gas “could not continue in its current form”
Obviously post indy electricity would be subject to negotiation but I see no reason for the rUK to treat Scotland-England cross border transfers any different than other cross border transfers like Europe-UK . IE at market rates. So when wind is high and Scotland exports it is at low prices. Then when wind drops Scotland will import at high prices.
Maybe you are right and electricity will end up cheaper after indy. THere is a good argument the other way though.
Indy Scotland would be in a deep hole for electricity
Because of the deliberate effects from Westminster policy. This shows how badly wrong Westminster has energy policy and how we could improve it if independent
The Scottish government had a decent looking plan for energy security. it could not be implemented because of westminster policies in a number of areas
you do realise that this shows exactly why Scotland needs to be independent - so we can have policies that suit Scotland. the energy policies that are in place now work against Scotlands needs. so independence is the answer
so we can have policies that suit Scotland. the energy policies that are in place now work against Scotlands needs. so independence is the answer
Which group of the choices below do you expect will enact those policies?
tories – led by a dim nonentity who everytime he tries to distinguish the scots tories from Westminster gets slapped down and rtrtacts. Not a single positive policy
Labour – another nonentity in charge who is not allowed to differentiate from london and whoes main policy is SNP baaaaaad
Lib Dems – hopeless compromised by the proven liar Charmicheal 5th place in the number of seats
Greens – spent all their political capital on the GRA and the deposit scheme – the former of which is hardly their core remit and the latter a fringe issue
SNP – hubris, secrecy and murky financial dealings.
Alba – run by yesterdays man and a self confessed groper only people with seats are all defectors tiny real support
Again, and this is the point you unwilling to see about some of the similarities between Brexit and Indy is that you're entrusting Indy to a group of people who you mostly believe couldn't - as @binners is fond of saying, be trusted to run a bath. You are rather hoping that post Indy these same politicians somehow becoming masters of your (and Scotland's ) destiny. I've got to say, having watched the political classes down here make such a roaring success of their "long hoped for transformational project" your belief that they'll make a success of Independence is endearing.
So they dont want to join the EU then?
And we're back to 2016 and the useful idiots...
Haven't you done enough damage yet?
Because they are remote. So more infrastrucutre needs to be built to connect them to the grid. It’s a hidden cost of wind energy which compared to traditional gas/coal/nuclear needs a much more extensive transmission system
So if Scotland supplied no power south of the border that'd mean that our power stations could put it onto the 'grid' at the same price as the English stations can?
Ok, let's stop exporting then we'd have cheaper power - another indy win!
exactly intheborders. We also would no longer have to pay for the hugely expensive nuclear power station that is decades late
Nickc - we would still have a government we voted for and most importantly accountable to us. its also a PR parliament so no one party cantake absolute power on a minority of the vote
So according to yo because our current lot of MSPs have lost their way we have to stick with an unrepresentative government in a feudal system that is orders of magnitude more incompetent and where no one is offering the sort of leftish social democratic government we continuously vote for
Ok, let’s stop exporting then we’d have cheaper power – another indy win!
The problem is it isn't Scotland's power. It belongs to the private companies that generate it. Their contracts state that either the power is bought by the grid or they are paid to turn the generators off. So if it isn't going to England they are paid to turn off instead. You aren't just paying for what is used you pay for the whole system whether it is used or not. Cheap it won't be
the energy policies that are in place now work against Scotlands needs. so independence is the answer
It wasn't Westminster that refused to consider replacing Scottish nuclear or going all out for wind power which they seem surprised to find doesn't work when there is no wind. That was the SNP
The problem is it isn’t Scotland’s power. It belongs to the private companies that generate it. Their contracts state that either the power is bought by the grid or they are paid to turn the generators off. So if it isn’t going to England they are paid to turn off instead. You aren’t just paying for what is used you pay for the whole system whether it is used or not. Cheap it won’t be
That's a rubbish system. Who agreed to that?
🙂