Just a quick note to let you know that I'm quoted in a new article by Alasdair Soussi on the Al Jazeera website about whether there should be an artificial threshold for a Yes victory in the next independence referendum. You can read it HERE.
I must say that the views from Kenny Farquharson quoted at the end of the piece are truly extraordinary. As far as I can gather, this is how he thinks the rules should handle various close results -
Yes 47%, No 53%: VICTORY FOR NO, SCOTLAND REMAINS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
Yes 48%, No 52%: VICTORY FOR NO, SCOTLAND REMAINS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
Yes 49%, No 51%: VICTORY FOR NO, SCOTLAND REMAINS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
Yes 51%, No 49%: VICTORY FOR NO, SCOTLAND REMAINS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
Yes 52%, No 48%: VICTORY FOR NO, SCOTLAND REMAINS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
Yes 53%, No 47%: VICTORY FOR NO, SCOTLAND REMAINS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
Hmmm. Round our way, we call that cheating. And this is supposed to be the antidote to division and grievance? Good luck with that, Kenny. If Scotland votes for independence and is then told that it's remaining in the UK because 47 is a bigger number than 53, you'd soon have civil disobedience on a scale that wasn't even seen during the poll tax era.
Already happened, 1979 devolution referendum 51.6% vote for Yes set aside because of artificial threshold.
ReplyDeleteAn outcome that was a great driver of social cohesion and harmony during the Thatcher years.
DeleteThe same vote that was good enough for Brexit but not good enough for a Scottish assembly. Says it all about Britnats and democracy.
DeleteWe wont know britnat reaction to any scale of defeat that they suffer until it happens. The reason will be that (if it ever was) it has ceased to be a matter of democratic principle to many of them. Reaction will be based entirely on poitical balance of forces at the time.
ReplyDeleteTo put it simply, they will hang on, win or lose, if the think thay they can do it with an acceptable level of damage to themselves. It will be power not votes that count.
On the positive side if we have managed to get as far as having an agreed fererendum at all we will already be winning and anything is possible.
The Britnsts just want to win. Democracy is expendable to them. That makes them fascists.
ReplyDeleteKenny Farquarson needs that stuff you spray round your house when you go nose blind, maybe it helps with number blindness as well
ReplyDeleteIt's a common affliction in the *British* that leads to superiority of the mind causing the total inability to reason leading to the wearing of Pith Helmets and berating foreign folk in a loud voice demanding they speak English in their own countries because once the *British* conquered them by jove, so know your place
I'm a Scotsman with a PHD a Masters and speak three languages but unfortunately because I support Independence I am a lesser mortal in the eyes of the *British* who insist they are my superiors until the end of time
Now that's a personality disorder wouldn't you say
Aye, greater Englandshire democracy.
ReplyDelete50%+1 of English vote for something and it must happen as it's the 'will of the people' etc. Likewise for an English party, 43.6% of the vote and 56% of MPs is a 'whopping mandate for sweeping change'.
But for Scots? Oh no no! Referendums need to be 60% at least to count and 81% of seats on 45% of the vote isn't a mandate for anything!
Greater Englandshire is a deeply racist, anti-Scottish state where democracy only applies to the lazy, freeloading, cowardly English who are too scared to stand on their own two feet, hence no Section 30.
2014 was not legally binding, but consultative. The result was accepted, hence Scotland is still in the UK six years on.
DeleteThe Scottish government cannot overturn the result, and have never said they would try to. It is not in their power, not in a democracy.
If the result is 'reversed' at some point, it will be reversed by the Scottish people. They are the only people who have the right to do that, and at any time they wish.
Only a little shit of a cowardly chickenshit English erse licking fascist would suggest otherwise.
Note I would also vote in exactly the same way, meaning I wouldn't be 'overturning' anything in a new referendum.
DeleteVoters who were not part of the electorate in 2014 (too young or not living here) wouldn't be overturning anything either, as they have never voted on the matter before.
Same for people who chose not to vote in 2014 even though they could have. Again, they would not be reversing any decision.
The only people capable of 'overturning' 2014 would be unionists who previously voted No, but have reversed that intention since.
So it can only be unionists who 'don't accept' 2014.
I did not say the Scottish Gov would or could overturn the result. I said the Nat sis would not accept the result and that is because they are fanatics. Democracy is a dirty word for them.
DeleteAs I said, the 'nats' are not changing their minds / wanting to overturn how they voted in 2014. That's only possible if they want to vote No now.
DeleteOnly unionists (in 2014) can overturn their previous vote No vote to make at a Yes. Only they 'don't accept' what they voted for in 2014 any more.
It's utterly nonsensical to suggest somehow I can overturn 2014. I voted Yes. All I can do is vote Yes again, changing absolutely nothing (or voting No to maybe increase the No share).
DeleteOnly you as a unionist can undo what you did in 2014 in terms of reversing 2014.
You have to be some sort of thick as fuck nutcase to not grasp such a simple concept.
Only unionists can reverse No votes made in 2014.
You have to convert to the side which wins any vote. Anything else is undemocratic.
DeleteStench of this.
DeleteGWC is an adherent of the Mahanana branch of Unionism and his "Great Vehicle" was purchased from Jackson Carlaw with a 12-week guarantee.
DeleteThe SNP only got 48% of the seats and 45% of the vote in the Scottish elections and they thought that is enough for sweeping change in Scotland. Are you saying that the UK Gov getting higher amounts somehow is not?
ReplyDeleteIt is what is called parliamentary democracy. Generally, the party with most seats wins the election and gets to implement their policies in their manifesto.
Deleteps no UK Gov has got higher than greater than 45% in a long time. in 2019 the Tories got 43%, but hey why let the facts get in your way?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYou are missing the 7% for the greens and their seats, which add up to a majority for SNP + Green, hence the informal coalition on some policy, such as indyref2. Also the 1% for Rise + Solidarity.
DeleteAll pro-indy.
The Greens are a bunch of nancies pretending they are socialists then they vote for the Tartan Tory budget. They would never get a seat if it were first past the post.
DeleteI must use that comment next time I'm on Newsnight.
DeleteExcellent.
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/GrayInGlasgow/status/1230543689602215936
Michael Gray
@GrayInGlasgow
Scottish Parliament has voted for Scotland to have its own voting rights system for the 1st time. Everyone above 16 years old, including EU citizens, foreign nationals from all countries, & refugees will have the right to vote (including prisoners serving a term under 12 months).
Bit off topic but just seen this in a twitter thread:
ReplyDelete"Behave yourself, “annual debt” is the deficit"
Debt and deficit never has and never will be the same. Even countries that run a budget surplus will have debt.
Debt = how much is owed
Deficit /surplus = how much money is left after all 'expenses' have been paid (surplus) or how much money needs to be borrowed to pay all 'expenses' (deficit).
As with personal finances debt is not necessarily a bad thing and sometimes necessary. Borrowing to fund infrastructure, for example, is normal as you get a large injection of capital to fund the infrastructure which can be paid for over a long time. In personal terms this is the equivalent of getting a mortgage.
On the other hand having to borrow to pay for 'day to day' running of the country is not so good. In personal terms this would be the equivalent of paying for things like food using a loan.
As things edge towards a potential second indyref in the next couple of years then the discussion around Scotland economy as a indy country, particularly debt. Whatever a persons view of this if they cannot get the basics correct (debt vs deficit) then they can't expect any other of their economic views to be taken seriously.
If you borrow ten bob from the bank and buy lovely chocolate biscuits at six penny each then you have twenty biscuits. If you sell the biscuits at twelve penny each then you have made 100% profit. You pay the bank interest and have a nice wee profit to invest in more lovely chocolate biscuits.
DeleteAs Scotland has not been 'allowed' to leave the UK freely at the time of its choosing, it is now relieved of any UK debt obligations, obviously.
DeleteTo have such (moral, as there are already no legal) obligations, it must be a free, willing partner in the UK, on an equal footing with England / Wales / N. Ireland.
No Section 30 cancels that and the 2014 referendum result, which only represented 'the will of the people' so long as said people could freely undo that decision at a time of their own choosing.
Up until the time Scotland said that it wanted to leave the UK (section 30) that could be argued yes. Historic debt for the time that Scotland said it wanted to remain part of the UK it would be liable for the debt. Most debt is over 30 years so even if put 2014 as the cut of date, Scotland would be liable for a share of 26 years worth of debt.
DeleteThat's not how these things work though. The no Section 30 cancels the lot. If the union is not voluntary, what went before no longer matters. The refusal of a Section 30 is implicit acceptance that all UK debt is London's responsibility alone. It completely cancels any obligation morally from Scotland (no legal already as noted), other than as a token of goodwill in different future circumstances.
DeleteIf you lock your wife in the basement when she says she wants to leave, you can't then demand she cover half your credit card bill when she finally escapes through a window, even if you had suggested in the past she was free to leave.
Even if we do try take the Section 30 date as an end point for debt...
Johnson has cancelled 2014 as if Scots can't freely overturn it, is now invalidated. 2014 only stands as long as Scots can freely overturn it by the same method. Johnson has wiped it from history with no Section 30. We are either in the union freely or we aren’t. You can’t pick and choose that. If we are not in it freely now, then we were not in 2014, but that was not explained to voters. If 2014 was simply at England’s grace, then it’s England’s debt. There’s no having your union cake and eating it.
Also, we could argue that if Scotland had gone independent last week following a January S30, it could have wisely invested / repaid all or most of all debt it was morally obligated to, or be well underway in doing so. However, instead, the rUK has prevented this happening, so Scotland is not responsible for debt any more. You can’t stop a person paying a debt how they want, but force them to watch it spiral out of control while you have responsibility for it, then later try to transfer it back to them when it suits you. Only in brexiter fantasy land do things work that way.
No Section 30 = no debt, and the longer this goes on for, the more both Scots and the international community will see it that way.
The statement that there is no legal obligation is also incorrect. The Vienna Convention sets out that successor state is liable for a proportion of debt unless otherwise agreed with the originator state.
DeleteThe only except to this is if a brand new state is formed as a result of separation. So, for example, if Cornwall broke away from the UK and formed a independent country it would not be liable for any debt as it was not a country(state) before separation.
The circumstances you describe regarding the convention assumes a mutually agreed termination of an international treaty. No Section 30 has cancelled that as Scotland is not voluntarily in union any more.
DeleteOr one party choosing to terminate the treaty freely even if the other wished to keep it.
DeleteSo it would apply if a Section 30 had been granted, but it doesn't now because England is trying to stop Scotland freely terminating the treaty.
There isn't a way out of this. The union needs to be 100% voluntary for debt obligations. England is insisting it's not, with legal threats and claims of sovereignty over Scotland.
If Scotland became independent it would, most likely be through mutual agreement either through a second 30 order at some point or the UK accepting the result of a Scot Gov lead referendum. In either case it would be a mutual agreed termination so the Vienna Convention would apply.
DeleteIt would only be in the case of something like UDI that it would not be mutually agreeed.
I honestly don't know what the fuss is about, the debt repayments on a Scotish share of the debt would only be circa 5billion a year, seeing as I keep seeing people claiming that an Indy Scotland would run a multi billion surplus this would be more than manageable and could be cleared quickly.
Possibly, but as things stand, the UK union isn't a voluntary one, so there are no debt obligations any more. Such obligations only apply under the Vienna convention for voluntary international treaties between two states, ergo this ceases to apply with no Section 30. This does not change if England later relents. Only in fantasy land can you keep someone locked up, then later relent under pressure, and expect to go back to the way things were before you locked them up.
DeleteBut yes, if in the future London finally backs down, then Scotland could, as a goodwill gesture, come back to the table on the debt, but there would be no obligation to as the original treaty was broken by England with no Section 30. This is the international norm. It is never expected that countries which 'fight' there way out from colonial control then have to cough up for empire debts. Maybe in Rule Britannia land, but not in the real world.
Debt obligations only apply if the union is voluntary. It's not, and London caving in at a later date doesn't suddenly make it voluntary again, not unless Scotland then decides not to bother with an iref and stays, or has one and votes to stay in the UK. Only the would debt obligations start to apply again.
It doesn’t matter what I think. I'm nobody.
DeleteThe English/UK government is insisting that its permission is needed and Scotland is not a voluntary member. If that was not the case, there would be a Section 30. We must work on that basis as that is the precedent legally set (including by 2014). By doing so, the rUK takes responsibility for all UK debt and divests Scotland of any obligations.
It might turn out that Scotland can, by some other, as yet unrecognised legal means, ‘escape’ the UK, even if the latter continues to try and stop that. But that will not change the fact at the rUK has completely, by its own volition, taken responsibility for the debt. No section 30 is a direct claim to complete responsibility for UK debt.
I presume the rUK/England is doing this because it wants to remain the UK, even if Scotland leaves. That way it can keep all its trade deals, UNSC seat etc. However, that means it keeps all the debt too. There is no having your cake and eating it.
The only Vienna convention compatible way that Scotland could take on debt in any legally obligatory way, would be by formally agreed dissolution of the UK ToU by the route you mentioned. That would mean a complete end of the UKoGB, including an end to the union flag, seat on the security council etc. All over. England becomes England etc. A new union could then be formed with EWNI for example, but it would be a completely new state. In such circumstances, a debt split between all 4 nations (on a per capita basis, then taking into account past contributions such as oil revenues etc) would makes sense.
But if Scotland becomes independent from the ‘UK’ which continues on, any debt is a goodwill gesture from Scotland which is agreed as part of negotiations. No Section 30 however removes any obligation as it cancels any goodwill.
Anyway, we seem to be going round in circles, but as things stand, Scotland has no debt obligations. Not if it cannot leave by the clear, established legal means that the population signed up to previously, i.e. a s30 referendum, as per the precedent set in 2014.
Fair enough(although i think you will be sadly mistaken if you think that will happen), but you do no no debt means no assets, this is basic stuff. If you don't want to pay for the goods you son't get to use them.
DeleteSo no coast guard, no airforce, no navy, no mountain rescue helicopters. The list goes on and on.
So no debt, but then having to borrow huge sums of money to pay for these assets probably at a higher interest rate; but at least you can get excited about not having and 'English' Debt.
Anyhow as you said bit of a mute point, with the UK Gov refusing a section 30 and Scot Gov refusing to use its powers to hold a indyref a Independent Scotland is a distant dream.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIt's odd that you think independence is a distant dream when it is so now so close England is just thrown it's desperate last dice. Scots actually support it majority now. The no Section 30 signals the last days of the UK.
DeleteAt no point have I said an agreement might not be reached, only that there is now no moral nor legal obligation.
What assets are you talking about anyway? 0.14 trillion buys a lot of shit.
No mountain rescue helicopters? Are you serious? Well I'm voting No then.
And if Scotland is to pay debt it needs a currency union of some form as the debt is in sterling. If England/rUK can print sterling freely, Scotland would need the same ability to service its share. You can't have one able to just print away its debt while the other can't...
How can it be close, no section 30 means won't get it that way and Scot Gov is not willing to use any other method ego no independence in the short to medium term. Indy can be at 99% support but no section 30 or no Scot gov referendum means no independence obviously.
DeleteAs for your other comments they are so economically illiterate I don't know where to start:
1) don't know were you get the 0.14 trillion from. I'm assuming you are saying that is they Scottish share of the UK debt. Just because you say that Scotland might not pay this does not mean they have the money to spend. That money has been spent.
Countries loans (debt) come in the form of Government Bonds, if an indy Scotland was going to take on some of the debt it would just issue bonds to cover this amount. These be issued to the individual bond holders in exchange for the original UK bonds. Governments can issue bonds in any currency they want (many countries issue bond in US$) so a currency union would not be needed for an indy Scotland to issue Sterling bonds.
2) You don’t just print away debt. If you just print uncontrolled amounts of currency then you end up with high inflation /hyperinflation, this is primary school level economics. This is quite a good article explaining more as you seem to struggle with this concept:
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/85/economics/national-debt-printing-money-and-inflation/
It's very obviously never been closer; hence no Section 30. The UK has utterly lost control of Scotland democratically. Once support for indy in a country moves to majority, independence becomes inevitable. You can't stop it, even with violent repression. This is why the British empire has all but gone with the last bits now falling off. Maybe the SNP will be too chicken, but all that will cause is some other party to take over from them in the same way e.g. Sinn Fein took over the Irish 'home rule' parliamentary party. The UK is going to break up very soon one way or another. It's just final end of the empire decline curve though rather than anything particularly unusual.
DeleteI just took 8% of total UK debt as a starting figure. That would be money that Scotland didn't owe / have to service a debt on.
The UK government has printed enormous amounts of cash to service its debts. A large proportion of its debt is owed to itself (Bank of England held 25% of total debt recently). This is printing cash to pay debt by slightly indirect route. The Bank prints cash out of thin air to buy government gilts giving the government £'s to pay its debt. It is less likely to cause rampant inflation, but still causes devaluation (or at least stops a currency regaining past value).
It's a good part of why the £ remains so devalued post financial crisis. The UK printed loads of cash, devaluing its currency. The is primary school economics.
Anyway, I think you do appreciate my point.
DeleteScots have always believed they were in the union voluntarily. In the old days, a vote for the SNP in Westminster was the route to indy. The advent of devolution saw a new legal precedent / contract established where Scots could just request a section 30 through PR elections held in Scotland for a Scottish parliament. This became the agreed method by which Scots could freely terminate their union with England. They vote for pro-indy parties and pro-indy parties consult them with the respect/nod of the rUK. Friendly partners in union.
England is now breaching that contract, freeing Scots of any debt obligations.
England has locked Scotland in the basement. Scotland may yet discover a small window at the back hidden from view which it can crawl out of, risking injury and the wrath of its much bigger bully of a former partner, but that doesn't make the union suddenly 'voluntary' again.
Hi Adam, a government deficit is actually normally a good thing. It is a double entry accounting system so government deficit = private sector surplus (and of course vice versa). Plus under the international law principle of the 'continuing state', which the rUK already said it was going to be in 2014, then ALL assets and ALL liabilities go with that continuing state when there is a break-up, except that everything within Scotland (land and sea) is ours. So the National Debt, embassies, seat at the UN etc all belong to rUK. Faslane is ours. No need for any complicated divorce negotiations.
DeleteUnknown,
DeleteYou are getting confused with debt and deficit. Debt (as i mentioned yesterday) is not necessaryily bad esepcially if its for infrastructure investment. Deficit is never good,it means that your borrowing just to balance the books.
I've never agued that the ruK would be the continuing state; this has never been in any doubt, and you are correect if you don't agree to pay the debt you dont get to keep the assets, this would include a % of of the UK reserves, which would mean that an Indy Scotland would have no capital reserves initially which would cause all sorts of problems.
-----
Skier you seem to be struggling again:
The UK printed loads of cash, devaluing its currency. This is incorrect the first round of of Qunatative Easing (which you are refering to) resulted in the £:euro increasing peaking around 1.28 in 2012. The second round in 2012 of course helped the pound to continue to rise vs the euro peaking around £1.41. Of course then Brexit happened and so the QE in 2016 has had not has such a noticable effect probably more stopping the £ falling further that it has than actually increasing it.
As I have said before you cannot jsut print money, that just leads to uncontrolable inflation. But QE is much more subtle. The money is not directly issued into the economy. Instead it is used to by the bonds from banks / large insistuations. This releases capital for investment and lending. This investment and lending then trickles down into the economy pushing up inflation. To combat inflation you have an interest rate rise (to take money out of the economy thus lowering inflation) the interest rate rise makes the currency more attractive therefore increasing its value vs its traded pair.
QE is printing money like you say, just subtly. This is why the BoE is called the rUK's 'Money printer of last resort' because it isn't a lender; you can't lend to yourself.
DeleteAnd note the pound never recovered its pre-2008 levels. In 2012 it showed zero recovery. It did pick up a little by 2015 as the economy showed some signs of pick-up, but it was still >10% down on pre-2008 levels due to mass £-printing in the form of QE / UK lending itself magic money from the tree.
Deletehttps://www.poundsterlinglive.com/bank-of-england-spot/historical-effective-exchange-rates/GBP-history
Of course if you pick out a single currency (rather than a basket), you can massage things to mislead!
As you can see in the chart, the story of the £ is the story of the UK; long term decline.
Nope you are stuggling in basic Economics again. You are refering to lender of last resort. This is were a central bank (BoE) will lend money to a commercial bank that has not got enough liquid cash to pay out what people want. For example if there is a run on a bank and everyone goes to withdraw their deposits. It would also lend to a financial institution who was at the risk of going bust because it cant pay its creditors. Its to stop you waking up one day and finding out that you have no money because you bank has gone bust taking your money with it.
DeleteOf course sometimes even this will be not be enough and then the Government has to step in an take the bank into public ownership to stop the bank from folding.
Of course it does not print money to do this, it uses the Countires reserves to underwrite the money that it loans.
So the BoE is a lender, but a financial institution would need to be in serious trouble to have to borrow from them (hence the last resort bit). Not sure why you said rUK either, the BoE is the lender of last result for the whole of the UK.
Qe is nothing like printing money becasue no new money is printed, it is just the shifting of exisiting money into a liquid (cash) form. A simple example:
BoE buys £100 bonds from company A - it does this from moving the money from its 'account' to the companies, no new money is 'printed'.
Company A now has £100 in liquid capital (its no longer tied up in the bonds) and it uses that money to give its staff a payrise, . Again no new money printed.
Doing this releases more liquid capital into the economy, again no new money printed its the same £100 just now being used as liquid capital not tied up in bonds.
More liquid capital in the economy helps stimulate the economy (people buy more etc etc). People are spending more money inflation goes up, to combat the rising inflation interest rates are put up (this takes liquid capital out of the economy thus reducing inflation) interest rates going up makes the currency more attractive, so the value of the currency goes up (basic supply and demand) high currency value again helps the economy.
Printing money however subtly does is introducing new money into the economy. QE as explained above is just the transferring of money from bonds into liquid capital.
Here you go. Some economics help.
Deletehttps://www.economicshelp.org/blog/135/economics/falling-value-of-pound-sterling/
Quantitative Easing.The Bank of England’s policy to create money electronically [out of thin air], increases the monetary base. This increases the risk of future inflation in UK and so tends to reduce the value of the Pound.
As I said, an indy Scotland could not assist with sterling debt payments unless it could likewise print sterling out of thin air in the same way.
And note the pound never recovered its pre-2008 levels.
DeleteAgain you are showing you lack of knowledge. Money does not have to recover to pre 2008 levels for people to make money.
If you buy in a currency at say 1.10 then due to QE and other factors it does up to 1.20 I make money. The fact that at some stage it was £1.30 is imiterial you are not buying at that price.
If i had bought £ on on the 2nd Jan and sold it yesterday i would of made money.
you have to remember currency is a short term investment. Traders may only hold onto a currency for a couple of hours , couple of months at the most. What a currency was 10 years ago is immaterial.
So if there was no currency union, there'd be no debt.
DeleteComing back to your earlier point about England being happy to kill English climbers in Scotland by confiscating S&R copters here. Are English people seriously that hate filled?
Until a section 30 was refused, I didn't think that was the case, but now how can I conclude otherwise now? To refuse to respect the right of Scots vote vote for indy can only come from a deep, visceral racist hatred of Scots people, combined with a cowardly feeble fear of standing on your own two feet. Plus general fascism. Now you tell me England would immediately confiscate S&R helicopters in Scotland if Scots vote Yes, killing all types of brits lost in the hills. What a horrible people you describe. Independence is essential if what you say is true.
The Bank of England’s policy to create money electronically [out of thin air], increases the monetary base
DeleteWhich is what I said, the monetary base is the amount of liquid capital in circulation. I explain how QE releases money to increase the monetary base , but again no new money is printed its just the same money being released into the base.
No money is created out of thin air.
As for the other point this is true, QE only really works if the economy is in a position to rise interest rates. If they are not then inflation will continue to rise. Clearly after the Brexit 'crash' the UK economy was not in a position to put up interest rates. But I said that yesterday, the 2016 QE was less to push up exchange rate more to stop the economy from falling further, (releases capital tied up in bonds) again no new money being printed.
I'm a bit concerned about your outlook for an Indy Scotland. If it did not have enough money to pay its debt it would simply sell some its reserves to pay for it (again no new money printed just a transfer of money) are you saying that an indy Scotland would have no reserves to do this? Also I keep hearing that a Indy Scotland would run a multi billion surplus, again it would just use this to pay for the debts no need for money to be printed - is this a lie too?
If a country has to print 'new' money to pay its debts its in serious economic trouble. Are you saying this is going to be the case? A indy Scotland that has no reserves no surplus and has to print new money to pay its debts leading to hyperinflation and its citizens having to push wheelbarrows of money around just to pay for a loaf of bread?
So if there was no currency union, there'd be no debt.
DeleteNope debt and a currency union are unrelated. The Euro is a currency union but each individual country is responsible for its own debt. Thats pretty obvious.
Coming back to your earlier point about England being happy to kill English climbers in Scotland by confiscating S&R copters here. Are English people seriously that hate filled?
Nope your making stuff up. I said that no debt no assets. So an indy Scotland would have no historic debt, but then have to take on new debt to pay to buy the assets, i never said that the UK would not sell the assets to Scotland (or they could buy them from someone else. Debt is debt doesn't matter who its from.
To refuse to respect the right of Scots vote vote for indy can only come from a deep, visceral racist hatred of Scots people, combined with a cowardly feeble fear of standing on your own two feet. Plus general fascism. Now you tell me England would immediately confiscate S&R helicopters in Scotland if Scots vote Yes, killing all types of brits lost in the hills. What a horrible people you describe. Independence is essential if what you say is true.
DeleteOf course this is a blatent lie. I never said they would conficate them, i just said they would have to pay for them. This is obvious if something does not belong to you and you want to use it then you have to pay for it. Unless you steal it of course; are you saying that an Indy Scotland is going to go around stealing other countries property?
Can you direct me to where I can see which countries Scotland owes cash too legally in the form of guilts/bonds? Are you sure Scotland can do this?
DeleteScots taxes can pay for Scots rescue helicopters. Those here wouldn't be stolen as we paid for them through taxes, including 90% of oil and gas revenues going back. All this must be accounted for in terms of what Scotland might 'owe' in the scheme of things. 30 years+ worth of oil cash pays for a lot.
But anyway, So, just to conclude…
England has officially declared Scotland a prisoner. The previously agreed democratic route to end the union has been legally shut by the former, and Scotland will be a colony of England for the next 3 decades or so, irrespective of how it votes. This has been announced officially by No. 10 and representatives, live on TV etc.
If Scotland should manage to find a loophole which allows it to escape somehow, fascist prison England will demand Scotland pays the debts of its prison guards. If not, England will mete out severe punishment on Scotland, including the 10% of the Scots population that’s English. This will include leaving them to drown or freeze to death on hillsides due to the withdrawal of Scots search and rescue provision (paid for by Scots taxes / oil revenues).
This is now the ‘positive case for the union’.
Hence my earlier suggestion that we are now in the final days of the UK. I really can’t see the above winning people over to the union.
Sadly despite being told that indyref2 is iniment the Scot Gov /SNP seem reluctant to produce any information regarding an indy Scotland's economic fiscal position.
DeleteThe most upto date information was the Growth Report which forecast historic debt repayments of 80 million per year. How much debt this relates to is not broken down.
As a scientist i'm sure you will understand that we have to deal with facts in such matters so can only go off official information; until more information we can only go of the most upto date figures.
Adam, you need to come to one of my currency talks (see www.reservebank.scot) as you are getting quite muddled. The UK reserves (which are US$55 billion) are all in gold and foreign currency. There are no sterling reserves. So as lender of last resort when the BoE lends it has nothing to do with reserves. In October 2008 the chancellor told the Governor to deposit £37 billion into the Royal Bank reserve account. This money did not come from any reserves. It was simply debited to the Treasury account and credited to the RBS account. So the Treasury overdraft went up by £37 billion. £37 billion of new money was spent by paying it to RBS. A state with its own currency is permanently in a process of creating new money. As all money is a creation of the state (or its licensed agents the banks) then every pound the state spends is new money. Money is after all just an IOU from the state. When the state levies tax those IOUs are taken back and cease to exist. So tax simply destroys the money. Tax does not fund spending. It is rather the other way round - spending funds tax. If there was no spending we would have no money and nobody would be able to pay tax.
DeleteAn Indy Scotland does not need any share of the UK reserves. It would be tiny anyway (£5 billion or less), and we automatically get all the foreign reserves we could possibly need by spending the S£ into existence and using it to buy up our sterling. So S£ 40 billion issued = £40 billion sterling into the Scottish Reserve Bank as our new foreign reserves.
The UK could, if it wanted, (as could any state with its own currency) repay all £1.6 trillion of the National Debt tomorrow. The BoE would simply do a transfer. A Gilt is basically a savings account at the BoE so they would simply move £1.6 trillion out of those savings accounts and deposit it into the commercial banks current accounts (and thereby the current accounts of the gilt holders). There is no particular effect on the real economy except that the income interest the holders had stops and what they wanted to hold as savings (the National Debt = the National Savings) is no longer savings but a current asset of cash. It is not creating money because a gilt or treasury bill is 'near cash' and already part of the total money in the economy. So it is rUK debt and rUK savings and they thus get to keep all the National Debt. As I have said as a currency issuer that is not a problem for them. It would be a huge problem for Scotland to accept any sort of sterling debt as we can't just create sterling.
Yea you are correct, I mistake in saying reserves were used. But the general point I was making stands no new money is produced money is just switched from one account to another.
DeleteYea, like you say no reason that a country could pay off its debts in the method you said. Ill be honest and not sure why countries doesn't do this sure there is a reason though.
On a separate note i've had a quick browse through your site and completly agree that an indy Scotland needs to have its own currency ASAP after independence. This is not because of the normal reasons that get thrown around 'sterling is a failed currency etc etc' but because without it Scotland would not have full fiscal control. For an new economy this is particularly important.
However, I think the subject of currency has become so politicised, that it will never happen until the 'perfect conditions' arrive, which means that it may just get putting back and back.
Anyhow I'm going to have a proper look around your site; I rarely get a chance to get back up to Scotland these days, but if you are ever 'down south' i would certainly come to one of your talks :)
I seem to remember in 2003 the Orange Order issued a statement reading that if Scotland ever chose to become Independent the OO would become para military, so who are the potential trouble makers in our country?
ReplyDeleteOf course they wouldn't do that though, the boldness of the OO only extends to spitting on priests and throwing bottles at football matches under the cover of many, or running around the streets shouting threats they can't back up, oh Yes, and hitting police horses
I seem to remember 1746 when I was young and the Catholic Church said they would return Scotland to the fold. I am old now and waiting, although they have taken it out and put it in children.
DeleteThe worst of it is john , when protestant and catholic unite , you can kiss goodbye to englands rule in scotland and ireland forever.
DeleteI have never ever been the same since those nasty free state troops sacked the grand orange lodge in parnell square dublin .
I was saddened to see peter robinsons wife on the romp a few years back , and peters reaction to it was understandable.
I nearly choked when he ran into the Rex bar on the shankill road , brandishing a handgun shouting whose been screwing my wife.
Imagine his horror when a voice from the back shoute yeev no enough ammo mate!
such a vile implication.!
I asked the local ludge to name things that end with 'tor' that eat things.
DeleteThe first wee orange guy said, "Alligator."
"Very good, that's a big word."
The second wee orange guy said, "Predator."
"aye, that's another big word. Well done."
GWC said, "Vibrator, sir."
After nearly falling off ma chair, a said,"That is a big word, but it doesnae eat anything."
GWC replied "Well ma wife has one and she says it eats batteries like there's no tomorrow!"
Look here pal I am hung like a dunkey I dinnae need those toys. My wife says even her bad weeks are good when I am around. I was in the Rex Bar when Peter shouted where is that dunkey.
DeleteStench of this.
DeleteIn the Al-Jazz article Kenny says "a dirty win is not a win worth having." He seems to be describing Better Together in 2014 there.
ReplyDeleteNice to see Wings over Scotlands Stuart Campbell getting paid back for all the hate and bile he's been spewing for months
ReplyDeleteHe's blaming on GRA folk, it's not, it's just people fed up with his hatred, they saw their opportunity and took it and well done to them for doing it, he's no better than Nigel Farage
Wings over Scotland is a ruin! A quick peek, and it's mostly anti SNP comments hurling insults at each other and the SNP. Well done the security services or whoever messed it up, but independence is, and always was, in the hands of the people, not one website.
DeleteWings is mainly a gender recognition act debate site now. I personally think the issue is important, and I'm on the side of scientific fact, but its naff all to do with indy and I follow others now for the latest indy stories now.
DeleteSkier, your comments are getting longer and repetitive. You must know you Nat sis are oan a loser. Boris will be in power for yonks of years. You should immigrate to ROI whilst your paddy passport is valid.
ReplyDeleteState of this.
Delete"It never was, if truth be told. A dirty win is not a win worth having." Kenny Farguharson's comment would seem to apply in spades to the 2914 referendum.
ReplyDeleteSuch a stark cultural difference.
ReplyDeleteAnd ties in with the current racist hatred England is showing towards non-English peoples, including Scots (hence no section 30).
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2020/02/19/b6ab5/1
Generally speaking, do you think the level of immigration into Britain is too high, too low or about right?
UK
48% too high
33% About right
6% Too low
= +9% net too high
Scotland
31% too high
42% About right
12% too low
= -23% net too high
And before anyone says anything, Scotland has the same % migrants (non-Scots born) per capita.
DeleteThere just isn't any positive case for the union now at all. It was being wound down recently, and No Section 30 brought it to a complete end.
ReplyDeleteThat's it. BetterTogether is gone as predicted. Now it's #EnglishPrisoner
Stuart Campbell's crusade against the SNP is paying off in his own destruction, when Campbell started Wings he intended to destroy the Labour party but that wasn't too difficult because they were already most of the way there, his attempts to destroy the SNP in faux indignation using a topic that only affects 0.02% of the population has singularly failed and indeed boosted support for the party no matter how hard he tries
ReplyDeleteWhen you begin a war did your own grave first because eventually someone will put you in it, and those somebodies are doing just that, for all his attempts to blame the folk who are a part of this argument that's failed also because it's not just them who can't stand the man, it's practically the whole Independence movement now because he's turned out to be just another nuisance internet troll and nobody has any time for that
Some posters on the Wings website are decent folk but most of them now are just Campbell followers echoing every word he says because they think that'll find favour with the once great man, but it won't, Campbell cares not a jot for Independence or any other cause, Campbell cares about his own gratification and more and more people have cottoned on to him and now some of them will destroy him
I say it took them long enough but than goodness they're doing it now
I'm not sure you can credit Wings with Labour's self implosion in Scotland. As far as I could see, that was entirely of their own making, just like the Liberals before them.
DeleteNext will be the Tory implosion over no Section 30 and that will be that. UK over.
I said Stuart Campbell's intention was to destroy the Labour party, I didn't say I gave him the credit for doing it
ReplyDeleteApologies for the misunderstanding.
DeleteAt least he's honest!
ReplyDeleteIt's not about Scotland, but 'how embarrassing it would be for England', 'diminishing it as a nation' to not have its celtic colonies.
https://twitter.com/sparkyhamill/status/1231227411959775232
And note the 'These Islands' logo includes the republic of Ireland.
https://www.these-islands.co.uk/
What is it with the England and its appropriation of other people's countries?
Calm down girls. It's perfectly simple. Instead of thinking of money as money, you should think of it as something that can buys things such as spoons or butter. Problem solved I think.
DeleteThe kelts were a Germanic overspill. That is why the Scottish Nat sis want our country run from Germany. Fascism is in the Nat si blood type.
DeleteThat's the Anglo-Saxons, which came from Germany. 'England' originates from Englaland (Angle-land), which literally means 'land of the Germans'.
DeleteThere is no firm evidence to back your theory only folklore.
DeleteState of this.
DeleteGWC wants to be English so defends their actions to the hilt because he's a religious bigot who believes they're on his side even though they publicly call him *Vermin drunk under a bridge*
ReplyDeleteThen again perhaps he does think of himself as *Vermin* and agrees with his leader's assessment of himself
He does fit the profile of course so who am I to argue with his own self ID
I am a Zen Buddhist and Budda is a fat bastard.
DeleteState of this.
DeleteAnother morning, another English appropriation of other people's sporting successes.
ReplyDeleteTyson fury:
https://www.irishmirror.ie/sport/other-sport/boxing/tyson-fury-irish-deontay-wilder-16511020
"All my people are from Ireland. I was born in Manchester but I am Irish. I have lived in Ireland, visited all my life and when I fight I represent Ireland."
English BBC:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/boxing/51602615
The Briton, 31...
The guy is from the Irish traveler community, with both parents Irish. The word Irish or Ireland isn't even mentioned once, nor the green gloves. Just a front page celebration of another 'British' success.
I now await the usual suspects shouting, 'But he was born in Manchester, and all migrant children from across the world born in England are English!
"And after beating Wladimir Klitschko to become world champion in 2015, a delighted Fury beamed: "I’m the first Irish heavyweight champion of the world, me Tyson Fury."
DeleteSaid the 'Briton'...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/boxing/51583556
"If Fury wins it, all four heavyweight belts will be shared between two British fighters - him and..."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/boxing/51507336
Delete"One of the greatest performances by a British fighter."
Not a single mention that he's Irish, an even said so clearly when asked numerous times.
It's not even a claim to dual nationality, but that he's English.
This is what I mean about England being too cowardly to stand on its own two feet (hence no Section 30).
DeleteWhen was the last time you saw Scots appropriating English sports heroes and telling everyone they were Scots because we we're shite at that activity ourselves to have our own? No, we just laugh at how crap we are. The English just pick the best from Scotland, Wales and NI + the Irish Republic and call them 'British'.
It's just England that does this because it 'can't survive alone'.
The headline is correct. He has registered himself as a British Boxer. That's why the official bodies record his nationality as British:
ReplyDeletehttps://wbcboxing.com/campeones-y-ratings/varonil/completo/
But hey gave you a 'England bad' story to get excited about this morning.
Lol. How utterly pathetic.
DeleteAnd predictable.
DeleteHe was forced into that by boxing regulations on eligibility for registration. It's not his choice. His own words are that he fights for Ireland (which he used to before rivals complained about regulations).
Since you've culturally appropriated him, you don't know that.
But by all means go on celebrating other nations heroes based on sporting regulation technicalities because you are such a pathetic, weak, feeble nation that can't survive alone.
How humiliating it must be to have to take other people's cultures like that. I could not think of anything more pathetic than claiming English heroes because Scotland didn't have any, then saying 'But regulation 4.715 says he has to register in Scotland so that means he's Scottish even if he says he's English!'.
Tyson Fury claims to be a gypsy, if that's so then he owes allegiance to no country that's why gypsies avoid paying the taxes of the country they live in and call the rest of us who do pay tax unpleasant names associated with whichever country we come from
ReplyDeleteIt's the crafty gypsy way of being able to take from the system when they want but claim separate status and racism if that's complained about when contributions to that system are demanded of them
See how that works, and it's not new, English pensioners come to Scotland to retire and benefit from younger Scottish taxpayers funding their care then vote against the government who introduced the system that they exploit
The very reason why immediately on Independence Scotland will have to introduce an immigration system to prevent England Wales and Northern Ireland pensioners coming to Scotland to benefit from what will be higher pensions nearer to the European average, which are very much higher than the UK, so if they come to Scotland after Independence the country they came from will be responsible for paying those lower pensions so not coming out of Scotland's taxpayers incomes
Don't believe me? take a look at pension rates in the EU, the UK is the lowest
I suspect Tyson fury pays tax.
DeleteAnon 0f 11.28, you are an idiot!
ReplyDeletePensions are paid for by the country a pensioner comes from, NOT the country they settle in. Pensions are paid at the rate of the country paying the pension NOT the rate of the country a pensioner resides at the time of claiming their pension. This is so basic that I am embarrassed for you...
braco
Al pensions are paid by direct taxation from the exchequer so any pensioner at this moment can move within the British isles and recieve the same basic rate, post Independence Scottish taxpayers will be funding pensions for resident pensioners which will rise to nearer EU levels
DeleteAt this moment the UK government treats all four nations of the UK as one country, post independence people may not expect to recieve the pension rate paid by an Independent Scotland so they will and are moving to Scotland now in order to benefit from Scottish taxpayers contributions which are higher for the higher end of the income scale although lower for 70% but all are contributing to a better delivered service free at the point of use ie free prescriptions, personal care, free bus pass at an earlier age, new pensioners moving to Scotland have and will not make any contribution to these services but expect the free use that was denied them in other countries of the UK
They cannot expect to live in a different country and recieve the pension rate of that country or all of them would be moving to any EU country where the rate is much higher
So idiot learn to read words before spouting your nonsense
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI see the BBC are pushing the 'sturgeon in trouble' line.
ReplyDeleteSo, polling:
51% Yes on average
51% SNP on average
Latest doing well/badly as FM from one of the least SNP friendly pollsters:
51% Well / 42% badly = +9% Well
13 f'n years into leadership as DM/FM.
Only in totally lost it living in a fantasy land mad hat 'everyone that wins stuff is British' Britain could such utterly miraculous ratings be classed as 'in trouble'.
I'm not sure I'm in agreement with Sturgeon on various issues, but you need to be a couple of sports heroes short of a country with sporting prowess to try and claim she's in political trouble.
By contrast:
DeleteCarlaw = -25% well
Johnson = -41% well
Both in their 'honeymoon' periods.
I'd guess most people don't know/couldn't care about JC.
DeleteNicola Sturgeon is a Nazi now so vote Tory says Wingsy, looks like he's desperate to get shut down now posting pictures of Nazi youth with SNP armbands on
ReplyDeleteStill it'll give him something to campaign on wherever else he can find to print his bile, that's if Boris Johnson gives him more money
If wings has been working hard to undermine sturgeon, it's been wholly ineffective.
DeleteIn fact she's surged in popularity recently, as has the SNP and indy generally.
I do like Joanna Cherry though, but also Angus Robertson. But then its not my constituency, so not my choice.
As for the gender recognition issue...
DeleteIt seems to me that the nutter trans advocate woke wing are doing an excellent job at making sure changes, if any, will be limited and pragmatic. They've even managed to complete halt any changes in England. They've not required any help from bloggers such as wings; merely started to appear in the news.
When you've reached the point you are telling voters that babies are born without a sex, it's all going to come crashing down really soon.
Some of the women or maybe they are men who go out on the Nat si flag waving days have facial hair and hairy armpits. I would not ask any of them to drop their kegs to see if they have a wee boabie or lon chany.
DeleteYes you would
DeleteI don't know what any of this is all about. What is everybody going on about?
ReplyDeleteIt's about Wings over Scotland's Stuart Campbells obsessional hatred of the First Minister because of an act going through Holyrood that he doesn't like, so he's whipped up exaggerated faux anger amongst some people to encourage them not to vote SNP and not to vote for Independence because the SNP are Nazis, my own opinion is that he's trying to get himself shut down as one of his Twitter accounts already has been for abuse so he can fabricate even more hatred for this weeks obsession
DeleteIt used to be the Labour party but they took him to court and won so now he's reversing all the things he said for the last six or so years that the SNP were great and Nicola Sturgeon was great, but now she's bad, and funnily enough in his latest rant he proclaims Boris Johnson as the good guy
So that's the gist of it and how much will you pay me to say I hate Nicola Sturgeon too, whatever it is it's not enough I've got principles that Campbell doesn't
Thank goodness he's been already seen through but his followers repeat every foul mouthed word he writes
Boris is a good guy. He got us out of the EU Nazi economic dictatorship. The guy at Wings may well be a bit of a prick however many Scottish Nat si pricks apparantly funded his court case against the wee Dug who was a Labour remainer.
DeleteThanks for explaining but I don't get the bit about Wings over Scotland. Is it to do with planes or drones or something? And what court cases? There is an awful lot of mystery things going on.
DeleteWings over Scotland is a chat website that used to be for supporters of Independence, the owner of the Website is one Stuart Campbell originally from Scotland but resides in Bath in England
DeleteThe court cases involved were against newspapers and the most recent case was the last Labour leader in Scotland Kezia Dugdale, a case in which she took Campbell to court over his homophobic views and was awarded judgement against him
Wings of the Scotland is a good place to go if you wish to hear people discussing how rubbish the SNP is. It feels as if it's populated by secret Unionist agents who are arguing with each other because haven't been told they're on the same side.
DeleteThis whole deal that Campbell's invented to stimulate interest in his hatred of Scotland FM is a crock of shit because all the statistics show that you're more likely to be bitten on the neck by a vampire from Romania than encounter a mad and dangerous transgender person in a toilet
DeleteIn point of fact there have been more people attacked and eaten by cannibals in Scotland (Sawney Bean clan killed and ate over 1000 people) than there are transgender people in the whole world
He hounded Kezia Dugdale and she won and he can't live with it so Nicola Sturgeon's his next high profile target to use for getting himself talked about and if he's not careful will find himself in trouble again but more serious this time and his rapidly diminishing circle of friend will reduce to none
The sad thing is, it's not even clear who or what his 'circles of friends' actually are any more. If it was a matter of diehard 'nats' that would be one thing, but it's not really clear what cause any of them are fighting for any more. The actual number of 'friends of independence' must be rapidly diminishing.
DeleteFrom recent posts on Twitter he seems to be wilfully stoking hate and division, doing no-one any good, himself included. But hey, that's probably more than enough about him.
Tyson's British..
ReplyDeletehttps://mobile.twitter.com/hctelfih/status/1231591782456209408?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1231591782456209408&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fvideocelts.com%2F2020%2F02%2Fblogs%2Flatest-news%2Fpictures-emerge-of-tyson-fury-all-hooped-up-in-celtic-kit%2F
Innit!
Boris is actually the high heid yin in the UK. Knickerless is in the ladies typing pool along with those other excuses for wimmin in the Nat si Party.
DeleteBut he's a pathetic, weak, feeble, chickenshit that everyone is mocking for his cowardice over England being too scared to stand on its own too feet.
DeleteAll that shit about British independence falls flat in the face of England soiling itself at the prospect of not being able to freeload of the back of scots taxes.
Firstly, let me say that I personally think the reform to the Gender Recognition Act as currently proposed is clumsy, stupid and potentially damaging to the SNP. I agree with Campbell that it is the child of a manipulative clique of 'woke' entryists who almost certainly have sponsorship within the British state. But is it an indy-killer?
ReplyDeleteOK, England has given up on it. So an independent Scotland could in theory have a different transgender regime to England. So what? We have a separate legal system. We have different rules on many things, civil partnerships between opposite sex couples being just one area where England is actually ahead of us at the moment.
I repeat, so what? If the bill passes un-amended and if turns out to be as flawed and damaging as many good people are convinced it is, then it can be repealed precisely as the OBFA was when deemed to not be working. This is nothing to do with indy, and while the SNP are the only party who can realistically bring indy about it is not a reason to deny the party your vote.
If people are too stupid to keep their eye on the prize and then deal with the GRA fallout (if any) afterwards then that is a shame, and Wings will be in a great measure responsible for (IMO) stirring up unnecessary fear and loathing and jeapordising the current opportunity to achieve our goal.
If that is the way this particular cookie crumbles, then we can look forward to that SNP civil war that the media have been lusting for for so long. It is possible it will be brief and relatively bloodless, that Joanna Cherry will emerge victorious and the GRA will be put firmly to bed and that we can get on with the main event. However, it is also possible that it will be long and protracted and will utterly derail the current train of opportunity we are riding.
The latter possibility would be a disaster. And Wings and Stuart Campbell's carefully ramped up moral outrage will be a major contributor to that disaster. Now is simply not the time. And let me say that having just read the BTL comments on Wings I can 100% guarantee that 90% of the respondents were never independence supporters. Like it or not, willing or just manipulated, Campbell, one of our greatest assets up to now, has become a tool of the British state.
And if this potential disaster does unfold - if the GRA, something that will affect a tiny minority of Scots, derails the independence train and wrecks it, then to me it stinks of a plan so cunning you could pin a tail on it and call it a weasel. British black ops at their best. Don't fall for it, folks. We will deal with the GRA and the SNP's woke infiltrators in due course, but keep your eye on the prize now.
Agreed.
DeleteI actually think exactly like you. I couldn't be more liberal, but find many trans activists are weirdo, creepy pervert sexist thugs who are doing huge damage to status of people with gender dysphoria, LGB folks, and those e.g. men who simply like to wear dresses and make-up.
At the same time, I think the Scottish government have been well intentioned, and it's mad hat to suggest Nicola sturgeon's 'intentionally putting kids and women at risk'. This is sensationalist daily mail tabloid shite, not investigative journalism.
The SNP has all voices represented in this minor side debate and we will end up with something pragmatic.
But the wings site / twitter has utterly lost the plot in suggesting that it's now better to vote for the union where 'kids are not born with a sex' and the PM is getting advice on eugenics.
This is actually a devolved issue. The current debate is what independence looks like. In an indy Scotland, we will have to make policy like this ourselves rather than have England decided it as per Wings' latest suggestions.
So yes, it's all looking a bit fishy to me.
GRA reform of course happens with the union or without as it's a Holyrood issue.
DeleteIt's nothing to do with indy at all.
It couldn't be less of an indy issue because it's already Scotland's choice.
A Yes or No vote makes absolutely no difference to resolving the issue.
The Wings bloke must be an OK guy or you mad Nat sis would not be having a go. He has banned me because he lacks a sense of humour. People who take themselves seriously tend to be like that.
DeleteExactly right Campbell's deacription some of huge disaster befalling all of humanity over this is manufactured rubbish
DeleteHe paints the picture of hordes of transgeder criminals decending upon us reping and pillaging our children and vulnerable women but forgets to mention that using his blog he in the past has done nothing else but attack women politicians, some deservedly in the political sense, but he attacked them personally and thats why he ended up in court and was found guilty of doing it
Campbell sets himself up as arbiter judge of people's rights when he himself has a history of using the internet to abuse people
Wings over Scotland was supposedly set up as a supporter of Independece for Scotland yet for months Campbell has involved himself in everything else but Independece and has used this site for a personal crusade against the very party most people support who can achieve that end, he's been banned from one Twitter account aready for abuse so he continues to attempt to whip up others to abuse on another account, now he's back to using his blog to do it
I think the only obsessive person anybody should be worrying about is Stuart Campbell because either he's being paid for this behaviour or he is what he appears, a nut case
>But the wings site / twitter has utterly lost the plot in suggesting that it's now better to vote for the union
DeleteCan anyone confirm that this is actually the case? Because if it is I'll have to reluctantly join those believing the Rev has been nobbled or bought off.
It's one thing to suggest Nicola resign weeks before an election, quite another to suggest voting against independence, if he really did that.
Campbell did say that. he said Boris Johnson was the better option if you didn't want his exaggerated version of the consequences of voting SNP
DeleteGovernments change leaders change MPs change policies change or are scrapped but in the world of Stuartt Campbell none of that matters because he's decided the SNP are bad or why would he have posted mock up pictures on his website and Twitter of Nazi uniforms with SNP armbands
I believe he's hoping to get himself closed down or taken to court so he can make himself a bigger name than he thinks he already has
It wasn't so long ago Campbell was extolling the virtues of Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP and Independence was the main big thing, now on a daily basis he calls her a liar and is doing and following the same behaviour he used on the Labour party when he began Wings over Scotland
People don't even know Stuart Campbell, he's an anonymous person from Bath who used to be Scottish but very few people if any have ever actually met him yet seem to believe they do know him
Nigel Farage George Galloway there's another couple of people who use these same tactics for dividing people and who paid them to do it, and who's still funding them
That is incredibly disappointing to hear. I have defended him so many times over the years. People pointed out that the trans stuff was a classic wedge issue intended to divide us but I refused to believe it was deliberately so on his part.
DeleteIts all just a part of the wider distraction attacks that I guess we can expect all the way until independence. I'm happy to see the ridiculous BBC story about Sturgeons shoogly peg fading quietly, but there will be more and more like that.
ReplyDeleteIt's like when that woman who just moved into our block says to me "Is there Munchers in that flat?". Remember that?
DeleteHoly shit. Seems that poll from Ashcroft last autumn was bang on (51% for reunification).
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1232002399537180673
Northern Irish voters:
Border poll, voting intention:
Remain in the UK: 51%
United Ireland: 49%
It's official. 50/50 on average for N. Ireland immediately rejoining the republic tomorrow in a snap poll. And that's before brexit actually takes effect.
Can't believe I'm going see Scottish indy and Irish reunification happening simultaneously.
The demographic youth time-bomb for the union of course applies there too. Unionism is primarily confined to the over 65s. The younger generations have moved on.
I assume the 50% Unionists have no say in your Nat si world. Jist dae whit we are telt. AYE RIGHT.
DeleteErm, unionists are the 50% naw in the polling average.
DeleteThe coinciding of the N/Ireland border poll is indeed invigorating. It feeds the feeling of the inevitable, of the Union on its last legs.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can see, (GB) Unionists have no answer to this. If N Ireland goes, the inevitability of the UK is trashed.
The question of what happens to the Unionist minority afterwards is about the first decent reaction to any of this, rather than the usual childish drivel.
It's about time all sides sat down to work out the future of Unionist minorities in both Scotland and Ireland. The view from London will for once be irrelevant.
It will not be childish drivel if we Unionists do not want to conform to the Scottish Nat si and Sinn Fein agenda. You may have to fight and could lose.
DeleteBut unionists run away from fights like big girls blouses. Hence no Section 30.
DeleteIt is you Nat sis who run away from the results from the ballot box. Section thirty is a referral to Carstairs.
DeleteNo, we're still here. That's what's irritating you.
DeleteAnd as we discussed, only unionists can overturn 2014. Yes voters can change absolutely nothing; only vote the same way again.
Today is Independence day for the country of Estonia and they have recieved congratulations from across the world, but how did such a too wee too poor country manage this great achievement
ReplyDeleteWell because they were never part of the UK
America used to be part of the UK too, so did India and Pakistan and should we go on naming all the countries in the world who got rid of the UK and are now doing better because they don't have the UK stealing from them
This year is also Victory in Europe year celebrating the demise of the nazi Empirical attempt to dominate the world
Tobias Ellewood Tory MP referred to this as victory over Europe
Tories once again begin their rewriting of history the way they want it told
How many people on this site right now can speak their native language whether Gaelic Scots or Doric, now ask yourself why you can't or read a real history book
Sinn Fein IRA still paying homage at the statue in Fairview Park Dublin of Sean Russel IRA commander Nazi collaborator who travelled to visit Hitler. It is thought to be the only statue of a Nazi collaborator in Europe.
DeleteGaelic an Scots are oor native leids.
DeleteDoric isnae, it's a dialect o Scots.
The ongaun anglification o Scotland ower the last fifty year haes done serious herm tae the psyche an confidence o oor people. Houivver there's nae doot we can turn this aroon whan we win oor independence.
The BBC is aw aboot Ingland and the British establishment, an will hae tae be redd-oot tae mak wey for a braidcastin service that puts Scots culture at its hert.
First tho we maun win wir freedom.
THe Irish dimension does seem to spook people.
ReplyDeletePeople think Scottish indy is just one party or one or two fallible leaders. For Ireland they realise a majority community when they see it. The writing is in the wall. Time to make peace.
The union flag is already being lowered so the red saltire can be unpicked now that there's a border forming in the Irish sea.
DeleteIt's also interesting that 'These Islands' held their conference in England. It seems they're at least aware that the break-up of the UK is currently driven mainly by English nationalism.
DeleteAbsolutely correct, Independence for a country is just that, the country, people come and go and get born and die, the land and sea remains
ReplyDeleteAnd owned by us rich.
DeleteNobody can own land and sea, you just get to borrow it for a while till you die, and the rich die just as easily as the poor, nobody gets out of this world alive
DeleteAch soo if only you Scottish/Irish Catholics had supported der Fuhrer vie could have defeated the Englander und die Jews.
ReplyDeleteCheer up. You still managed to gub them economically.
DeleteThis is brexit Britain. Where life expectancies are now actually declining.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51619608
Poorest women's life expectancy declines, finds report
The largest decreases were seen in the most deprived areas of north-east England, while the biggest increases were in the richest parts of London.
In pro-union brexit voting groups too. It's tragic how turkeys vote for Christmas sometimes. 10 years of a Tory cull and they hand Johnson the keys to No 10.
This is just one of many examples of what I mean about folk in Europe laughing at chickenshit, cowardly, feeble, weak England which is too scared to stand on its own two feet (hence no Section 30):
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/AndrewSparrow/status/1231977297491656704
Everyone is laughing at England. Everyone across the world. How could you not mock a country of 55 m soiling itself at life without a teeny wee one of 5 m?
Folks giving the brave scots a pat on the back too of course.
Potential trade deal partners across the world watch to see if England will break the very first trade deal it signed up to only weeks into that deal.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-51612028
If it means remaining in the EU, N. Irish voters would back reunification in 'overwhelming majority'.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thedetail.tv/articles/a-majority-favour-a-border-poll-on-the-island-of-ireland-in-the-next-10-years
Would you support Irish unity as a pathway back to membership of the EU for Northern Ireland:
52% Yes
48% No
The UK is now officially held together by fascist, cowardly, weak, pathetic, feeble freeloading waster England forcing it's wishes on everyone else.
I'm assuming that you agree with the overwhelming of the northern Irish population that a border poll should not happen for at least another 5 years? Anyone who tried to hold one sooner will of course being forcing its wishes on the people of northern Ireland.
DeleteAnother anonymous
ReplyDeleteSo you don't mind newspaper or polling company polls but don't agree with actual people being allowed to democratically express an opinion that may or may not lead to change
How very British of you
I fully agree that they should be allowed to democratically express their opinion. I was simply asking if he agreed that any referendum should happen latter than in five years time as the poll shows that the people of NI want?
DeleteIn Scotland the population has actually voted in election after election for a governing party that has holding a referendum on Scottish independence explicit to their manifesto. Poll after poll in Scotland shows support for any decision on holding such a referendum to be the jurisdiction of the Scottish people through their representatives in the Scottish Parliament (and NOT Westminster). The Scottish Parliament has now twice voted to hold such a referendum and requested a S30 from the UK parliament as per the UK parliament's own constitutional precedents.
DeleteDo you support the right of the Scottish people to democratically express their opinion on our continued support of the union and the survival of the UK as a political entity? It is a simple question.
Democracy delayed is democracy denied and Boris Johnson and the Westminster system understand that reality perfectly well. Are you happy to go along with them?
braco
I've said before that i think that a section 30 should of been granted. However one has not and now its down to the Scot Gov to use its powers to hold one. Only racists will blame English Boris for blocking a referendum, but not not Scottish Nicola for doing the same.
DeleteStill waiting for an answer on this:
I was simply asking if he agreed that any referendum should happen latter than in five years time as the poll shows that the people of NI want?
For clarity, I'm not blaming England for no iref, just saying England's a pathetic, weak, chickenshit, feeble, cowardly bully of country too scared to stand on it's own two feet, hence no Section 30.
DeleteThe timing of any referendum in N. Ireland should be for N. Irish people to decide via Stormont, not me, nor cowardly weakling England which is too scared to stand on its own two feet and not freeload off the backs of Scottish and N. Irish people.
DeleteAnon 1.50pm
DeleteSection 30 is the UK's constitutional route, not Scotland's. Scotland is trying to follow the UK's own constitutional route to Independence (by historic constitutional precedent) in EVERY possible attempt to avoid the violence that every other attempt to democratically leave the 'UK' has resulted in.
I am also in favour of the Scots Government to hold a democratic referendum in the absence of a S30 being forthcoming but please don't insult people's intelligence by somehow comparing the Scots Govt's desire to avoid ANY chance of social strife or violence with the UK government's willingness to deny democracy by using the fear of that very same threat. Without the history of UK violence in response to the long historic democratic process that predated the violent struggle in Ireland, there would be no hesitation at all in calling for a democratic vote in Scotland.
braco
The Unionist argument is always the same when they know they're in trouble, first they use money to buy liars to convince people of their views then they delay delay delay all the while keeping up the pretence that there isn't a demand, then they promise their tame liars honours like Knighthoods, Peers of the realm, more cash
ReplyDeletedelay delay delay at the same time in the hope of wearing down a population to the point of giving up or death, whichever comes sooner
There are good examples right now of this behaviour in supposedly long time Independence supporter Wings over Scotland's Stuart Campbell who very rarely ever refers to Independence now because he spends all his time on Twitter retweeting Unionist politicians and pretending to care about something that only has an affect on 0.02% of the Scottish population, and winding up women to fear what amounts to around 36 people in Scotland changing their gender
because these people will destroy the world and as we all know everybody will demand to change their gender now like a fashion statement so they can infiltrate womens toilets and do bad things
Somebody is paying for Campbell to tweet and write this garbage, oh I wonder who could it possibly be
Scottish Nat si ism is not an issue discussed in the workplace. It is only an obcession by a minority of Scottish anti English racist fanatic bum boys.
DeleteSupport is ~6/10% Yes in the workplace (under 65s). There's nothing to discuss. The Yes campaign in the workplace has won already by a landslide.
DeleteHow would a full time blogger know this!
DeleteI think you need to appreciate that some people are just capable of much more than you are personally. We are not all lazy wasters that freeload off the backs of others like England does.
DeleteLovely.
ReplyDeletehttps://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-abuse/british-politicians-covered-up-child-sex-abuse-for-decades-inquiry-finds-idUKKBN20J1R3
British politicians covered up child sex abuse for decades, inquiry finds
LONDON (Reuters) - British politicians turned a blind eye to the sexual abuse of children and actively covered up allegations over decades, an independent inquiry into historical sex offences in Westminster found on Tuesday...
...the report found there “have been significant failures by Westminster institutions in their responses to allegations of child sexual abuse.”
“This included failure to recognise it, turning a blind eye to it, actively shielding and protecting child sexual abusers and covering up allegations,” the report’s summary said.
The 173-page report found that several members of parliament in the 1970s and 1980s, including Peter Morrison and Cyril Smith, were “known or rumoured to be active in their sexual interest in children and were protected from prosecution in a number of ways,” by police, prosecutors and political parties.
Try watching Spotlight.
DeleteThis is "heads up" for readers.
ReplyDeleteLarge gatherings in Scotland may now be banned to constrict coronavirus. This is unlikely to affect meetings of Tory, LibDem and Labour Party in Scotland. But in order to assure it will be best to make payment to Border Guard Welfare Fund.
We are always ready to take firm action under direction of President Jamez.
I'm sick to the back teeth of snooty little brats from primary schools coming round the doors asking for sponsorship for their effing readathons. Little bastards should be outside playing football instead of poncing around reading books written by a showers of fairies.
ReplyDeleteTory snowflakes!
ReplyDeleteI think '#GreatBritishPoliticalChildSexAbuseCoverUpGate somewhat surpasses Derek Mackay calling a young man he met previously 'cute' in a social media exchange.
ReplyDeleteOr a bloke reading a story to kids.
DeleteQuite. My first thought on that story was that you are not really very progressive if you think 'Hey, we need a gay and/or trans person to talk to the kids about LGBTBnQ+/-ACDCOMGFFS issues; this is what these type of people look like right?'
Delete"Poll reveals half of Scottish voters want indyref2 in five years"
ReplyDeleteActually 55% which has a certain ring to it.
In same poll, 45% of respondents said Yes to indy, 46% No
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18260969.poll-reveals-half-scottish-voters-want-indyref2-five-years/?ref=twtrec
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe Y/N question was slightly different, so it's not a perfect comparison to the January Yougov (51Y/49N).
DeleteThis was run about 10 days after, so confirms January's wasn't a fluke; we have reached crossover, with Yougov (a bad pollster for Yes) 50/50, and Yes narrowly ahead on average. Seems Ashcroft polling was the first to pick it up within MoE back in September. Same for his N. Ireland polling.
People go on about the sudden Yes post 2016, but that was a super short-lived knee jerk, same as other 'event' related short-lived ups and downs since 2014. The long term trend since then is Yes climbing steadily as predicted from demographics, i.e. each day the electorate is becoming less unionist simply due to this alone.
In 2014, folk like myself said 'In about 5 years or so, Yes will enter natural majority, even if nobody changes their minds'.
That's what's happened largely. Brexit hasn't actually had much of an effect, as Yes->leave->No is broadly cancelling No->Remain->Yes.
It's why there's no Section 30. The union can't win from here without some sort of miracle. They don't know what the fk to do, so just threw their last desperate dice.
Aye then Jesus dae wan a them miracles fur Scotland.
DeleteIronically, the age demographic problem that's eating away at the union isn't about age, but is 'generational'.
DeleteYou don't get more unionist as you age. It's just older folks have a British identity that is almost gone from the young. The former are the post war consensus, the latter are 'Thatcher's children' + 'the children of the devolution'...
Those that grew up having any Britishness in them (me) closed down or privatised + those that don't remember a world before Scotland had it's own parliament again + Europe.
Generational changes can't be undone in short spaces of time. You need to reverse nearly 70 years of changes in the UK to undo what has led us to where we are. That would take another 70 years.
Tick tock.
I sense from Twitter that Unionists are getting desperate. It seems they can't handle the combination of both N Ireland and Scotland looking like being on the way out. They can't handle that support for indy is edging into a majority, or that an actual majority think there should be a referendum by 2025.
ReplyDeleteWhile pro-indy supporters are arguing amongst themselves about Plan A v Plan B (or GRA), it's not even clear what the Unionists could or should be arguing about. Other than simply saying No to indyref2. It seems there are no new ideas, no real attempt to deal with the 'democratic deficit', or the 'causes of nationalism'. Just NO you can't. And they're in denial that, actually, yes we can.
How can we Unionists be desperate when it is you Nat sis who are forever complaining. We will leave the EU and move on. We Unionists are comfortable with the legal democratic process. You Nat sis are just not Scottish and just a bunch of EU patsy Nancy boy crawlers.
DeleteDon't seem too comfortable with the whole Section 30 democratic process the 55% No+ asked for in 2014 as part of the agreement to stay in the UK.
DeleteWhat do the Scottish Nat sis have to offer the Scots in terms of trade with our neighbour England? Are the Nat sis prepared for a hard border, customs controls and a potential massive loss of trade. No sign of a currency yet which was a loser for the Nat sis in 2014.
ReplyDeleteActually, when England said Scotland couldn't use the £ Scots post-indy, yes shot up by a few % and that boost never went away.
DeleteIt's like if the EU had said to the UK it couldn't use the £ post brexit.
A good attempt at deviation. What will our currency be?
DeleteDesperate.
ReplyDeleteSo am I, run out of Vino.
Delete