Monday, June 22, 2020

Memo to Pete Wishart: "Plan A" has left Scotland in a "hellish limbo" already. Do you have a single credible proposal for getting us back out of it?

There's a principle in science that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".  I sometimes think that certain leading figures within the SNP regard any suggestion that "Plan A" might not work, and that there might be a more viable alternative means of obtaining an independence mandate, as such an extraordinary claim that it must be held to a higher standard of proof.  It's hard to think of any other explanation for the double-standards that abound in this debate.  "Plan A" simply isn't subjected to the same degree of scrutiny and scepticism as its rivals.  We are told that one of the hurdles that any plan must clear is that it has to be capable of actually delivering independence - and yet "Plan A" clearly fails that test catastrophically.

What is "Plan A"?  It's the idea that if you just ask for a Section 30 order persistently enough, it will be impossible for the Westminster government to say no.  Well, that's been proved wrong.  Twice.  Theresa May said no, and Boris Johnson said no.  There's every indication that even if we twiddle our thumbs for the next four years and wait for a Labour government that might never actually arrive, Sir Keir Starmer would then say no anyway.  It's unclear why "Plan A" fans are so convinced that a strategy that has so conspicuously failed to work for several years will suddenly start working if we wish hard enough, but if they do believe that, the onus is on them to supply some proof that they're not asking us to flog a dead horse for another few years.  The onus is most certainly not on those who make the eminently reasonable point that a failed strategy must be replaced - and that if you don't replace it, you don't believe in independence in any meaningful sense.

And that's the nub of the issue, isn't it?  "Plan A" diehards demand to be shown absolute certainty that "Plan B" will lead to independence, but the reality is that "Plan B" would be demonstrably superior to "Plan A" even if it only has a chance of delivering indy.  There is no such chance with "Plan A", which requires the Scottish Government to take no further action when the Westminster veto is deployed.  If anyone can explain to us how quite literally doing nothing can lead us to our objective, I'm sure we're all ears.

But you'll search in vain for any answers of that sort in Pete Wishart's latest blogpost (which like all his previous ones he'll inevitably describe as "the blog that everyone is talking about!").  His lack of self-awareness is truly astounding - he sneers at the idea that, having refused a referendum, the UK government will accept an election result as a mandate for independence.  And yet Pete's own implicit argument is that, having refused a referendum, the UK government will suddenly do a U-turn and grant a referendum because of opinion polls showing that Scots aren't happy.  In other words, Boris Johnson will be far more impressed by opinion polls than by election results.  Oh-kaaaaay, Pete.  Best of luck with that one.

Back in the real world, it's the obvious fact that election results are harder to ignore than opinion polls that gives "Plan B" a realistic chance of gaining some traction.  I'm not necessarily claiming that it would "work" in the sense of forcing London to negotiate an independence settlement straight away, although I do think that's possible if the mandate is strong enough.  But at the very least I think that a crisis of legitimacy would be created, and that the UK government might end up at the negotiating table to resolve it.  That could, for example, lead to an agreed referendum.

Pete asserts that "Plan B" could take us into a Catalan-style "hellish limbo".  But let's turn that on its head for a moment and imagine what would have happened if the Catalans had adopted the "Scottish model" of asking politely for a referendum and then taking no as a valid answer.  It's not hard to work out: nothing would have happened.  Madrid would have said no, Barcelona would have said "that's fine", and Catalonia would currently be living through precisely the kind of "hellish limbo" that Scotland is living through.  What exactly is your point here, Pete?

Oh, and I must just address a very silly straw man from Pete's blogpost -

"[Plan B] would therefore mean that the 2021 election ceases to be a General Election in the conventional sense and instead becomes a single issue plebiscite exclusively on the proposition that if the SNP secures a majority we move towards becoming an independent state. If it was to happen there would be no programme for Government, no defence of a record in power, just a straight forward one issue independence question."

Absolute rubbish.  To gain a credible mandate, independence would have to be Item 1 in the manifesto, but there would be lots of other items as well.  Independence would take months or years to negotiate, and no party putting itself forward for government for such a long period would ever present the electorate with a blank sheet of paper.  So, no, it wouldn't be a single-issue election - merely one in which the independence issue is predominant.



* * *

Yesterday, Iain Macwhirter gave Nicola Sturgeon what was quite possibly the worst piece of advice she's ever received. He told her to just "go with the flow" and abandon the 2 metre rule if that's what England decides to do. Has he learned no lessons at all from the catastrophe of March? How many more thousands of innocents must die because some people seem to perversely think that the purpose of devolution is to obediently rubberstamp decisions made in London?

I was trying to work out what Iain's tweet reminded me of, and I suddenly realised it was the philosophy of passivity put forward by a rather sinister rabbit in Watership Down -

"Take me with you, wind, high over the sky. I will go with you, I will be rabbit-of-the-wind...

Take me with you, stream, away in the starlight. I will go with you, I will be rabbit-of-the-stream..."





109 comments:

  1. Iain Macwhirter's comment is highly irresponsible. Using his journalistic reach to undermine public health and Scots law.

    Just as R values going up in other countries, he wants us to throw caution to the wind.

    Since when was go with the flow a successful public health policy? Existence of underage drinking doesn't mean lifting alcohol laws.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't decide whether MacWhirter is being increasingly overcome by a personal cringe, or merely being paid to reproduce a cringe to order. (A Dead Tree Scroll op ed writer in Scotland still has to eat, after all.) But he used to have a tad more gumption and credibility than that. What a shame.

      How strange (?) to want to abandon the very course of action that is proving so eminently successful so far for the Scottish Government, not just in terms of public health but also (hush, just whisper it) constitutionally (despite the self-evident intent of the FM not to exploit it).

      It's no secret after all that this latter aspect is deeply unnerving the friends of the Union. And not just the well-known ones either. The pips are beginning to show signs of being squeezed.

      Delete
  2. I'm as exasperated by Pete Wishart as anyone - what is the point of Pete Wishart, actually? - but prior to the Holyrood elections next May, given a refusal by UKGov to firmly agree to a new S.30 referendum, I don't see any problem in principle with the SNP making that election a single-issue plebiscite election on independence, coupled with a promise that in the event of a win for indy, to immediately institute a new election based on a full manifesto going forward. (The first point of business in a newly-independent Scotland will have to be a general election in any case.)

    UKGov won't agree to any new referendum to which it isn't forced to agree. A plebiscite election is that referendum by other means, if necessary, and one moreover in which the other parties can hardly refuse to compete. The prospect of such an election might itself be sufficient cause UKGov to reconsider the S,30 route, but either way it's a win-win for us.

    Unless, that is (like Pete, I suspect), one expects to still be waiting for that copper-bottomed guarantee of a win, a guarantee that will of course never come.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wishart is becoming a fool only interested in his Westminster seat.

      Delete
  3. Pete Wishart's a nice guy but I think like any heroin addict can't get off their drug without help Pete Wishart can't get off Westminster coursing through his veins
    I think Pete is a ScotBrit and he doesn't even know it

    Ian McWhirter however is comedy gold, I love how guys like him call themselves journalists because that he certainly isn't, Ian McWhirter is a writer of words priced per word for whoever pays him to scribble whatever garbage they want him to scribble

    Folk shouldn't expect conscience or principles from so called journalists they make their living by writing words like a musician makes his living from playing music, as long as people want to pay for it they can have any tune they like

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Independence for ScotlandJune 22, 2020 at 12:50 PM

      Anonymous 7.54am a very spot on summary.

      Delete
  4. There's no doubt at all that Scotgov is handling the pandemic better than the Westminster killer clowns. A catastrophic brexit is almost upon us. The polls are running our way.

    All of these factors work in our favour but the huge 'hole' in it all is how we use these circumstances to gain independence.
    Why would a uk government give in to yet another SNP/Green election success with a polite S30 request tagged onto it ? Why would they suddenly think that our desire for self determination is legitimate when they have shot themselves in both feet economically and have so much to lose ?
    So called Plan B is not perfect - at best it will lead to a hard political struggle before indy, but Plan A depends on 'magic miracles'.
    Maybe the real problem is that the mass support base for indy has never been asked to think that we might need another route than a 'polite' referendum, a 'gentlemanly' hand shake and all going home for 'tea'.
    Reality will be harder. It's exact shape can't be predicted. Long ago we should have started to help people to see this unpleasant reality. The best that can be done is to start now.

    ReplyDelete
  5. As the saying goes the only fish that "Goes with the flow" is a dead fish. Meanwhile over here in Oz we are having a resurgence in Coronavirus cases in Victoria. Germany's R number is surging higher, why, oh why, would the FM relax the lockdown? 👹

    As for Pete, well 'nuff said.

    ReplyDelete
  6. There is a simpler answer. We get rid of the gradualists in the SNP , and elect people who actually want independence in our live times. The Glacial pace of Pete , would have most of us dead before anything happens.His plan is actually the do nothing approach.

    It's like a comfy pair of slippers beside the fire approach. The world outside makes the changes, while he sleeps and dreams of independence.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The next Holyrood election could have an extra ballot added. Yes or No to Scotland being an Independent country.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It could, but I think that's too much at risk of us losing!

      For example, political parties would actually be focusing on getting their candidates elected more so than getting indy.

      Delete
    2. I think that's close to what's going to happen Marcia, the feeling within the party is that Yes now's the time
      The FM will say nothing right now as our numbers rise, she can't as every media outlet are on their heels waiting to headline with *FM doesn't care about people dying all she cares about is her Independence obsession* she'll leave it to the party to keep moving things along as she tries to get on top of the virus to drive it down so we can begin the Holyrood campaign

      Delete
    3. *FM doesn't care about people dying all she cares about is her Independence obsession*

      Exactly. Let her get on with dealing with CV19 just now, while we get on with pushing up support. It also makes you wonder why people are calling for her to be removed when she's showing that she's head and shoulders above all other politicians in the UK and much further afield. And to those who say that she doesn't want Scotland to be Independent, get a grip of yourself. She's been working towards this throughout her whole adult life as some we moron in Bath lies back and stirs up the shit whilst clawing in £hundreds of thousands. Wakey, wakey time.

      Delete
  8. No offence to absolutely anyone in saying this, but all the chats of Plan A, B, C, etc. bores me.

    None of them really matters unless we have decisive and consistent public support for independence.

    On that, the trend in opinion polling has never been better (and we know that a referendum campaign can radically improve it). But there is also so much room for improvement (by up to 30%).

    So we have more to do to persuade people, especially people who have become ingrained to the idea of the UK.

    The SNP obviously receives a lot of criticism in comments here and elsewhere. But if allowed, I'd like to put a focus on Progress Scotland. I know it's not easy work but they always seem to have their cards played to close to their chest. When they setup I expected more activity on publicly setting new narratives on independence that persuade people.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You just invented a percentage out of your head (by up to 30%) that would put it at around 84% for Yes and I have to tell you mate never in anybody's lifetime will Scotland see numbers like that, it's impossible, if we get close to 60% we'll be doing hell of a well

    Remember there's around 30% of the population of Scotland who wouldn't vote for Independence if you threatened to stick a poker in their eye for all the known reasons of sectarianism, English residents and just downright belligerant miseries who don't even know where they live, and that's without counting the folk who couldn't care less about voting at all

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're actually reinforcing my point.

      It doesn't matter how much we can improve it by, but there is room for improvement.

      There are hardcore people who unionism is too ingrained to give up, but that still leaves a lot of people to be persuaded.

      We won't get to 60% on talk of Plan A/B/C/D/E/F/... we need to persuade them independence is not only the right thing to do, but something that we need to make Scotland a better place.

      Delete
  10. I am concerned that discussion going on within the YES movement is overlooking the combined effect of four vital points.

    1) When Alex Salmond signed the Edinburgh Agreement in 2012 he established the political precedent that Scotland requires the legislative co-operation of Westminster in order for there to be an Independence Referendum.

    2) David Cameron by signing the Edinburgh agreement has also created a precedent: when a manifesto with an Independence Referendum in it wins an overall majority jn a Holyrood election Westminster is obliged to co-operate.

    3) In the Holyrood election of 2016 the SNP manifesto had another Independence Referendum in it but the SNP finished two MSPs short of an overall majority. Should we add the six Green MSPs and claim a mandate? No we should not because although the Greens gave a verbal commitment during the campaign to supporting the SNP on Indyref2 their manifesto did not contain a commitment to another referendum. Therefore the result of the 2016 election does not oblige Westminster to co-operate.

    4) A parliament cannot claim a mandate to legislate based on an election to a different parliament. Therefore Westminster is under no obligation to co-operate with the SNP government wanting the Scottish Parliament to legislate for indyref2 on the basis of SNP success in a Westminster general election.

    Impatience and frustration have emerged in the Independence movement because Yes supporters have not appreciated the combined effect of the four points above. We have not yet achieved a recognisable mandate for Indyref2. The situation requires either a minimum of 65 SNP MSPs or the Greens make a written commitment by including an Independence Referendum in their manifesto. Ideally both will happen at the next Holyrood election. If after such a success Westminster still refuses a Section 30 order they will be breaking the precedent David Cameron established which in turn will legitimise the SNP breaking the precedent Alex Salmond set.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellently put!

      Also worth noting to 2016 that the key unionist parties increased their support (on the regional list by 224.5k votes. While the indy parties only increased by 140.6k votes).

      Delete
    2. The SNP have increased NO to YES votes by 338.000, check the polling on *Business for Scotland* website for a breakdown of who is voting what, even 8% of Tories now intend to vote for Independence

      Delete
    3. Independence for ScotlandJune 22, 2020 at 1:04 PM

      Anonymous 9.57am not so excellently put.

      You conveniently ignore the fact that Cameron and all the British parties broke the Edinburgh Agreement before the referendum even happened by announcing the INFAMOUS VOW.

      So sorry all this talk of a precedent and gold standard is just plain wrong. Therefore all your conclusions drawn from this starting point are wrong. Britnats do not do democracy, honesty, justice and fairness when they may lose.

      Delete
    4. And Alex Salmond made no complaint to the UN which under the rules of referendums he was entitled to do

      Delete
    5. "political precedent"

      About as airtight as a wind machine on top of Ben Nevis

      Delete
    6. Independence for ScotlandJune 22, 2020 at 7:34 PM

      Anonymous 3.53pm so what. You are also entitled to avoid confusion by giving yourself a name but you don't bother you prefer to remain anonymous.

      The facts are facts. Britnats don't stick to agreements. "Gold standard" - that's a joke.

      Delete
    7. Look everybody. There Anonymous arguing with himself again. This is getting ridiculous and needs to be stopped. I am absolutely livid.

      Delete
  11. Alex Salmond blew the 2014 referendum, between him and David Cameron they created the so called Gold Standard
    Alex Salmond also allowed Westminster direct interference in Scotlands referendum, UN rules on referendums disallow that
    Alex Salmond also allowed the BBC, an organisation funded by the UK government to set the terms and timetable of events and debates

    Alex Salmond lost the 2014 referendum by being a fool, a nice man but a fool

    Nicola Sturgeon got stuck with Salmonds *mistakes* now she's the one who has been left to overcome those *mistakes*

    The moaning minnies on other so called Independence site would have you believe Alex Salmond is the man, he's not, he handled the whole thing worse than badly, one wonders how such a supposed smart man could have done that

    Don't be fooled by Wings over ego trip who's even now advocating not voting for Independence because the UK will never allow it so what's the point

    Not long ago he was saying Sturgeon would never go for it, he's changed his tune again, anything to create enough dumbos to fund his next couple of years of leisure from another country where he can sit in the nice weather and wind anybody up who'll believe him and send him money to his bank in, oh yeah, England

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Independence for ScotlandJune 22, 2020 at 1:07 PM

      Anonymous - there is no gold standard.

      Delete
    2. Tell the media they quote it every day as did Alex Salmond at one time

      Delete
    3. Independence for ScotlandJune 22, 2020 at 7:29 PM

      Anonymous - you mean the Britnat media. If one party to an agreement breaks the agreement then it is defunct never mind a gold standard. This "gold standard " that you, the Britnat media and anyone else who cares to quote it is nothing of the sort. It is the " Britnat standard"- break the agreement if you think you are going to lose.

      Delete
  12. In 2016 Holyrood election the snp were 2 short of an overall majority.this is why we need to vote snp 1 isp 2.no ifs or buts. It's the only way we can mitigate being shafted by the snp greens or the torys
    We also need the yes movement to decide exactly what plan b is.at the moment it's just plan b.get it out there .then and only then can we get wishart and the rest to break cover.its easy to dismiss an idea when most people dont know what the idea is..


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SNP 1 ISP 2 makes an SNP majority less likely though?

      Also more important than Plan B is persuading people (generally older or born in England) to support independence!

      Delete
    2. Voting 1 and 2 makes the chance an SNP majority much grater as all other perties would get less 2nd votes.

      Delete
    3. Oh my God. Oh my good God. Please believe me that it is impossible, literally IMPOSSIBLE, to increase the chances of an SNP majority by voting for another party.

      Delete
    4. ''Oh my God. Oh my good God. Please believe me that it is impossible, literally IMPOSSIBLE, to increase the chances of an SNP majority by voting for another party.''

      So why is Stu Campbell pushing that line?

      Delete
  13. The SNP are correct in that if support for independence becomes the consistent, majority position of the electorate, it will become very difficult for the English government to resist that. They've failed every time before certainly; hence there's no empire left. Apart from us.

    They would need to start suppressing democracy with violence etc if they wish to pursue a 'no, you can't have your independence' approach in the face of that. And this inevitably just accelerates the independence process if attempted anyway. Ask e.g. Ireland.

    While Yes appears to be the minority position, they can continue to play hard ball knowing that they (sort of) have justification.

    However, if Yes moves into majority, the entire situation becomes reversed. It's not possible to argue that Scots don't want indy...that it's too soon for iref2...

    Yes in sustained majority has not happened before. We've only seen very brief periods of Yes ahead. It's why unionists are bricking it. The longer term trend in polling - which is fueled by underlying demographic changes - is not good for UK unionism.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Independence for ScotlandJune 22, 2020 at 12:45 PM

    I agree 100% with everything said in your article.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Independence for ScotlandJune 22, 2020 at 1:17 PM

    What a monumental stupid headline by the National. I know it is reproducing Wisharts thoughts but it is still a stupid headline. There is no plan B. So how can anyone come to a conclusion as to what its outcome would be.

    The National giving this front page coverage is just plain wrong and poor journalism. It should be stating that we need a plan that will deliver independence. We don't have a plan A or a plan B at present. We are in a devolution limbo land.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The National is in the business of selling newspapers like every other newspaper

      Delete
    2. Independence for ScotlandJune 22, 2020 at 7:20 PM

      Anonymous - well no shit who would have thought that was the case. Award anonymous the gold medal for a statement of the bleedin obvious.

      Delete
  16. Craig Murray's plan is the way forward: hold a constitutional convention of all elected MP's, MSP's, Councillors, declare independence etc. It is how most countries obtain independence and would be acceptable to the international community. See here: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/scottish-independence-is-within-our-grasp-if-we-heed-the-lesson-of-toom-tabard/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How exactly is a constitutional convention that includes Alister Jack MP or Jackson Carlow MSP going to lead to a declaration of independence?

      Delete
    2. Presumably because the majority would vote in favor of independence.

      Delete
    3. What's Craig Murray got to do with Independence, some folk will buy anything, he's as genuine as a Chinese Toblerone

      Delete
    4. Craig Murray, like Campbell, is another conman. Pro-independence? Aye right enough! Big ego and out to make money. Duping everyone into thinking that he's skint and then lo and behold we find out that he bought a £600 plus grand house in Edinburgh. No mortgage. Time to get real folks.

      Delete
  17. Independence for ScotlandJune 22, 2020 at 2:18 PM

    The coronavirus DATA in Scotland should determine the dates for various changes to the rules to take place.

    However, Britnats in Scotland want Scotland to follow the moron in 10 Downing st who has made an absolute bollocks of everything related to the pandemic. Loyalism to the core - even when it kills them - Britnat lemmings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think I could cope with the anxiety of living in England right now... there plan is basically:

      "we'll ease things over time, and we'll let you know 1/2 of each part in a random sequence of press briefings"

      There's obvious uncertainty but at least with the Scottish Government I can see roughly the trajectory so I could prepare for (e.g.) not seeing family for another few weeks yet

      Delete
  18. So nobody watched the FM and Prof Benny Higgins blackmail the UK government today pushing them into the position of having to refuse Scotland borrowing powers of 4%, and when they do refuse that'll be the ballot box for Holyrood argument for Independence

    UK refuse to give Scotland its own powers to recover the economy

    ReplyDelete
  19. The people of Scotland are sovereign in Scotland - that's the gold standard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More psychological projection from Covidia the deviant.

      Delete
  20. Good to see the FM putting pressure on English/British nationalist Westminster today regarding borrowing powers. That's the way to go.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would you want to borrow more when you have the bank of England and the Treasury as a guarantor. The UK taxpayer will pay the debt.

      Delete
    2. You are always going on about the benefits of having the UK BoE and treasury.

      Then you say we shouldn't use them? Do you favour austerity?

      You are not making sense.

      Yes, one of the 'benefits' of the UK is that debt is paid by the UK taxpayer. What of it? Again, this is what you've always argued for.

      Delete
    3. We are in the UK. So why get into more personal debt we do not need. You are the bloke that wants to splash our money around to the EU Mafia and international capitalist lenders. Scotland has to pay its fair share of the loans we already have and now you suggest we increase the debt.

      Delete
    4. You are advocating harsh right-wing austerity?

      Delete
    5. And I thought we were aw British? Why are you talking about Scotland like it's separate? We are aw British taxpayers with nae borders mind. Sturgeon is wanting to borrow to spend on the British!

      Delete
    6. Your are on drivel mode now Skier. How can anything the Nat sis do internally leave Scotland in limbo. Scotland will function with or without Nat sis.

      Delete
    7. Covidia loves harsh right-wing austerity.
      Or at least it will until it's marched off to the fields by its colonial overlords' unwillingness to shell out for its pittance of a state pension.

      Delete
  21. Remember GWC the bank of England doesn't belong to England, that's just a name like the bank of Scotland doesn't belong to Scotland, again just a name or Scotland would own the Royal bank of Scotland and have two banks, Oops three banks because the Clydesdale would be Scottish as well under that criteria

    The only people who own banks are the shareholders in them that the banks are responsible to, Oops there I go again Scotland as a Union shareholder owns 10% of the bank of England

    Even wee Georgie boy Osborne had to admit that one

    Anyway you shouldn't worry yer wee head about stuff like that as long as you've got enough money to buy a drum or a flute or a black mask to hide yer face to run about streets with yer gang

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Bank of England is a central bank like the ECB in the Eurozone, or the Bank of Canada in Canada or Federal Reserve in the US. It has no share holders and is nothing like the other banks you mention.

      The other banks you mention are commercial banks, ie they are companies with shareholders and offer services like current accounts, loans, mortgages etc.

      The Bank of Scotland is owned by the RBS with the UK Goverment the largest shareholder. Later this year it is to be renamed the Natwest group as that is the name the majority of its operations are branded under.

      Clysdale bank is the trading name used by Virgin Money in Scotland (in England the trading names are Virgin Money and The Yorkshire Bank).

      Slightly worrying that you don't know the difference between commercial and central banks. Maybe you should do a little research before posting here is a link to get you started:
      https://www.economicsdiscussion.net/differences-between/differences-between-a-central-bank-and-commercial-bank/4139

      Delete
    2. The BoE is owned by all 4 UK nations, as represented by their government, the 'UK government', which is owned by all UK taxpayers equally. This applies to all UK assets and current liabilities. All UK citizens are 'shareholders' so to speak, as your namesake said.

      https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/knowledgebank/who-owns-the-bank-of-england

      It was really very obvious what was meant here. Maybe you just have trouble understanding people sometimes? Apologies if so.

      I must admit I find the arrogance of some disgusting when it comes to the UK central back / government. We citizens own them. The BoE is not owned by Boris any more than it was Cameron. We own them. Scots own just over 8%. Each month, some of my salary is taken to pay for those managing the BoE, pay for it's buildings, operations etc. I own a little bit of Westminster...a rivet of a fighter jet...a life jacket on a destroyer...

      To suggest otherwise is simply racist / Scottish-hating. Like suggesting Scots should not be allowed to be PM.

      It may be that if Scotland ends the UK, then it's former partners might not want to share a central bank. However, the value associated with that would be an unquestionably fair part of a negotiated settlement. If it was not, it would mean the English must hate Scots in some sort of deeply racist way. That could be the only explanation for negotiations not being polite and fair.

      Delete
    3. If Scotland leaves the UK then it's on its own. No more Barnet Formula. Still to hear about the new Scottish currency.

      Delete
    4. Independence for ScotlandJune 22, 2020 at 9:04 PM

      Scottish Skier. "Fair part of a negotiated settlement" - Britnats and Fair do not compute. They couldn't even stick to the fair and negotiated Edinburgh Agreement at the referendum stage when they thought they were going to lose. To expect Britnats to act fair and with honour in negotiating an independence settlement is delusional.

      Delete
    5. Glasgow Working ClassJune 22, 2020 at 9:07 PM

      No more monies for Westminster. It works two ways. Scottish exports correctly numerated to the Scottish Exchequer. Not paying any debt share run up at Westminster.

      Delete
    6. Sure all four nations have an entitlement to the UK Assets (GDP) and liabilities (DEBT). Currently that is a negative position so a 10% share a indy Scotland would be entitled to would result in the liabilities outweighing the assets. Go to know you agreeing with this.

      Aside from that the original post was comparing the BoE to commercial banks something that is obviously incorrect and they are completely different institutions. Only an idiot would try and argue any different.

      So i completely agree with you that any negotiations post indy should be fair and that if the dept/GDP ratio is still negative the Scot Gov should accept that. Only a country that is deeply racist towards the other countries in the UK would try and welch on taking a negative ratio leaving the citizens of the other Uk countries to 'pick up the tab'.

      What will probably happen is that we will have to all 'chip in' through tax rises etc to help get the UK debt levels down again; something you have always said you are very supportive in; so look forward to your wholehearted support of those measures when they are introduced.

      Delete
    7. The Bank of England is wholly - owned by HM UK Government since nationalisation.

      Delete
    8. Independence for ScotlandJune 22, 2020 at 11:48 PM

      Anonymous - 11.16pm - "UK assets(GDP)" wrong. GDP is a measure of annual production not assets. So for you to compare liabilities (debt) with what you think is UK assets is just plain wrong. So the conclusion you draw from this (" liabilities outweighing assets") is also wrong.

      Not sure if you genuinely don't know what you are talking about or just another Britnat knowingly posting nonsense.

      Delete
    9. Have you not understood what the UK consists of yet GWC
      Oh and one more thing Her Majesty doesn't have a government, Her Majesty is a private citizen for if she was in charge of the government that would constitute a fraud on the four nations of the UK
      The Monarchy is a titular title, a stick of rock if you will and not legally constitutional or we would be living in a Monarchy and a Monarchy is a dictatorship which is unconstitutional to Scotland and that is why the Queen is not Queen of Scotland

      Delete
    10. The UK Gov is formally known as HM Government. She does not own it. Try engaging your brain you tit.

      Delete
    11. In the minds of us loyal Protestant Scottish Unionists HMQ is the Queen of Scotland. She is the inheritor of the Glorious Revolution.

      Delete
    12. Yes, but HM government is owned by all of. We brits own them. We pay their wages and own all the buildings they work in, assets etc.

      We also own the queen. If we wanted, we could actually fire her and form a republic, taking control of all the Royal Family's assets. Scots own 8% of these too.

      Delete
    13. GDP can be classed as an asset. Capital raised from goods and services is clearly not a liability.

      But if you want ot go through the balance sheeet then we shall:

      UKs financial net worth (assets-liabilities) is -689 billion
      UKs non financial net worth -165 billion.

      A ten percent share would mean 85.4 billion debt for a Indy Scotland to take on.

      What ever measure you use either gdp-borrowing or assets-liabilities a 10% share would result in a Indy Scotland taking on debt.

      Delete
    14. If it continued to share the £ and central banking facilities it could continue to do this. This was the plan in 2014; at least that was the Scottish proposal. Currency share with Scotland taking a related debt share. The UK said it would refuse to share debt and currency though. However, I suspect it would have backtracked with a Yes.

      As noted elsewhere, if an iScotland was denied access to the BoE sterling printing facilities, it could neither issue nor repay any sterling debt.

      It would start with no central bank, but no debt either. Pros and cons to everything.

      It could of course still use Sterling, but it couldn't print it; it would need to buy in any new sterling it needed. All existing sterling in circulation would of course remain valid.

      Anti-Scottish / English (10% of Scots are English) hatred by the Brits was behind the lies on this in 2014.

      Delete
    15. Skier, How many Scots live in Scotland? You are Irish so would not get a share of the 8%.

      Delete
    16. Why are you always calling yourself Scots rather than British GWC? Do you hate the English or something?

      Delete
    17. Covidia hates the English and loves its Tory overlords.
      It is an obedient Britnazi.

      Delete
    18. Independence for ScotlandJune 23, 2020 at 9:41 PM

      Anonymous - 9.28 am - thanks for confirming that you are a Britnat knowingly posting nonsense.

      So if a fictitious £12 billion deficit isn't scaring enough people away from independence let's up the ante to a fictitious mega debt take up of £85.4b. You people are a joke.

      Delete
    19. Independence for ScotlandJune 24, 2020 at 11:52 AM

      Anonymous - 9.28am June 23 - ONS (office for national statistics) - UK NET worth £10.4 trillion.

      Therefore if an independent Scotland is to get a 10% share as you purport then Scotland would be taking away £1.4 trillion as its share.

      Delete
  22. "If Scotland leaves the UK then it's on its own. No more Barnet Formula".

    Well duh.

    Away and read up on currency options yersel instead of demanding others do it for you ya lazy erse.

    After all, if Scotland voter for indy then for (formerly) unionist parties, these will need to sort out a currency.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If there are currency options it would be good to know them. There was no firm currency ready to go and in place the day before the referendum.

      Delete
    2. Well go look them up you lazy f**k.

      Your pounds would have worked fine the next day and always would. Scots notes are sterling backed currency and that can't be undone by the UK alone.

      Scotland could use English pounds if it wanted as these are a freely convertible currency. Any country in the world can use Sterling if it likes.

      They just don't have access to BoE central bank facilities, including the printing presses. However, you only need that if you want to pay UK issued sterling debt. Only those that can print a currency can issue government debt in that currency.

      Delete
  23. Skier be truthful you Nat sis were pinning your hopes on the euro and continued EU membership. You had the cheek to ask the BOE to bankroll you until you got the euro. You were given the two fingers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No sharing of the BoE £ sterling means no sharing of BoE £ sterling debt, rather obviously.

      Which is fine with me.

      Personally, I'd be happy with the Euro. It's a strong currency and I'd be paid more if my wages were in Euros.

      Delete
    2. It is stronger than Venezuela.

      Delete
  24. I wouldn't mind GWC if it actually knew anything, at least you could have a reasoned discussion with it, but it's stupid and completely uneducated like most of its kind
    At some point we're going to have to weed its kind out and prevent it from breeding more faulty offspring which is kinder than his party used to do during the war

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like the breeding idea and if you can get me a young Scottish hingoot I would be delighted.

      Delete
  25. Every legal document the UK government produces is headed *Her Majesty's government* that statement immediately negates itself and creates such a document illegal

    HM the Queen is in charge of nothing, she has responsibility for nothing, she is the worlds biggest benefits recipient, she is a picture on a plate, a mug, a tea towel, that is the extent of her Majesty's constitutional authority, she is a sales gimmick for England

    In Scotland the Queen actually has a job description that she has never fulfilled and can be constitutionally sacked by the sovereign people of Scotland and replaced by another of Scotlands choice should Scotland so desire

    And very soon we will sack her, but not to replace her with another Monarch

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I doubt the rich and landowners in Scotland would sack the Queen,they own Scotland.

      Delete
    2. Given they are unionists, I'll take your word for it.

      Delete
    3. How do you know that, wee Eck and Knickerless are Royalists.

      Delete
    4. Polling. The rich are the most pro-UK while the working class are the most pro-indy.

      Sturgeon and Salmond want to win votes so of course they say they're royalists.

      However, the SNP refuse to become titled lords/ladies courtesy of Lizzie, unlike your unionists.

      Delete
    5. Ach soo they are liars. And this from Scotlands top Irish Nat si.

      Delete
  26. The Brits hate the English and the Scots. This is why the Brits said they take the pound away from the English (10% of population) and Scots in Scotland if these voted Yes in 2014.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I see Wishart is moaning about being 'attacked' on twitter regarding his comments on a plan B. (Suppported by McWhirter). There are always guys who are loose cannons on twitter but they are very useful to the likes of Wishart as he can use them to avoid answering the genuine questions and criticisms raised by others. The fact he does this makes me suspect his motives even more.

    ReplyDelete
  28. See the 30% of English folks in Scotland that support indy for their adopted country, who do they hate exactly?

    Asking for a friend.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are probably descendants of the Irish or any other foreign lot that do not appreciate what the British did for them.

      Delete
    2. Your hatred of the English in Scotland knows no bounds. Do you abuse them in the street?

      Delete
    3. What do they look like?

      Delete
    4. They look like most Scots; the majority of which support independence.

      Do you hate or like most Scots?

      Delete
    5. Are you conducting an official poll?

      Delete
  29. You need to read Wings over Campbells ego and his latest imaginings
    he totally makes up out of his own mind a load of garbage and outright lies and suggestions and prints it as facts and the mugs who follow him take his word for it and become outraged over something Campbell just made up

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The various factions in the Nat sis movement wake up every day with new gripes, you are worse than that BLM bunch of monsters. Surprised you never invented an SLM movement.

      Delete
    2. Says the Orange Lodge, SIU, Britain First, Blackshirts, Statue Protection loyalist,SDL supporter

      Delete
    3. Says the SGP resident ODM.

      Delete
  30. It's great going oot for a walk and knowing the majority of folk you see back independence for Scotland.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Keeping a social distance of course according to the experts. You have gone off the body count lately Skier are you bored?

      Delete
  31. Independence for ScotlandJune 23, 2020 at 9:30 PM

    I have no idea why people engage on this site with a low life Britnat turd like GWC. The best thing if you come across a stinking turd is to avoid it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Any ideas you may have had in your life have emanated in a field from large cowpatts on a hot summers day.

      Delete
  32. James keeps him on as a demonstration of the kind of person who supports the Union, he actually adds numbers to the Independence cause out of sheer embarrassment at being connected to such as his type

    GWC is the perfect example of knuckle dragging British Nationalist

    ReplyDelete