Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
XXL

BREXIT / British Politics thread

581 posts in this topic

If the referendum is after Brexit then Scotland will have to wait several years to enter the EU. If it's before,  they could have the right to remain. 

Well it's a bit of a mess,  because even if it w were before there should be a new contract and conditions for Scotland as a new country... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

these referendums are separating the world 

Mess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Kim said:

Actually the Spanish thinking on that has changed since the EU referendum. It's now recognised as completely different from the Catalonia situation as we're dealing with a UK that will no longer be part of the EU. Spain is not planning on leaving the EU anytime soon.

It's that weird Brexiteer rhetoric of yours that I don't understand: "ruled over by Brussels" They do not set your economic policy, fiscal policy, social and welfare and health and education policy. That's the government of the day. In this case a right wing, insular Tory govt that Scotland has not and never will vote for.

And you seriously think that rUK who are this very minute scurrying around trying to pre-negotiate trade deals with any and every shithole country that it can is NOT going to do a trade deal with it's nearest neighbours; an independent Scotland? Nonsense. A Scotland btw, which will become even more attractive for those businesses who want to remain in the single market while the rest of the UK sinks into a low wage, tax haven, shithole laughing stock.

I voted remain for your information. Yorkshire has a similar population to Scotland shall we just have every county breakaway as it's not fully in charge/represented in the national parliament? The union is over 400 years old, there have been government's of all types yet just because they disagree with his government they think independence is the best option? We just has 13 years of Scottish Prime Ministers should I have kicked off and demanded English independence? Scotland has a strong voice in the commons if it joins with Labour is could easily affect ecominc policy etc but instead it just complains rather than using the power it could use in parliament. How would Scotland be an attraction for businesss, if the referendum campaign burns bridges, English trade with Scotland is so small there is no guarantee a deal could be made, the right wing conservatives may wish there not be a deal and while they are in government it is a possibility. Scotland have given no guidience on what currency they would use or any detailed economic plan. Scotland's yearly deficit is 9.5%, which is higher than Greece, with independent they would have to slash spending or have huge tax rises so I hardly see why they will gain from still having access to the single market when they companies can instead hop over to Ireland and only pay 14% instead of being heavily  taxed in Scotland. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pjcowley said:

 

You really cannot indeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, kangarooz said:

I voted remain for your information. Yorkshire has a similar population to Scotland shall we just have every county breakaway as it's not fully in charge/represented in the national parliament? The union is over 400 years old, there have been government's of all types yet just because they disagree with his government they think independence is the best option? We just has 13 years of Scottish Prime Ministers should I have kicked off and demanded English independence? Scotland has a strong voice in the commons if it joins with Labour is could easily affect ecominc policy etc but instead it just complains rather than using the power it could use in parliament. How would Scotland be an attraction for businesss, if the referendum campaign burns bridges, English trade with Scotland is so small there is no guarantee a deal could be made, the right wing conservatives may wish there not be a deal and while they are in government it is a possibility. Scotland have given no guidience on what currency they would use or any detailed economic plan. Scotland's yearly deficit is 9.5%, which is higher than Greece, with independent they would have to slash spending or have huge tax rises so I hardly see why they will gain from still having access to the single market when they companies can instead hop over to Ireland and only pay 14% instead of being heavily  taxed in Scotland. 

 

I don't even know where to start with this nonsense that reads like it's from the pages of the Daily Mail or Express. Scotland is a COUNTRY that formed a (supposedly equal) union with England , not some county or principality of England like Yorkshire. It has it's own legal, education and healthcare systems. It is REPEATEDLY represented on a national level by a government it hasn't voted for and while it remains open, inclusive and left of centre, the complete opposite is happening in England where xenophobic, inward looking, right wing rhetoric flourishes. The devolved parliament in Scotland is SNP run, out of the 59 MPs at Westminster, 56 of them are SNP. The clue is in the name; Scottish NATIONAL party. Independence for Scotland is their raison d'être so as long as they keep getting voted in, then the question of independence will never go away.

And you obviously don't realise that the Tories have an overall majority at Westminater, which means they have more MPs than all the other parties combined. So no, teaming up with Labour makes no difference on anything, and seeing as the Labour party are seen as nothing but a joke in Scotland (and everywhere else in the UK) these days, it would be unwise anyway. They are no longer a party of the left. You might want to watch PMQs some time and see that the only effective opposition to May comes from the SNP benches in fact. The point has been made in the media over and over that Angus Robertson keeps asking the questions that Corbyn doesn't.

And the reason for this referendum has nothing to do with not liking who's in power in Westminster,. It was part of the SNP mandate that only if there was a material change in circumstances or in public opinion would another referendum be mooted so soon, and that has undoubtedly happened. Scotland voted overwhelminglty to stay within the EU and the threat of being taken out of the EU was one of the mainstays of the previous Scottish referendum "No" campaign. Broken promises all round.

To think that England would not trade with Scotland is ridiculous. Although maybe we should think about sending our oil, gas and water somewhere else to be honest. And there's no point in crushing non-existent numbers at this point either, especially ones based upon the economic policies of the current UK government. This latest news btw, is a notification of intent. To be asking for full economic and fiscal breakdowns right now is stupid. One could also say it's a way of getting May to take a little more notice than she was previously of the asks being made by Sturgeon for the upcoming Brexit negotiations. The alternative, as she said in her speech, would be to stand back and do nothing (like everyone else with a real voice seems to be doing)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:manson:  :manson: 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-grammar-schools-education-budget-unfunded-places-treasury-philip-hammond-labour-a7630276.html

Theresa May embroiled in fresh Budget controversy over unfunded grammar school places

 

Budget pledge will only fund 13,000 pupil places – not 70,000

 

may-school.jpg

 

 

Theresa May faces a fresh Budget storm after it emerged that £320m announced to create thousands of places at her flagship grammar schools will only cover a fraction of the cost of setting them up. Treasury officials admitted to The Independent that money set out in the Budget will not be enough to pay for the 70,000 free school places promised by the Prime Minister.

Ms May was so proud of the pledge to create the places at 140 new schools, that she chose to announce it personally the day before Chancellor Philip Hammond’s Budget statement. But an analysis of existing government data shows the £320m will only deliver a meagre 13,000 places by 2020, with additional money earmarked for the next parliament still only creating just over half of the promised 70,000.

Labour frontbenchers who uncovered the anomaly claimed it pointed to “broken promises” in the Budget, but even some nervous Conservative MPs last night urged the Government to be clear how they will make up the funding gap.

It follows an earlier row over the Budget plan to hike National Insurance contributions, breaking a Tory manifesto pledge, which left Ms May facing a backbench rebellion and urgently signalling extra measures to mitigate the impact – some Tories expect the NICs rise to be quietly ditched later on.

On the Tuesday before Budget day the Prime Minister visited a classroom to proudly announce new cash for the 70,000 free schools places. It is widely expected that many of new spots would deliver a selective education, the expansion of which the Prime Minister has made a cornerstone of her drive to boost social mobility.

But information previously given by the Department for Education to the National Audit Office indicates it costs £24,600 to create a new free school place, at which level the £320m promised would only pay for 13,008 places. Treasury officials said money set aside in the next parliament for the year 2021/22 would go further to meet the pledge, but even with that year’s extra £655m, only 42,073 places could be delivered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/14/theresa-may-tour-the-uk-eu-effort-to-forge-brexit-consensus

Theresa May expected to tour UK in effort to forge Brexit consensus

PM will seek to appease concerns over inclusion of devolved administrations in EU talks and ease tensions with Scottish government

 

Theresa May

 

 

Theresa May is planning a tour of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in an attempt to build consensus before she triggers article 50 and embarks on the formal Brexit process, the Guardian understands. It has been suggested that the prime minister and the Brexit secretary, David Davis, will also meet key business figures to discuss Britain’s approach to the EU negotiations.

Government figures have claimed there was always a plan to reach out to all parts of the United Kingdom, including responding to the Scottish government’s Brexit white paper, in the final two weeks of March before embarking on talks with the EU27. In parliament May confirmed there were a “number of processes that will take place” before she invokes article 50 at the end of March.

May used a statement about the European council meeting in parliament to question the timing of Nicola Sturgeon’s demand for a second independence referendum on Monday, intensifying tensions between the UK and Scottish governments. The prime minister said she was determined to retain a strong United Kingdom as she accused the SNP leader of “constitutional gameplaying with the future of the UK”.

She told colleagues that she had been working with the devolved administrations and was listening to their proposals, triggering jeers from the SNP politicians. The prime minister responded by saying: “This is not a moment to play politics, or create uncertainty or division. It is a moment to bring our country together, to honour the will of the British people and to shape for them a brighter future and a better Britain.”

 

After Sturgeon’s warning that she planned to hold a referendum between the autumn of 2018 and spring of 2019, May stressed that retaining a united UK was a priority. “There is much that binds us and I don’t want to see anybody doing constitutional gameplaying with the future of the UK,” she said.

Sturgeon made her announcement on Monday following widespread speculation – which Downing street did not stamp out – that article 50 would be triggered on Tuesday as soon as the Brexit bill completed all parliamentary hurdles. The Scottish first minister saw that as confirmation that May was not planning to consult the Scottish government any further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone knows she was planning to trigger it on Tuesday but Sturgeon's intervention put paid to it. She's still not going to pay any attention to what anyone wants anyway, and "touring" the UK is just a token gesture. 

I'm waiting for the upcoming Tory election fraud story to take hold soon...which may even result in a few by-elections taking place.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last night the Bill on Article 50 successfully completed its passage through both houses unchanged. It will now proceed to Royal assent in the coming days, so we remain on track with the timetable I set out six months ago. And I will return to this House before the end of this month to notify when I have formally triggered article 50 and begun the process through which the United Kingdom will leave the European Union

 

This will be a defining moment for our whole country as we begin to forge a new relationship with Europe and a new role for ourselves in thw world. We will be a strong self-governing global Britain. With control once again over our borders and over our laws and we will use this moment of opportunity to build a stronger economy and a fairer society (not starting well with that Grammar Schools issue  :lol:  )  So that we secure both a bright deal for Britain abroad and a better deal for ordinary working people at home

 

 

 

 

 

We have been working closely with the devolved administrations  ......  (massive jeers) :rotfl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Kim said:

Everyone knows she was planning to trigger it on Tuesday but Sturgeon's intervention put paid to it. She's still not going to pay any attention to what anyone wants anyway, and "touring" the UK is just a token gesture. 

I'm waiting for the upcoming Tory election fraud story to take hold soon...which may even result in a few by-elections taking place.

 

:chuckle:

 

Today in her speech she also boasted about a £5bn deal with Qatar. Hope they don't end up turning London more and more into a no holds barred thug life Las Vegas Casino. Apparently they're not happy enough to have created the perfect conditions for money-laundering types from Gulf Countries and Russia to have driven prices insane and made life hell for ordinary Londoners and British home owners/tennants in general I would say

I mean Assad must go but selling weapons to absolutely vile run, corrupt countries such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar is very important, high priority to the British people and the health of their economy. I love the hypocrisy of it all, well regarding the Middle East situation the hypocrisy is shared equally by all Western establishments

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/14/theresa-may-accused-losing-momentum-making-errors-delaying-formal/

Theresa May accused of 'losing momentum' and 'making errors' by delaying formal start of Brexit talks

 

JS123238781_AFP_Britain27s-Prime-Ministe

 

Theresa May has been accused of “losing momentum” and “making errors” by delaying the formal start of Brexit talks in the wake of Nicola Sturgeon’s shock demand for a Scottish independence referendum. The Prime Minister was expected formally to start negotiations with other European Union member states as early as this week once Parliament had passed a law allowing talks to begin. But The Telegraph understands that the Queen is likely to give the legal assent to the law that allows Mrs May to start Brexit talks on Thursday.

Mrs May is then understood to be targeting triggering Article 50 on Wednesday March 29, after a speaking tour of Britain when she will sell her vision for the UK outside the EU. This delay has led to concerns that Mrs May now cannot begin formal talks until May, missing the chance of talks with EU leaders on April 6.

Speaking in the Commons Mrs May said: "I prefer not to use a term of divorce from the European Union because very often when people get divorced they don't have a very good relationship afterwards." Lord Jones of Birmingham, a crossbench peer who was a trade minister in the last Labour government, said he “cannot understand why she has done it”.

The peer – who was head of the CBI for eight years – praised Mrs May for the way she has “handled” the period leading up to the start of negotiations. But he told The Telegraph: “If she has delayed it by two weeks, I am disappointed, it is an error.” The issue was not whether bilateral talks with Germany or other countries might not happen but more about the sense of stalling “momentum”. Lord Jones said: “The issue is momentum. She is in mid-innings, she is dealing with the bowling. Don’t declare your innings now!” Other MPs urged Mrs May to trigger Article 50 to avoid the chance of another legal challenge to the process being made to the process in the High Court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the fixation of English women with those ridiculous hats? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Kim said:

I don't even know where to start with this nonsense that reads like it's from the pages of the Daily Mail or Express. Scotland is a COUNTRY that formed a (supposedly equal) union with England , not some county or principality of England like Yorkshire. It has it's own legal, education and healthcare systems. It is REPEATEDLY represented on a national level by a government it hasn't voted for and while it remains open, inclusive and left of centre, the complete opposite is happening in England where xenophobic, inward looking, right wing rhetoric flourishes. The devolved parliament in Scotland is SNP run, out of the 59 MPs at Westminster, 56 of them are SNP. The clue is in the name; Scottish NATIONAL party. Independence for Scotland is their raison d'être so as long as they keep getting voted in, then the question of independence will never go away.

And you obviously don't realise that the Tories have an overall majority at Westminater, which means they have more MPs than all the other parties combined. So no, teaming up with Labour makes no difference on anything, and seeing as the Labour party are seen as nothing but a joke in Scotland (and everywhere else in the UK) these days, it would be unwise anyway. They are no longer a party of the left. You might want to watch PMQs some time and see that the only effective opposition to May comes from the SNP benches in fact. The point has been made in the media over and over that Angus Robertson keeps asking the questions that Corbyn doesn't.

And the reason for this referendum has nothing to do with not liking who's in power in Westminster,. It was part of the SNP mandate that only if there was a material change in circumstances or in public opinion would another referendum be mooted so soon, and that has undoubtedly happened. Scotland voted overwhelminglty to stay within the EU and the threat of being taken out of the EU was one of the mainstays of the previous Scottish referendum "No" campaign. Broken promises all round.

To think that England would not trade with Scotland is ridiculous. Although maybe we should think about sending our oil, gas and water somewhere else to be honest. And there's no point in crushing non-existent numbers at this point either, especially ones based upon the economic policies of the current UK government. This latest news btw, is a notification of intent. To be asking for full economic and fiscal breakdowns right now is stupid. One could also say it's a way of getting May to take a little more notice than she was previously of the asks being made by Sturgeon for the upcoming Brexit negotiations. The alternative, as she said in her speech, would be to stand back and do nothing (like everyone else with a real voice seems to be doing)

 

The point still remains that every country has the government that some parts of the population don't like and feel unreprensted but thats a democracy. California has power like a devolved Scotland so should they break away from the US just because they don't like this president or how they state votes isn't always the same as the winning president? It's only been since 2010 the SNP have had a majority so they always sent Labour or Tory MPs and for the last 100 years we have had Labour or Conservative governments. People are voting for the SNP not just for independedence a poll in a few years ago showed 28% of their voters do not want full independence, the SNP have simply mirrored the decline of Scottish Labour for the left wing vote. 

Of course the Consevarives have a majority but it is rare that every mp votes so their actual majority is dependent on everyone voting in the commons which does not often happen for many reasons. There were many Tory MPs who voted remain and it would not be difficult if Labour were strong they, the snp and a few rebels could influence brexit. Indeed Just because Labour is at the moment in-effective should not be used as an excuse for another independent votes, governments and oppositions are in constant flux that just how it works. The figures I quoted are from the Scottish government so they are not 'non existent' just look for yourself. They have had 3 years to come up with a real answer to all the unanswered questions over independence and we are still waiting. I don't expect a 100% detail but they haven't answered any of the major concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just two days after MPs rejected Lords amendment to have a final say on UK EU deal David Davis admitted that the government HAS NOT assessed economic impact on no Brexit deal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lmao:what a useless bunch of waffling irresponsible arrogant imbeciles this class of politicians on BOTH sides are. Such an example to set for younger generations, such a waste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, kangarooz said:

The point still remains that every country has the government that some parts of the population don't like and feel unreprensted but thats a democracy. California has power like a devolved Scotland so should they break away from the US just because they don't like this president or how they state votes isn't always the same as the winning president? It's only been since 2010 the SNP have had a majority so they always sent Labour or Tory MPs and for the last 100 years we have had Labour or Conservative governments. People are voting for the SNP not just for independedence a poll in a few years ago showed 28% of their voters do not want full independence, the SNP have simply mirrored the decline of Scottish Labour for the left wing vote. 

Of course the Consevarives have a majority but it is rare that every mp votes so their actual majority is dependent on everyone voting in the commons which does not often happen for many reasons. There were many Tory MPs who voted remain and it would not be difficult if Labour were strong they, the snp and a few rebels could influence brexit. Indeed Just because Labour is at the moment in-effective should not be used as an excuse for another independent votes, governments and oppositions are in constant flux that just how it works. The figures I quoted are from the Scottish government so they are not 'non existent' just look for yourself. They have had 3 years to come up with a real answer to all the unanswered questions over independence and we are still waiting. I don't expect a 100% detail but they haven't answered any of the major concerns.

It's impossible to have a discussion with someone who pulls 'alternative facts' out their arse every time they respond. California is a stupid comparison. The political landscape in Scotland has shifted dramatically so there's no point in referencing the past., I will repeat; this proposal has nothing to do with who got voted in at Westminster, it's to do with the fact that an inclusive, open, forward thinking, left-leaning European nation does not want its economy ruined by its rabid right-wing xenophobic neighbours pulling it out of the European union. 

Your comments on Brexit show how little attention you seem to be paying to its journey through parliament. The Tory MPs who voted remain have been whipped by the party into voting the opposite, so even if if every other party  got together they could still not defeat any bill, especially as Labour also have been told what to vote for. The only ones sticking to their original vote are SNP and Lib Dems. The recent (very reasonable) amendments made to the Article 50 bill were also voted down by the Commons twice .The reason for this is the hysterical populist nonsense that's swept across England, fuelled by the right-wing media, accusing anyone thinking otherwise of being a traitor, "remoaner", evil enemy of the state etc. Not to mention this DISGUSTING fascination with vilifying immigrants.

The SNP have had no reason to answer any specific questions about independence the last three years as it wasn't on the table and in the meantime it has a country to run and in my opinion are doing quite well at it.  As my cousins' free university education and aunt's free personal care and niece's free childcare and my pretty good pay packet and wonderful local hospital all attest to. Not perfect of course, but getting there. Now if those few remaining economic and fiscal powers were just handed over (which is what "independence" actually means) then even better.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What alternative facts,  I'm the one using actual facts and numbers  to make a point, not just an opinion that can't not be proven. I have always looked at independent analysis and surveys to ensure I am factually correct when I am discussing anything.

Labour MPs had the whip but still rebelled? So if there was political will the brexit bill could have been defeated but mps have made up thier own minds to follow the results of the referendum. 

Yes I understand a they voted to remain but as part of the United Kingdom they have to take the good and the bad, you can't just throw your toys from the pram when you don't get your own way? What about all he good things Scotlands gets from the UK like relative financial stability, a strong world wide influence, a vital internal economic market etc

The only reason Scotland has all those is that it has a huge monetary  overspend which they themselves have shown, who will pay for free education and hospitals when they can only spend what they earn and borrow very little? Do the SNP even want full fiscal powers last time they wanted to be under full control of the Bank of England, so they want independence yet the protection and security of rUK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kangarooz said:

What alternative facts,  I'm the one using actual facts and numbers  to make a point, not just an opinion that can't not be proven. I have always looked at independent analysis and surveys to ensure I am factually correct when I am discussing anything.

Labour MPs had the whip but still rebelled? So if there was political will the brexit bill could have been defeated but mps have made up thier own minds to follow the results of the referendum. 

Yes I understand a they voted to remain but as part of the United Kingdom they have to take the good and the bad, you can't just throw your toys from the pram when you don't get your own way? What about all he good things Scotlands gets from the UK like relative financial stability, a strong world wide influence, a vital internal economic market etc

The only reason Scotland has all those is that it has a huge monetary  overspend which they themselves have shown, who will pay for free education and hospitals when they can only spend what they earn and borrow very little? Do the SNP even want full fiscal powers last time they wanted to be under full control of the Bank of England, so they want independence yet the protection and security of rUK?

Throwing out pointless comparisons to US states and the nationality of Prime Ministers like they are cogent  to your argument is similar to the media culture of the day... alternative facts that have nothing to do with the discussion. This "throwing the dummy out" is the exact same rhetoric thrown around about Brexit and it's shockingly juvenile considering the dire economic consequences it's about to have on the entire country. 

A handful of Labour MPs held onto their principles yes. And if you seriously think that every other MP of all parties "made up their own mind" then you're kidding yourself. They follow the party line with very few exceptions...always.

Scotland's "overspend" is within the framework of current UK economic policy and stands at 15bn out of 69bn UK wide. When dealing with national debt, first of all a new UK register of assets needs to be drawn up. This was due to be done again in 2013 but was somehow cancelled by Cameron in 2010. Based on these figures for Scotland, the door is then open to offset part of that asset share against any debt burden. It is up to Scotland to negotiate cleverly and refinance national debt sensibly. This can be done in 4 ways; the subtractive case with refinancing, the additive case with no refinancing, the zero option case or the historical net contribution case. Look it up if you're that interested.

Maybe you should be more worried about the crisis-level, almost 2.5 billion deficit in English NHS hospitals alone or the 1.56 TRILLION national debt of the entire country (which is predicted to rise for rUK by two percentage points if /when Scotland leaves) And as for paying for those things that make a country a decent and inclusive place, I know this is anathema for a Tory supporter, but a few pence on my tax to pay for a fairer society for ALL is no problem for me or many more like me. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were not pointless comparisons as it shows the federal like system the us has compared to the uk nations. Blair and Brown were both Scottish and Scottish mp so it is a valid point that Scotland has had a powerful impact on the highest office of the uk.

Yes I agree about the potential  " dire economic"  consequences of brexit but you are ignoring the "dire consequences" to the Scottish economy of independence? Access to the European single market and the world in general is minuscule compared to the trade with rUK and so aren't the all independence supporters juvenile for ignoring these dire consequences and assuming they can get a "good deal" ? The SNP have said today they may not even join the single market and aim for an agreement like Norway, Brexit may or may not have dire consequences but you can't ignore that there are exactly the same economic risks for an independent Scotland. 

Even if Scotland take on no share of the national debt they will still be running a high deficit and on day one as their books will not balance they  will be heading to international creditors with open hands. They will have to cut spending or raise taxes somewhere. Yes our debt is horrendous we are on borrowed time, potentially going back to the 70s crawling the the IMF for help. But look at a tiny increase in National Insurance both the SNP and labour opposed this, look at the uproar created that people would have to pay a few pence more tax on incomes over £16,000. Neither opposition have offered an alternative to this and find £2bn that was for social care. You are assuming most people are willing to pay a bit of extra tax but evidently that isn't the case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kangarooz said:

They were not pointless comparisons as it shows the federal like system the us has compared to the uk nations. Blair and Brown were both Scottish and Scottish mp so it is a valid point that Scotland has had a powerful impact on the highest office of the uk.

Yes I agree about the potential  " dire economic"  consequences of brexit but you are ignoring the "dire consequences" to the Scottish economy of independence? Access to the European single market and the world in general is minuscule compared to the trade with rUK and so aren't the all independence supporters juvenile for ignoring these dire consequences and assuming they can get a "good deal" ? The SNP have said today they may not even join the single market and aim for an agreement like Norway, Brexit may or may not have dire consequences but you can't ignore that there are exactly the same economic risks for an independent Scotland. 

Even if Scotland take on no share of the national debt they will still be running a high deficit and on day one as their books will not balance they  will be heading to international creditors with open hands. They will have to cut spending or raise taxes somewhere. Yes our debt is horrendous we are on borrowed time, potentially going back to the 70s crawling the the IMF for help. But look at a tiny increase in National Insurance both the SNP and labour opposed this, look at the uproar created that people would have to pay a few pence more tax on incomes over £16,000. Neither opposition have offered an alternative to this and find £2bn that was for social care. You are assuming most people are willing to pay a bit of extra tax but evidently that isn't the case. 

California's relationship to/in the USA is in no way comparable to Scotland's with England. Tony Blair (who's about as Scottish as you are, no matter what city he was born in) was not a Scottish MP, his constituency was Sedgefield. Neither he nor Brown's nationality had any bearing on policy for Scotland or anywhere else in the UK. Those points are egregious and tenuous.

There is NO QUESTION of England refusing to trade with Scotland seeing as the rUK exports more to Scotland than the reverse and is England’s most important market, or of them looking elsewhere to get the natural resources that are sitting on their doorstep over the border, certainly not at a time when they're scrabbling for a deal...any deal...with Mozambique and Bangladesh and any other commonwealth corner that they can. Scotch Whisky alone accounts for one full quarter of all the UKs food and drink exports generating nearly 4bn for the UK balance of trade (sent straight to London) Should Scotland break free of this Brexit fiasco, it will either remain in the EU or the EEA with access to the internal market. An independent Scotland, with control over taxation, finance, business regulation and global promotion would be well placed to expand exports enormously, it just needs the full autonomy to do so. Brexit is a disaster for the Scottish economy.

No one knows what deal would be made re assets and debt so there's no point speculating. That no party has the guts to touch the big "no-no" of taxation is ridiculous at this point. The ASSUMPTION is that there would be uproar (and there generally is when there's no parity between the tax CUTS for the very top earners and the rest of the population; as is the Tory way)   in actuality, most people would be willing to pay more to fund the NHS etc. No one is willing to touch it for purely political reasons, but it will come eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can't compare Scotland to America.  The USA has different states but they all make up the one country and call themselves American.   Scotland is their own country.  They may form the United Kingdom with England, Wales and Northern Ireland but all are seen as being distinctly different as nations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are comparable many us states have similar localised powers to Scotland, similar size economies and similar problems. They are still legally Scottish, Scottish leaders in charge of the uk= Scottish influence and power at the head of government just because they weren't nationalists doesn't mean they didn't pursue Scottish policies . The only reason they are having referendums is due to Blair's devolution. How can you say Scotland hasn't been represented in government, when they have had such an impact on uk politics for the past few decades and gained such power?

I have seen no evidence that Scotland is the biggest export market for rUK and regardless Scottish exports to rUK are over 60%, any exports the other way around will be no where near this high. If I was to believe there would be NO QUESTION of a trade deal then you must agree the EU has to do a good deal with Brexit as the EU exports more to Britain than any other country at 16%. So how does the Scottish Economy gain here by independence ? Britain will gain good trade deals with the EU and have freedom to do elsewhere, will Sturgeon get better deals negotiating alone or as part of the UK? 

The Scottish government already has some control over much of what's you've listed. There first budget with tax powers last year yet they didnt really use them to makes changes to tax the SNP has been talking about for years instead just freezing some thresholds. This is simply what will happen after independence where tax and regulations will mirror rUK so it seems unnecessary to have independence when they are not utilising all the power they have now.  

The uproar from the National insurance doesn't show me any evidence that people are willing in reality  to pay more tax. Why didn't the SNP use there power to increase tax rates in thier budget?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jazzyjan said:

We can't compare Scotland to America.  The USA has different states but they all make up the one country and call themselves American.   Scotland is their own country.  They may form the United Kingdom with England, Wales and Northern Ireland but all are seen as being distinctly different as nations. 

I class myself as British and we are officially British citizens. Britain has been together before most of Europe even existed and the US as we know it. While each parts keeps its nations name they have been intertwined to create Britain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, kangarooz said:

I class myself as British and we are officially British citizens. Britain has been together before most of Europe even existed and all of America existed. While each parts keeps its nations name they have been intertwined to create Britain. 

It doesn't matter, that are still separate countries. Scotland retained it's own legal system and education system even before devolution. In fact the only country that doesn't have it's own government at this point is England...maybe IT isn't really a country afterall.

As for your other post, we can go back and forth with supposition and hypotheticals forever. No one knows and we'll just have to wait and see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0