Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

Unions are like cops....Everyone hates them until they need one..

Miliband was a lightweight...Cameron couldn't finish Gordon remember ??...But he finished Ed with mps to spare.

Brown I had time for him..

Only voted Labour in 2015 to get rid of the Lib dems.

No time for Jez or Ed...But maybe Mili could win now..

Like Tyson beating Ali it's a possibility...We will never know.

Brown I always felt was better served operating as the 2nd in charge. Still if he'd had a pair, he probably could've won a GE at one point

Just thinking of Ed Miliband as Mike Tyson...

Pr4wn wrote:Just thinking of Ed Miliband as Mike Tyson...

Hell yes, I'm tough enough.

All this snap election shows is that May is not to be trusted. It is another option taken that she said she wouldn't take.

It is an option to go to the ballot boxes whilst naive voters still won't accept a Hard Brexit is on the way and whilst Labour are in utter disarray. As far as the political landscape in Scotland is concerned she won't get what she desires.

Well she has one seat in Scotland and now faces a much more vulnerable SNP than last time. It's hard to see how she can do much worse.

GSC wrote:Well she has one seat in Scotland and now faces a much more vulnerable SNP than last time. It's hard to see how she can do much worse.

Being generous the absolute most Tories will pick up is an extra two seats - three seats out of 59 is a million miles from a vote against SNP. And vulnerable? Really? Opinion polls put SNP consistently at 45% of the electorate. A bit desperate to call that vulnerable.

So an extra 2 seats before you take into account Corbyns unpopularity?

I'm sure she's sweating.

Stop that sexism crap, GSC! Women don't sweat! Have manners.

GSC wrote:So an extra 2 seats before you take into account Corbyns unpopularity?

I'm sure she's sweating.

I am talking about results in Scotland here not the rest of the UK.

A 10% swing would give the Tories 100 seats. The polls say a 7.2% swing if the election was today which is 70 seats.

All the Tories need is a few Labour voters to go with the Lid Dems and some of the Ukip voters to vote for them. In reality without Farage Ukip are toothless, so it's likely those hard core Brexiters will go Tory this time. You only have to look at the Ukip Facebook page to see all Ukip voters are going tactical for this.

This is the 10% swing list:
Number / Seat/ Region/ Majority/ Swing needed
1. Chester, City of North West 93 0.18% 0.09%
2. Ealing Central and Acton London 274 0.54% 0.27%
3. Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk Scotland 328 0.60% 0.30%
4. Brentford and Isleworth London 465 0.81% 0.41%
5. Halifax Yorkshire and the Humber 428 0.98% 0.49%
6. Wirral West North West 417 1.00% 0.50%
7. Ilford North London 589 1.20% 0.60%
8. Newcastle-under-Lyme West Midlands 650 1.51% 0.76%
9. Barrow and Furness North West 795 1.84% 0.92%
10. Wolverhampton South West West Midlands 801 1.99% 1.00%
11. Hampstead and Kilburn London 1,138 2.11% 1.05%
12. Enfield North London 1,086 2.35% 1.18%
13. Hove South East 1,236 2.37% 1.18%
14. Dewsbury Yorkshire and the Humber 1,451 2.71% 1.35%
15. Southport North West 1,322 3.00% 1.50%
16. Lancaster and Fleetwood North West 1,265 3.03% 1.52%
17. Carshalton and Wallington London 1,510 3.17% 1.59%
18. Derbyshire North East East Midlands 1,883 3.93% 1.96%
19. Harrow West London 2,208 4.74% 2.37%
20. Bridgend Wales 1,927 4.88% 2.44%
21. Middlesbrough South and Cleveland East North East 2,268 4.97% 2.48%
22. Westminster North London 1,977 5.00% 2.50%
23. Walsall North West Midlands 1,937 5.25% 2.63%
24. Tooting London 2,842 5.31% 2.65%
25. Wrexham Wales 1,831 5.60% 2.80%
26. Birmingham Northfield West Midlands 2,509 5.91% 2.95%
27. Wakefield Yorkshire and the Humber 2,613 6.08% 3.04%
28. Gedling East Midlands 2,986 6.22% 3.11%
29. Eltham London 2,693 6.24% 3.12%
30. Copeland North West 2,564 6.47% 3.23%
31. Stoke-on-Trent South West Midlands 2,539 6.49% 3.25%
32. Birmingham Edgbaston West Midlands 2,706 6.55% 3.28%
33. Clwyd South Wales 2,402 6.85% 3.43%
34. Coventry South West Midlands 3,188 7.30% 3.65%
35. Darlington North East 3,158 7.68% 3.84%
36. Clacton East of England 3,437 7.77% 3.89%
37. Delyn Wales 2,930 7.82% 3.91%
38. Blackpool South North West 2,585 7.97% 3.98%
39. Alyn and Deeside Wales 3,343 8.09% 4.05%
40. Norfolk North East of England 4,043 8.18% 4.09%
41. Scunthorpe Yorkshire and the Humber 3,134 8.48% 4.24%
42. Bristol East South West 3,980 8.61% 4.31%
43. Newport West Wales 3,510 8.70% 4.35%
44. Southampton Test South East 3,810 8.73% 4.36%
45. Chorley North West 4,530 8.76% 4.38%
46. Bishop Auckland North East 3,508 8.91% 4.45%
47. Coventry North West West Midlands 4,509 9.97% 4.98%
48. Bolton North East North West 4,377 10.14% 5.07%
49. Hyndburn North West 4,400 10.26% 5.13%
50. Bury South North West 4,922 10.42% 5.21%
51. Wirral South North West 4,599 10.99% 5.50%
52. Dudley North West Midlands 4,181 11.00% 5.50%
53. Mansfield East Midlands 5,315 11.26% 5.63%
54. Dumfries and Galloway Scotland 6,514 11.51% 5.75%
55. Batley and Spen Yorkshire and the Humber 6,057 12.00% 6.00%
56. Workington North West 4,686 12.18% 6.09%
57. Stoke-on-Trent North West Midlands 4,836 12.51% 6.26%
58. Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine Scotland 7,033 12.74% 6.37%
59. Exeter South West 7,183 13.30% 6.65%
60. Newport East Wales 4,705 13.40% 6.70%
61. Ellesmere Port and Neston North West 6,275 13.43% 6.71%
62. Great Grimsby Yorkshire and the Humber 4,540 13.46% 6.73%
63. Oldham East and Saddleworth North West 6,002 13.49% 6.75%
64. Luton South East of England 5,711 13.53% 6.76%
65. Hammersmith London 6,518 13.59% 6.80%
66. Bristol South South West 7,128 14.02% 7.01%
67. York Central Yorkshire and the Humber 6,716 14.09% 7.04%
68. Worsley and Eccles South North West 5,946 14.14% 7.07%
69. Winkle and Stocksbridge Yorkshire and the Humber 6,723 14.35% 7.17%
70. Walsall South West Midlands 6,007 14.36% 7.18%
71. Hartlepool North East 5,820 14.74% 7.37%
72. Birmingham Erdington West Midlands 5,129 14.79% 7.39%
73. Leeds North East Yorkshire and the Humber 7,250 15.01% 7.51%
74. Slough South East 7,336 15.20% 7.60%
75. Tynemouth North East 8,240 15.40% 7.70%
76. Cardiff West Wales 6,789 15.50% 7.75%
77. Norwich South East of England 7,654 15.79% 7.90%
78. Nottingham South East Midlands 6,936 15.96% 7.98%
79. Cardiff South and Penarth Wales 7,453 15.97% 7.99%
80. Wolverhampton North East West Midlands 5,495 16.16% 8.08%
81. Stalybridge and Hyde North West 6,686 16.29% 8.15%
82. Stoke-on-Trent Central West Midlands 5,212 16.77% 8.38%
83. Lancashire West North West 8,360 16.83% 8.41%
84. Dagenham and Rainham London 7,338 17.05% 8.52%
85. Bradford South Yorkshire and the Humber 6,450 17.15% 8.58%
86. Carmarthen East and Dinefwr Wales 6,804 17.27% 8.63%
87. Sedgefield North East 6,843 17.67% 8.84%
88. Perth and North Perthshire Scotland 9,641 17.79% 8.89%
89. Bassetlaw East Midlands 8,843 17.94% 8.97%
90. Huddersfield Yorkshire and the Humber 7,345 18.15% 9.07%
91. Dwyfor Meirionnydd Wales 5,261 18.20% 9.10%
92. Westmorland and Lonsdale North West 8,949 18.29% 9.14%
93. Moray Scotland 9,065 18.39% 9.20%
94. Ashfield East Midlands 8,820 18.60% 9.30%
95. Ynys Mon Wales 3,478 9.96% 9.30%
96. Birmingham Selly Oak West Midlands 8,447 18.65% 9.32%
97. Aberdeen South Scotland 9,134 18.81% 9.41%
98. Brighton Pavilion South East 10,423 19.06% 9.53%
99. Warrington North North West 8,923 19.65% 9.82%
100. Swansea West Wales 7,036 20.01% 10.01%

CaledonianCraig wrote:All this snap election shows is that May is not to be trusted. It is another option taken that she said she wouldn't take.

It is an option to go to the ballot boxes whilst naive voters still won't accept a Hard Brexit is on the way and whilst Labour are in utter disarray. As far as the political landscape in Scotland is concerned she won't get what she desires.

Shes very smart I think. Labour are in a mess, totally dis-attached from their voters. The SNP are trying to force the 55% of Scottish voters who wanted to Remain in the uk to go for Independence. I'm sure Ukip were planning on bringing back Farage before the next election, now they go into it with Nuttall, and a load of 30 year olds in charge, and no money.
She's heading off potentially mandatory revotes in the areas where the Tories over spent and got fined for.

She's getting 3-4 birds with one stone.

Shifty let's just say unionist parties in the local elections are guilty of double standards.Through my door came a leaflet from the Scottish Tories and all it did was give you bullet points on how to vote against a referendum. The SNP leaflet at least remembers what the local elections are about with around six or seven bullet points on their achievements in the area.

The SNP are speaking for a large body of Scots who want independence and not forcing anyone to vote/back them. That is all personal choice.

The hard fact is politically Scotland abhors the Tories whilst large parts of the rest of the UK love the Tories. That is why many Scots feel disconnected to any sort of political union.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Shifty let's just say unionist parties in the local elections are guilty of double standards.Through my door came a leaflet from the Scottish Tories and all it did was give you bullet points on how to vote against a referendum. The SNP leaflet at least remembers what the local elections are about with around six or seven bullet points on their achievements in the area.

The SNP are speaking for a large body of Scots who want independence and not forcing anyone to vote/back them. That is all personal choice.

The hard fact is politically Scotland abhors the Tories whilst large parts of the rest of the UK love the Tories. That is why many Scots feel disconnected to any sort of political union.

I think Norman Lamont nailed it on the head many years ago in his book Sovereign Britain.  He published it in 1995 and he was born in Scotland himself.  At the time of publishing a young Scottish born Tony Blair had taken control of Labour and had just published his 1997 election manifesto, in it Blair states in his first year he wants to set up Scottish and Welsh Parliaments.  Lamont apposed this arguing it would result in Scotland having one hand open, begging for more money for public sector spending, while on the other wagging a finger at the English blaming them for everything.  On the other side of the border you would have the English tax payer constantly giving money to Scotland while taking abuse for their troubles.  In his judgement this would drive a wedge between both countries and eventually lead to independence.  No one can argue that is not exactly what has happened.  Personally I'd be happy for a second Scottish referendum, but if the Scots choose to stay the Scottish Parliament gets shut down, if they vote to leave then they go with no subsidies from England, and also they have their own currency as England should not have to stand behind them if they make a mess of it in the way Germany stands behind Greece.  I.E. Scotland has to make up the £15 billion shortfall budget themselves.  Though I have no idea how they would do this.

I understand the basic maths is:

Population 5.3 million
Employed 2.427 million
Unemployed / retired / children 2.873 million
1,816,800 in Private sector employment   comprising 74.9% of employment - note many jobs are in the supply chain supported by public sector jobs.
610,200 Public sector employment  comprising  25.1% of employment
36,000 jobs not included for RBS and HBOS banking.

Basically 1,816,800 have to pay for 3,483,200 people - hence a £15 billion shortfall.  If you throw in the fact that Scotland's North Sea oil could run out in 2040 then after that the numbers get catastrophic.  By 2018/2019 the annual revenue from Scotland's oil reserves is projected to be £3.5 billion.  Once the oil runs out things get much worse.  The SNP offer no answers to the budget shortfall.  I honestly don't think Europe will give them that.  Countries like the Republic of Ireland are soon going to be net payers to the project, so even if Scotland could join the EU as an independent nation, assuming they have to join the Euro, and then they'd have to meet the financial budgetary requirements, which they are no where near doing so.  Independence is a silly idea as things stand.

The obvious public sector job losses would be:
Department for work and Pensions - moved to England
HM revenue and customs - moved to England
Nuclear submarine facility at Faslane shut down 6,500 jobs lost, raising to 8,000 if the new trident subs aren't built there - probably moved to Portsmouth
Govan and Scotstoun - Clyde military base - 3,500 uniformed Royal Navy personnel, 1,700 are contractors and 1,600 are other civilian employees.
RBS and HBOS - moved to England

It's actually sort of interesting that Portsmouth received a £100 million upgrade for ship building to expand the dockyard incase Scotland ever does choose to leave the Uk, so jobs can simply be transferred over.

Private sector job losses:
Scottish ship yards shut down - England unwilling to build ships in non Uk country, jobs likely relocated to Milford Haven West Wales, near Port Talbot steel works.

Some of those seats in Scotland on your list can't possibly be Labour's to lose....Shifty.

The SNP pretty much cleaned the table.

10 percent swings aren't a one size fits all issue....Different demographics....Pro Europe seats...Brexit seats...Pressing local issues etc ..

The Tories are going to lose 20 back to the Libs so they need to stuff Labour.

Hard to see them failing to do so.

One factor which may play in Scotland's favour over time is that it (and not least Edinburgh) could be a magnet for sections of the arts, culture and academia world that already find the increasingly xenophobic, inward and backward nature of the public discourse and political climate in England unpalatable. Scotland already has considerable strengths and could reasonable aim to build on this as an aim of public policy.

I was against Scottish independence in 2014 as I thought it was a pointless referendum based on the Scots dislike of the English. However, since then I have seen how strong the SNP have become and how Scottish people are constantly being told they can't do X or Y because the English majority want Z.

The scots were told vote for the union in 2014 and you are voting to keep your place in the EU. Now cos they are in the UK that is the reason why they are being dragged out of the UK.

The SNP who are the largest party in both the Scottish parliament and have the most Scottish mps by a landslide want another referendum and they are being told by the PM (an English person) that they are not allowed one. Why can't Scotland decide if they have another referendum or not? why is it the English who decide?

The Scottish people clearly want a referendum because it stated in the SNP manifesto that if the uk left the EU against Scotlads wishes that would trigger another referendum, and the Scottish people voted in the millions for the snp.

There is no xenophobia in Scots opinion. Scots are fed up to the back teeth of Westminster rule and their politicians who govern them who clearly lie to get what they want whether it is to buy votes or to lead the country into war based on lies. To many Scots this has been going on for the best part of 35 years and Scots have had enough.

That is backed by the huge rise of the SNP. Scots want politicians who fight for Scotland and are wise to the fact now that a vote for Tory or Labour is a vote for a puppet not a politician. An mp who will tow the Westminster party line first and foremost and vote to pass bills regardless of their effect on Scotland. The Tory and Labour voters in Scotland now are almost entirely staunch unionist voters.

There is so much Scotland has going for it. It is one of the leading producers in the wind farm power industry, renowned worldwide for farming produce, fishing, tourism, textile industry and renowned for its scientific/medical research. 

I am under no illusion how tough independence would be at first for Scotland but would it be any worse than a Hard Brexit? Debatable. And once bedded in comes that joys of having the shackles of Westminster cast aside.

I have, and will continue to have, many friends in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and my friendships will not change. People should realize Scots are voting to end Westminster rule and are sick of being governed by governments abhorred by a big majority of Scots who they never vote for.

Shifty wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Shifty let's just say unionist parties in the local elections are guilty of double standards.Through my door came a leaflet from the Scottish Tories and all it did was give you bullet points on how to vote against a referendum. The SNP leaflet at least remembers what the local elections are about with around six or seven bullet points on their achievements in the area.

The SNP are speaking for a large body of Scots who want independence and not forcing anyone to vote/back them. That is all personal choice.

The hard fact is politically Scotland abhors the Tories whilst large parts of the rest of the UK love the Tories. That is why many Scots feel disconnected to any sort of political union.

I think Norman Lamont nailed it on the head many years ago in his book Sovereign Britain.  He published it in 1995 and he was born in Scotland himself.  At the time of publishing a young Scottish born Tony Blair had taken control of Labour and had just published his 1997 election manifesto, in it Blair states in his first year he wants to set up Scottish and Welsh Parliaments.  Lamont apposed this arguing it would result in Scotland having one hand open, begging for more money for public sector spending, while on the other wagging a finger at the English blaming them for everything.  On the other side of the border you would have the English tax payer constantly giving money to Scotland while taking abuse for their troubles.  In his judgement this would drive a wedge between both countries and eventually lead to independence.  No one can argue that is not exactly what has happened.  Personally I'd be happy for a second Scottish referendum, but if the Scots choose to stay the Scottish Parliament gets shut down, if they vote to leave then they go with no subsidies from England, and also they have their own currency as England should not have to stand behind them if they make a mess of it in the way Germany stands behind Greece.  I.E. Scotland has to make up the £15 billion shortfall budget themselves.  Though I have no idea how they would do this.

I understand the basic maths is:

Population 5.3 million
Employed 2.427 million
Unemployed / retired / children 2.873 million
1,816,800 in Private sector employment   comprising 74.9% of employment - note many jobs are in the supply chain supported by public sector jobs.
610,200 Public sector employment  comprising  25.1% of employment
36,000 jobs not included for RBS and HBOS banking.

Basically 1,816,800 have to pay for 3,483,200 people - hence a £15 billion shortfall.  If you throw in the fact that Scotland's North Sea oil could run out in 2040 then after that the numbers get catastrophic.  By 2018/2019 the annual revenue from Scotland's oil reserves is projected to be £3.5 billion.  Once the oil runs out things get much worse.  The SNP offer no answers to the budget shortfall.  I honestly don't think Europe will give them that.  Countries like the Republic of Ireland are soon going to be net payers to the project, so even if Scotland could join the EU as an independent nation, assuming they have to join the Euro, and then they'd have to meet the financial budgetary requirements, which they are no where near doing so.  Independence is a silly idea as things stand.

The obvious public sector job losses would be:
Department for work and Pensions - moved to England
HM revenue and customs - moved to England
Nuclear submarine facility at Faslane shut down 6,500 jobs lost, raising to 8,000 if the new trident subs aren't built there - probably moved to Portsmouth
Govan and Scotstoun - Clyde military base - 3,500 uniformed Royal Navy personnel, 1,700 are contractors and 1,600 are other civilian employees.
RBS and HBOS - moved to England

It's actually sort of interesting that Portsmouth received a £100 million upgrade for ship building to expand the dockyard incase Scotland ever does choose to leave the Uk, so jobs can simply be transferred over.  

Private sector job losses:
Scottish ship yards shut down - England unwilling to build ships in non Uk country, jobs likely relocated to Milford Haven West Wales, near Port Talbot steel works.

You do understand that the UK have a massive ongoing shortfall and it does not stop them operating as an independent country. As for what Norman Lamont thinks is irrelevant as he was and is a staunch unionist which will always clouds judgement on matters of Scottish independence. There will be hurdles to overcome if independence is achieved but hurdles far more clearable when ones ankles aren't shackled together.

As for your creative mind on jobs moved to England? Well no as Scotland will have their own such departments taking their place so those employed in those departments at present will merely transfer over to the new Scottish branches. And did we not hear that Westminster has nowhere else in the UK to store their nuke submarines? That being the case Westminster will be coughing up many millions to keep them stored on Scottish territory. And I hate to burst your bubble but the banks would be moved to Europe - that was already said during the last referendum when they said they'd move to London as it was still in the EU. Well not anymore so I'd imagine they'd be heading to Brussels or Paris.

I've said it before and will say it again - if Scotland is such a financial burden with no assets to support itself why is Westminster fighting tooth and nail to keep it under its thumb? If one has a limb riddled with gangrene you amputate and let it go. That isn't happening here and you must be one hell of a naive chappy if you think it is anything to do with anything but finances.

Last we heard the subs would more than likely move to Plymouth with Portsmouth remaining the main base for the rest of the fleet whilst Faslane personnel get moved back. UNLESS Scotland pay a fee.

The biggest problem you'll have imo is actually creating them departments and coming up with wage structures etc. although then you've got your own Navy etc to patrol your seas (unless you'll pay the EU or us to do it). but i'm sure A.S said that your oil would pay for it all so it's all rosy ;-)

Derbymanc wrote:Last we heard the subs would more than likely move to Plymouth with Portsmouth remaining the main base for the rest of the fleet whilst Faslane personnel get moved back. UNLESS Scotland pay a fee.

The biggest problem you'll have imo is actually creating them departments and coming up with wage structures etc. although then you've got your own Navy etc to patrol your seas (unless you'll pay the EU or us to do it). but i'm sure A.S said that your oil would pay for it all so it's all rosy ;-)

Nope or else why did Westminster recently , when they had the chance, not move them to Plymouth or Portsmouth. Creating departments and wage structuring is easy enough and achievable - it is not anything new as it has been going on for over two decades now what with devolution and Scotland creating new departments in other sectors. As for the oil I'd sooner have it than not have it but there is far more strings to Scotland's bow in any case as it is now one of the leading producers of other renewable power industries.

Because it was one of the bargaining chips to keep Scotland part of the UK, bit like saying how come they had all them briefs, chats, money saving experts and reviews about which to close Plymouth or Portsmouth but as the independance ref came into view they ignored it all and kept both open.

I'd actually like to hear more about Scotlands income generation as the last ref it seemed to be all about Oil that turned out to be baloney. Plus on the EU side of things, it's no guarantee you'll get into Europe either

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Shifty wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Shifty let's just say unionist parties in the local elections are guilty of double standards.Through my door came a leaflet from the Scottish Tories and all it did was give you bullet points on how to vote against a referendum. The SNP leaflet at least remembers what the local elections are about with around six or seven bullet points on their achievements in the area.

The SNP are speaking for a large body of Scots who want independence and not forcing anyone to vote/back them. That is all personal choice.

The hard fact is politically Scotland abhors the Tories whilst large parts of the rest of the UK love the Tories. That is why many Scots feel disconnected to any sort of political union.

I think Norman Lamont nailed it on the head many years ago in his book Sovereign Britain.  He published it in 1995 and he was born in Scotland himself.  At the time of publishing a young Scottish born Tony Blair had taken control of Labour and had just published his 1997 election manifesto, in it Blair states in his first year he wants to set up Scottish and Welsh Parliaments.  Lamont apposed this arguing it would result in Scotland having one hand open, begging for more money for public sector spending, while on the other wagging a finger at the English blaming them for everything.  On the other side of the border you would have the English tax payer constantly giving money to Scotland while taking abuse for their troubles.  In his judgement this would drive a wedge between both countries and eventually lead to independence.  No one can argue that is not exactly what has happened.  Personally I'd be happy for a second Scottish referendum, but if the Scots choose to stay the Scottish Parliament gets shut down, if they vote to leave then they go with no subsidies from England, and also they have their own currency as England should not have to stand behind them if they make a mess of it in the way Germany stands behind Greece.  I.E. Scotland has to make up the £15 billion shortfall budget themselves.  Though I have no idea how they would do this.

I understand the basic maths is:

Population 5.3 million
Employed 2.427 million
Unemployed / retired / children 2.873 million
1,816,800 in Private sector employment   comprising 74.9% of employment - note many jobs are in the supply chain supported by public sector jobs.
610,200 Public sector employment  comprising  25.1% of employment
36,000 jobs not included for RBS and HBOS banking.

Basically 1,816,800 have to pay for 3,483,200 people - hence a £15 billion shortfall.  If you throw in the fact that Scotland's North Sea oil could run out in 2040 then after that the numbers get catastrophic.  By 2018/2019 the annual revenue from Scotland's oil reserves is projected to be £3.5 billion.  Once the oil runs out things get much worse.  The SNP offer no answers to the budget shortfall.  I honestly don't think Europe will give them that.  Countries like the Republic of Ireland are soon going to be net payers to the project, so even if Scotland could join the EU as an independent nation, assuming they have to join the Euro, and then they'd have to meet the financial budgetary requirements, which they are no where near doing so.  Independence is a silly idea as things stand.

The obvious public sector job losses would be:
Department for work and Pensions - moved to England
HM revenue and customs - moved to England
Nuclear submarine facility at Faslane shut down 6,500 jobs lost, raising to 8,000 if the new trident subs aren't built there - probably moved to Portsmouth
Govan and Scotstoun - Clyde military base - 3,500 uniformed Royal Navy personnel, 1,700 are contractors and 1,600 are other civilian employees.
RBS and HBOS - moved to England

It's actually sort of interesting that Portsmouth received a £100 million upgrade for ship building to expand the dockyard incase Scotland ever does choose to leave the Uk, so jobs can simply be transferred over.  

Private sector job losses:
Scottish ship yards shut down - England unwilling to build ships in non Uk country, jobs likely relocated to Milford Haven West Wales, near Port Talbot steel works.

You do understand that the UK have a massive ongoing shortfall and it does not stop them operating as an independent country. As for what Norman Lamont thinks is irrelevant as he was and is a staunch unionist which will always clouds judgement on matters of Scottish independence. There will be hurdles to overcome if independence is achieved but hurdles far more clearable when ones ankles aren't shackled together.

As for your creative mind on jobs moved to England? Well no as Scotland will have their own such departments taking their place so those employed in those departments at present will merely transfer over to the new Scottish branches. And did we not hear that Westminster has nowhere else in the UK to store their nuke submarines? That being the case Westminster will be coughing up many millions to keep them stored on Scottish territory. And I hate to burst your bubble but the banks would be moved to Europe - that was already said during the last referendum when they said they'd move to London as it was still in the EU. Well not anymore so I'd imagine they'd be heading to Brussels or Paris.

I've said it before and will say it again - if Scotland is such a financial burden with no assets to support itself why is Westminster fighting tooth and nail to keep it under its thumb? If one has a limb riddled with gangrene you amputate and let it go. That isn't happening here and you must be one hell of a naive chappy if you think it is anything to do with anything but finances.

Scotland's share of the UK deficit is taken into account when calculating how much Scotland receives under the Barnett formula.  The money received under Barnett means that even though Scotland spends more than it generates, we are not penalised for this and we benefit roughly to the tune of around £1,300 (based on deficit of around £9 billion - which is generously low) per head in comparison to the rest of the UK population.  If we become independent and remove Barnett we are automatically worse off by that amount for every man, woman and child.  As you've alluded to, we would need much more public infrastructure and would need to increase our levels of public spending just to have an operational civil service.  How do you propose that we address the deficit whilst increasing public spending?  

It's also a bit rich claiming that Lamont's staunch unionism clouds his judgment when your prose is full of the classic tropes of staunch nationalism?  Is your judgement not also clouded?

Derbymanc wrote:Because it was one of the bargaining chips to keep Scotland part of the UK, bit like saying how come they had all them briefs, chats, money saving experts and reviews about which to close Plymouth or Portsmouth but as the independance ref came into view they ignored it all and kept both open.

I'd actually like to hear more about Scotlands income generation as the last ref it seemed to be all about Oil that turned out to be baloney. Plus on the EU side of things, it's no guarantee you'll get into Europe either

Spin is a wonderful thing but it was Better Together that were the king of it last time around. Project Fear consisted of Scots being told the only way to protect their place in Europe was by voting no (now look at what has happened) - so that was a crock of BS. We then had the weans (Scot's dialect for children) mentality with you can't keep the pound. But since then the Former Governor of the Bank of England has said it would have been perfectly feasible and possible (if they had wanted) for Scotland to keep the pound - so more BS. We then had Project Fear try the old one that you'll lose the Royal Family (not that that would bother me) but only for the Queen herself having to come out and pour scorn on that. We then had the BS of Gordon Brown two days before the referendum trying to turn the vote into a Devo-Max issue promising Scots this and that for a no vote and guess what? The no vote came and those promises were never met. That is the baloney (as you call it) spewed out by Better Together and when the media is largely pro-union the spin can be made to appear very convincing. As for Europe - well what will be will be. The biggest reward alone for me would be independence - free from the putrid Westminster governing.

superflyweight wrote:

It's also a bit rich claiming that Lamont's staunch unionism clouds his judgment when your prose is full of the classic tropes of staunch nationalism?  Is your judgement not also clouded?

Mammoth difference. The media gives one pages of its press to supports its cause whilst the other is ignored. And if you mock nationalism then mock the UK as they are displaying it in bucket loads over Brexit.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Because it was one of the bargaining chips to keep Scotland part of the UK, bit like saying how come they had all them briefs, chats, money saving experts and reviews about which to close Plymouth or Portsmouth but as the independance ref came into view they ignored it all and kept both open.

I'd actually like to hear more about Scotlands income generation as the last ref it seemed to be all about Oil that turned out to be baloney. Plus on the EU side of things, it's no guarantee you'll get into Europe either

Spin is a wonderful thing but it was Better Together that were the king of it last time around. Project Fear consisted of Scots being told the only way to protect their place in Europe was by voting no (now look at what has happened) - so that was a crock of BS. We then had the weans (Scot's dialect for children) mentality with you can't keep the pound. But since then the Former Governor of the Bank of England has said it would have been perfectly feasible and possible (if they had wanted) for Scotland to keep the pound - so more BS. We then had Project Fear try the old one that you'll lose the Royal Family (not that that would bother me) but only for the Queen herself having to come out and pour scorn on that. We then had the BC of Gordon Brown two days before the referendum trying to turn the vote into a Devo-Max issue promising Scots this and that for a no vote and guess what? The no vote came and those promises were never met. That is the baloney (as you call it) spewed out by Better Together and when the media is largely pro-union the spin can be made to appear very convincing. As for Europe - well what will be will be. The biggest reward alone for me would be independence - free from the putrid Westminster governing.

No one disputed that we couldn't keep the pound - just the terms on which we could keep it. By keeping the pound we would effectively have been voting for a form of taxation without representation - RUK would have controlled all of the levers which impact the value of the pound and could have made changes to those levers without any regard for its impact on an independent Scotland. It has also never been confirmed by anyone that Scotland would be able to join the EU without adopting the Euro.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

It's also a bit rich claiming that Lamont's staunch unionism clouds his judgment when your prose is full of the classic tropes of staunch nationalism?  Is your judgement not also clouded?

Mammoth difference. The media gives one pages of its press to supports its cause whilst the other is ignored. And if you mock nationalism then mock the UK as they are displaying it in bucket loads over Brexit.

I'm not sure I understand your first point. What does press coverage have to do with whether or not someone is a unionist or a nationalist?

Can't stand nationalism in any form and always happy to lay into it.

If independence comes around much will need sorting out - that goes without saying. Obviously, if and when that second referendum comes around the key issues will be on currency and Europe. However, last time around during canvassing Europe was used as a bargaining chip by Better Together - not an issue this time. Independence would be either out of Europe in the interim actively seeking membership for a number of years or it would be totally out of Europe with no prospect of rejoining as part of the UK - so no worse off than we are now (if you are of pro-European stance). Myself, I am ambivalent on Europe - I can see the pros of being involved most definitely but I'd not be heart-broken if we couldn't join. My chief goal is ridding Scotland of Westminster rule.

superflyweight wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

It's also a bit rich claiming that Lamont's staunch unionism clouds his judgment when your prose is full of the classic tropes of staunch nationalism?  Is your judgement not also clouded?

Mammoth difference. The media gives one pages of its press to supports its cause whilst the other is ignored. And if you mock nationalism then mock the UK as they are displaying it in bucket loads over Brexit.

I'm not sure I understand your first point.  What does press coverage have to do with whether or not someone is a unionist or a nationalist?  

Can't stand nationalism in any form and always happy to lay into it.    

Press coverage is everything when convincing people how to vote. That is my point. The media are very much pro-union and so the favourable press comes their way - any misdiscretions by Tories are swept under the carpet but anything SNP does is spun in a bad way. That is the way things are. Hence on my original view on Lamont you say me calling him out for unionist view clouding his judging his views is no different from me with nationalist views. The big difference is the clouded unionist view gets trumpeted across the media whilst the clouded nationalist view is not given that same time of day.

You do realise though that unionism is just as nationalistic don't you? Nationalism has been over-flowing about Brexit.

I'm not a unionist.

superflyweight wrote:I'm not a unionist.  

I never said you were but unionism is about being nationalistically British. Nationalism is about being Scottish. Both are nationalistic.

I agree and I don't like it in either form.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Because it was one of the bargaining chips to keep Scotland part of the UK, bit like saying how come they had all them briefs, chats, money saving experts and reviews about which to close Plymouth or Portsmouth but as the independance ref came into view they ignored it all and kept both open.

I'd actually like to hear more about Scotlands income generation as the last ref it seemed to be all about Oil that turned out to be baloney. Plus on the EU side of things, it's no guarantee you'll get into Europe either

Spin is a wonderful thing but it was Better Together that were the king of it last time around. Project Fear consisted of Scots being told the only way to protect their place in Europe was by voting no (now look at what has happened) - so that was a crock of BS. We then had the weans (Scot's dialect for children) mentality with you can't keep the pound. But since then the Former Governor of the Bank of England has said it would have been perfectly feasible and possible (if they had wanted) for Scotland to keep the pound - so more BS. We then had Project Fear try the old one that you'll lose the Royal Family (not that that would bother me) but only for the Queen herself having to come out and pour scorn on that. We then had the BS of Gordon Brown two days before the referendum trying to turn the vote into a Devo-Max issue promising Scots this and that for a no vote and guess what? The no vote came and those promises were never met. That is the baloney (as you call it) spewed out by Better Together and when the media is largely pro-union the spin can be made to appear very convincing. As for Europe - well what will be will be. The biggest reward alone for me would be independence - free from the putrid Westminster governing.

Sorry Craig but that's one of the worst answers i've seen on here (and i used to chat with CS_.

Spin was done by both sides, to try and pass one off as worse is laughable at best and dangerous at worse. The independance vote (for EU and scot) was full of lies and half truths told by both sides. The only think i really know is that there were discussions about shifting Faslane (I remember as we were moaning like hell as it's easy for us northerners to get home from there).

The pound was a weird argument as there was nothing stopping Scotland using it, was just England wouldn't have had it linked to us or something (although by joining the EU you'd have had to have the Euro anyway)

You'd have been independant from the EU either way but having another referendum would put this one to bed.

ALL of scotlands financial predictions were based on a report on the oil which turned out to be absolute balderdash in the end (in fact i remember AS refusing to answer any questions other than a basic 'it's sorted' answer).

What would be helpful would be a full review of Scotlands finances with rock solid (or as solid as they can be) numbers that the independance side can use properly. and of course an outline of what they'll do if they gain independance

superflyweight wrote:I agree and I don't like it in either form.  

That is fine but one form of it is deemed acceptable in the national media whilst the other is not. Hardly fair.

Derbymanc wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Because it was one of the bargaining chips to keep Scotland part of the UK, bit like saying how come they had all them briefs, chats, money saving experts and reviews about which to close Plymouth or Portsmouth but as the independance ref came into view they ignored it all and kept both open.

I'd actually like to hear more about Scotlands income generation as the last ref it seemed to be all about Oil that turned out to be baloney. Plus on the EU side of things, it's no guarantee you'll get into Europe either

Spin is a wonderful thing but it was Better Together that were the king of it last time around. Project Fear consisted of Scots being told the only way to protect their place in Europe was by voting no (now look at what has happened) - so that was a crock of BS. We then had the weans (Scot's dialect for children) mentality with you can't keep the pound. But since then the Former Governor of the Bank of England has said it would have been perfectly feasible and possible (if they had wanted) for Scotland to keep the pound - so more BS. We then had Project Fear try the old one that you'll lose the Royal Family (not that that would bother me) but only for the Queen herself having to come out and pour scorn on that. We then had the BS of Gordon Brown two days before the referendum trying to turn the vote into a Devo-Max issue promising Scots this and that for a no vote and guess what? The no vote came and those promises were never met. That is the baloney (as you call it) spewed out by Better Together and when the media is largely pro-union the spin can be made to appear very convincing. As for Europe - well what will be will be. The biggest reward alone for me would be independence - free from the putrid Westminster governing.

Sorry Craig but that's one of the worst answers i've seen on here (and i used to chat with CS_.

Spin was done by both sides, to try and pass one off as worse is laughable at best and dangerous at worse. The independance vote (for EU and scot) was full of lies and half truths told by both sides. The only think i really know is that there were discussions about shifting Faslane (I remember as we were moaning like hell as it's easy for us northerners to get home from there).

The pound was a weird argument as there was nothing stopping Scotland using it, was just England wouldn't have had it linked to us or something (although by joining the EU you'd have had to have the Euro anyway)

You'd have been independant from the EU either way but having another referendum would put this one to bed.

ALL of scotlands financial predictions were based on a report on the oil which turned out to be absolute balderdash in the end (in fact i remember AS refusing to answer any questions other than a basic 'it's sorted' answer).

What would be helpful would be a full review of Scotlands finances with rock solid (or as solid as they can be) numbers that the independance side can use properly. and of course an outline of what they'll do if they gain independance

Of course one is worse if it results in what has happened. Better Together built their case for voting no on it being for a Scots to protect their place in Europe - enlighten me please as to what has happened since then? That far outdoes any spin put on by the yes campaign. Also before the deals were signed on the previous referendum there was debates as to what was going to be on the ballot paper and it was decided it would just be a basic yes or no to independence and an option to include Devo-Max was rejected. Then when polls showed yes with 51% support a few days before the polls Gordon Brown came out with his empty promises of rewards for Scotland if they voted no. In essence trying to turn it into a Devo-Max vote which it was never intended to be. All promises not kept by the way so another that far outdone any of the yes campaign rhetoric. As for oil and balderdash I'd say if you want to read balderdash on oil look back into the 1990s when Westminster were claiming the oil-fields would have dried up 5 to 10 years ago. In essence BS comes from both sides but the media spin it in any which way they want and that will always be in a pro-unionism manner. That is the handicap that pro-independence backers have to live with.

The Scots voted to remain part of the UK.

The UK voted to leave the EU. Every Scottish vote counted the same as every other UK citizen. I don't see the issue.

Derbymanc wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Because it was one of the bargaining chips to keep Scotland part of the UK, bit like saying how come they had all them briefs, chats, money saving experts and reviews about which to close Plymouth or Portsmouth but as the independance ref came into view they ignored it all and kept both open.

I'd actually like to hear more about Scotlands income generation as the last ref it seemed to be all about Oil that turned out to be baloney. Plus on the EU side of things, it's no guarantee you'll get into Europe either

Spin is a wonderful thing but it was Better Together that were the king of it last time around. Project Fear consisted of Scots being told the only way to protect their place in Europe was by voting no (now look at what has happened) - so that was a crock of BS. We then had the weans (Scot's dialect for children) mentality with you can't keep the pound. But since then the Former Governor of the Bank of England has said it would have been perfectly feasible and possible (if they had wanted) for Scotland to keep the pound - so more BS. We then had Project Fear try the old one that you'll lose the Royal Family (not that that would bother me) but only for the Queen herself having to come out and pour scorn on that. We then had the BS of Gordon Brown two days before the referendum trying to turn the vote into a Devo-Max issue promising Scots this and that for a no vote and guess what? The no vote came and those promises were never met. That is the baloney (as you call it) spewed out by Better Together and when the media is largely pro-union the spin can be made to appear very convincing. As for Europe - well what will be will be. The biggest reward alone for me would be independence - free from the putrid Westminster governing.

Sorry Craig but that's one of the worst answers i've seen on here (and i used to chat with CS_.

Spin was done by both sides, to try and pass one off as worse is laughable at best and dangerous at worse. The independance vote (for EU and scot) was full of lies and half truths told by both sides. The only think i really know is that there were discussions about shifting Faslane (I remember as we were moaning like hell as it's easy for us northerners to get home from there).

The pound was a weird argument as there was nothing stopping Scotland using it, was just England wouldn't have had it linked to us or something (although by joining the EU you'd have had to have the Euro anyway)

You'd have been independant from the EU either way but having another referendum would put this one to bed.

ALL of scotlands financial predictions were based on a report on the oil which turned out to be absolute balderdash in the end (in fact i remember AS refusing to answer any questions other than a basic 'it's sorted' answer).

What would be helpful would be a full review of Scotlands finances with rock solid (or as solid as they can be) numbers that the independance side can use properly. and of course an outline of what they'll do if they gain independance

They exist in the form of GERS. Yes campaign pointed to them repeatedly when oil revenues were high and we were paying more into the UK pot than we were taking out (through Barnett). Fast forward a few years and GERS show a large deficit and the independence movement is now making a concerted effort to show that GERS is not reliable - despite the fact that they are commissioned by the Scottish government and prepared by Scottish civil servants. The independence movement now just states that in an independent Scotland we would have control over our own finances and everything will be rosy.

OK - its day 1 of independence and you have a deficit of circa £10-£15 billion per annum. What do you do?

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Because it was one of the bargaining chips to keep Scotland part of the UK, bit like saying how come they had all them briefs, chats, money saving experts and reviews about which to close Plymouth or Portsmouth but as the independance ref came into view they ignored it all and kept both open.

I'd actually like to hear more about Scotlands income generation as the last ref it seemed to be all about Oil that turned out to be baloney. Plus on the EU side of things, it's no guarantee you'll get into Europe either

Spin is a wonderful thing but it was Better Together that were the king of it last time around. Project Fear consisted of Scots being told the only way to protect their place in Europe was by voting no (now look at what has happened) - so that was a crock of BS. We then had the weans (Scot's dialect for children) mentality with you can't keep the pound. But since then the Former Governor of the Bank of England has said it would have been perfectly feasible and possible (if they had wanted) for Scotland to keep the pound - so more BS. We then had Project Fear try the old one that you'll lose the Royal Family (not that that would bother me) but only for the Queen herself having to come out and pour scorn on that. We then had the BS of Gordon Brown two days before the referendum trying to turn the vote into a Devo-Max issue promising Scots this and that for a no vote and guess what? The no vote came and those promises were never met. That is the baloney (as you call it) spewed out by Better Together and when the media is largely pro-union the spin can be made to appear very convincing. As for Europe - well what will be will be. The biggest reward alone for me would be independence - free from the putrid Westminster governing.

Sorry Craig but that's one of the worst answers i've seen on here (and i used to chat with CS_.

Spin was done by both sides, to try and pass one off as worse is laughable at best and dangerous at worse. The independance vote (for EU and scot) was full of lies and half truths told by both sides. The only think i really know is that there were discussions about shifting Faslane (I remember as we were moaning like hell as it's easy for us northerners to get home from there).

The pound was a weird argument as there was nothing stopping Scotland using it, was just England wouldn't have had it linked to us or something (although by joining the EU you'd have had to have the Euro anyway)

You'd have been independant from the EU either way but having another referendum would put this one to bed.

ALL of scotlands financial predictions were based on a report on the oil which turned out to be absolute balderdash in the end (in fact i remember AS refusing to answer any questions other than a basic 'it's sorted' answer).

What would be helpful would be a full review of Scotlands finances with rock solid (or as solid as they can be) numbers that the independance side can use properly. and of course an outline of what they'll do if they gain independance

Of course one is worse if it results in what has happened. Better Together built their case for voting no on it being for a Scots to protect their place in Europe - enlighten me please as to what has happened since then? That far outdoes any spin put on by the yes campaign. Also before the deals were signed on the previous referendum there was debates as to what was going to be on the ballot paper and it was decided it would just be a basic yes or no to independence and an option to include Devo-Max was rejected. Then when polls showed yes with 51% support a few days before the polls Gordon Brown came out with his empty promises of rewards for Scotland if they voted no. In essence trying to turn it into a Devo-Max vote which it was never intended to be. All promises not kept by the way so another that far outdone any of the yes campaign rhetoric. As for oil and balderdash I'd say if you want to read balderdash on oil look back into the 1990s when Westminster were claiming the oil-fields would have dried up 5 to 10 years ago. In essence BS comes from both sides but the media spin it in any which way they want and that will always be in a pro-unionism manner. That is the handicap that pro-independence backers have to live with.

One poll - which was a complete outlier and which came very late in the campaign.

GSC wrote:The Scots voted to remain part of the UK.

The UK voted to leave the EU. Every Scottish vote counted the same as every other UK citizen. I don't see the issue.

The Scots (a good number if you look at post-ref stats from neutral sources) decided to vote no on varying issues. One of the main ones was because they feared losing their place in Europe. That won loads of votes for Better Together and has proved to be fruitless for the voters as they are now out of Europe.

The issue is that many Scots sees Scotland as its own country - sure not independent - but very close to it as they have their own government. However, when they vote by 62% to remain in Europe and end up being taken out of Europe it becomes a big issue to many. Yes we know the UK voted to exit but there are perhaps a million plus Scots who fail to recognize or accept being part of the UK or see themselves Scottish first and foremost and feel how they vote should hold more water than it does in the current union.

superflyweight wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Because it was one of the bargaining chips to keep Scotland part of the UK, bit like saying how come they had all them briefs, chats, money saving experts and reviews about which to close Plymouth or Portsmouth but as the independance ref came into view they ignored it all and kept both open.

I'd actually like to hear more about Scotlands income generation as the last ref it seemed to be all about Oil that turned out to be baloney. Plus on the EU side of things, it's no guarantee you'll get into Europe either

Spin is a wonderful thing but it was Better Together that were the king of it last time around. Project Fear consisted of Scots being told the only way to protect their place in Europe was by voting no (now look at what has happened) - so that was a crock of BS. We then had the weans (Scot's dialect for children) mentality with you can't keep the pound. But since then the Former Governor of the Bank of England has said it would have been perfectly feasible and possible (if they had wanted) for Scotland to keep the pound - so more BS. We then had Project Fear try the old one that you'll lose the Royal Family (not that that would bother me) but only for the Queen herself having to come out and pour scorn on that. We then had the BS of Gordon Brown two days before the referendum trying to turn the vote into a Devo-Max issue promising Scots this and that for a no vote and guess what? The no vote came and those promises were never met. That is the baloney (as you call it) spewed out by Better Together and when the media is largely pro-union the spin can be made to appear very convincing. As for Europe - well what will be will be. The biggest reward alone for me would be independence - free from the putrid Westminster governing.

Sorry Craig but that's one of the worst answers i've seen on here (and i used to chat with CS_.

Spin was done by both sides, to try and pass one off as worse is laughable at best and dangerous at worse. The independance vote (for EU and scot) was full of lies and half truths told by both sides. The only think i really know is that there were discussions about shifting Faslane (I remember as we were moaning like hell as it's easy for us northerners to get home from there).

The pound was a weird argument as there was nothing stopping Scotland using it, was just England wouldn't have had it linked to us or something (although by joining the EU you'd have had to have the Euro anyway)

You'd have been independant from the EU either way but having another referendum would put this one to bed.

ALL of scotlands financial predictions were based on a report on the oil which turned out to be absolute balderdash in the end (in fact i remember AS refusing to answer any questions other than a basic 'it's sorted' answer).

What would be helpful would be a full review of Scotlands finances with rock solid (or as solid as they can be) numbers that the independance side can use properly. and of course an outline of what they'll do if they gain independance

Of course one is worse if it results in what has happened. Better Together built their case for voting no on it being for a Scots to protect their place in Europe - enlighten me please as to what has happened since then? That far outdoes any spin put on by the yes campaign. Also before the deals were signed on the previous referendum there was debates as to what was going to be on the ballot paper and it was decided it would just be a basic yes or no to independence and an option to include Devo-Max was rejected. Then when polls showed yes with 51% support a few days before the polls Gordon Brown came out with his empty promises of rewards for Scotland if they voted no. In essence trying to turn it into a Devo-Max vote which it was never intended to be. All promises not kept by the way so another that far outdone any of the yes campaign rhetoric. As for oil and balderdash I'd say if you want to read balderdash on oil look back into the 1990s when Westminster were claiming the oil-fields would have dried up 5 to 10 years ago. In essence BS comes from both sides but the media spin it in any which way they want and that will always be in a pro-unionism manner. That is the handicap that pro-independence backers have to live with.

One poll - which was a complete outlier and which came very late in the campaign.  

Yes but enough to panic Gordon Brown into action. And this time around he is already at it again - this time it is calling for Scotland to become a Federal state of the UK.

Well they're wrong then Craig, there vote is the same as everyone else's. Just because they a bit more nationalistic it means squat in the grand scheme of things.

I think another referendum vote on Scotland would be a good thing, although the GE could pave the way if the SNP obliterates everyone else.

Spin is bad on both sides Craig, i'm pretty certain if you'd won (you didn't ;-) you wouldn't be bleating about the spin from your own side (that pesky oil and the barnett report being 'wrong') it's unfortunately what happens in politics. Is it right (No) but both sides are just as bad. Just cause one won doesn't mean that it's worse than the other.

-------

https://www.606v2.com/viewtopic.forum?t=65585

GSC wrote:The Scots voted to remain part of the UK.

The UK voted to leave the EU. Every Scottish vote counted the same as every other UK citizen. I don't see the issue.

Amazing that some don't seem to get this isn't it?