2019 General Election

First topic message reminder :

The key questions for me:

How many Leave voters still want Brexit;

Of those who do, how many put Brexit before all else;

What damage the Brexit party will do the the Conservatives' hopes of taking Labour leave seats.

EWT Spoons wrote:

super_realist wrote:

EWT Spoons wrote:Scotland doesn't have debt, we can't.  We have a deficit, which may be an issue if we want to join the Euro, but not the EU.  Should Scotland become independent, at that point we will be responsible for a share of the UK debt (and then we will have debt), but we will also get a share of the UK assets.  At this time it's not been agreed as to what either of those scenarios will look like.

It has a responsibility for the share of the national debt which takes effect upon any independence. No point in being a pedant about it. What UK assets will you get a share of? Only those in Scotland, which aren't a massive cash generator. You don't get a share of the Square Mile for instance as that wouldn't be independence would it? If you want Scotland to go it's own way, that doesn't mean taking a share in ongoing UK assets after independence.

Why would Scotland want to join the Euro anyway? Even countries with decent credit ratings (which Scotland wouldn't have due to debt/budget deficits) aren't doing well on it.

I keep asking what the best reason for Scottish independence is and why Scotland will be better off, am I writing it in invisible pixels? Why can't any indy supporter answer this?

Sorry but there is a very real point to be pedentic about it, as you are talking specifically about deficit not debt.  As of today, we do not know what Scotland's share of any debt would be.  There are estimates but it's based on assumptions, primarily around population size, but there are other methods for calculating this debt.  Debt would have an impact on our ability to join the Euro (not the EU), deficit means nothing to either of them.  You therefore cannot say debt would prevent us from joining the EU as we don't accurately know what level of debt we would be responsible for, and more importantly the EU don't care, unless we want to use the Euro.  Which as you point out, we probably don't, especially since the Scottish Government have never really seemingly been in favour of it.

I didn't say Scotland would get a share of ongoing assets, nor would it take a share of any ongoing debt.  In terms of assets, most things paid for by the UK government from taxes could be classed as an asset (MOD for one) and something an independent Scotland would be entitled to a share of.  Unless we say that anything paid for by the UK gov belongs soley to the rUK at which point that would effectively also write off any debt Scotland would be eligble for as well.  I'm not saying this is the approach either side want or should go for, I'm just pointing out that there are pros (assets) and cons (debts).

I've not been asked, as this is the first time I have commented on this thread, I would imagine people's reasons for voting for/against independence could be specific to them, but for me having control over our country would be nice.  Someone mentioned earlier about Glasgow's appauling health record, a lot of this is due to drugs, however that's not a devolved matter, meaning the Scottish Gov can only do so much.  The Scottish Gov has for the last decade+ also had to offset the  policies of the tory government, bedroom tax, universal credit etc, this is not something that would be needed if Scotland had control of these matters.

I'm talking about both, neither disappears after Independence, and becomes a very much heavier albatross around the neck of the nation given the problems it causes for EU entry and credit rating. Scotland's deficit will increase to service the national debt burden.
We can make an estimate on what the share of the national debt is based on current levels. So if Lego Head gets her wish and had independence in 5 years then it would be easy to see the burden.

Scotland charge me an extra 2k per year to live in Krankie's utopia. What's she spending the money on? It's certainly not improving the health of the nation. Why am I paying nothing for prescriptions when I can afford to pay? No wonder we've got a health issue in Scotland when medicine is being given away at a cost to the NHS which could be spent elsewhere.

Bedroom tax by the way amounted to virtually nothing and affected hardly any people. It's not a good reason to use for Scotland not doing well. The SNP could clearly do something about drugs if it wanted to. That doesn't have to come from Westminster as initiatives don't have to be on a statute book. If Scotland can introduce a lower drink drive limit and be the first to ban smoking indoors they could have done something about the drugs.

super_realist wrote:

EWT Spoons wrote:

super_realist wrote:

EWT Spoons wrote:Scotland doesn't have debt, we can't.  We have a deficit, which may be an issue if we want to join the Euro, but not the EU.  Should Scotland become independent, at that point we will be responsible for a share of the UK debt (and then we will have debt), but we will also get a share of the UK assets.  At this time it's not been agreed as to what either of those scenarios will look like.

It has a responsibility for the share of the national debt which takes effect upon any independence. No point in being a pedant about it. What UK assets will you get a share of? Only those in Scotland, which aren't a massive cash generator. You don't get a share of the Square Mile for instance as that wouldn't be independence would it? If you want Scotland to go it's own way, that doesn't mean taking a share in ongoing UK assets after independence.

Why would Scotland want to join the Euro anyway? Even countries with decent credit ratings (which Scotland wouldn't have due to debt/budget deficits) aren't doing well on it.

I keep asking what the best reason for Scottish independence is and why Scotland will be better off, am I writing it in invisible pixels? Why can't any indy supporter answer this?

Sorry but there is a very real point to be pedentic about it, as you are talking specifically about deficit not debt.  As of today, we do not know what Scotland's share of any debt would be.  There are estimates but it's based on assumptions, primarily around population size, but there are other methods for calculating this debt.  Debt would have an impact on our ability to join the Euro (not the EU), deficit means nothing to either of them.  You therefore cannot say debt would prevent us from joining the EU as we don't accurately know what level of debt we would be responsible for, and more importantly the EU don't care, unless we want to use the Euro.  Which as you point out, we probably don't, especially since the Scottish Government have never really seemingly been in favour of it.

I didn't say Scotland would get a share of ongoing assets, nor would it take a share of any ongoing debt.  In terms of assets, most things paid for by the UK government from taxes could be classed as an asset (MOD for one) and something an independent Scotland would be entitled to a share of.  Unless we say that anything paid for by the UK gov belongs soley to the rUK at which point that would effectively also write off any debt Scotland would be eligble for as well.  I'm not saying this is the approach either side want or should go for, I'm just pointing out that there are pros (assets) and cons (debts).

I've not been asked, as this is the first time I have commented on this thread, I would imagine people's reasons for voting for/against independence could be specific to them, but for me having control over our country would be nice.  Someone mentioned earlier about Glasgow's appauling health record, a lot of this is due to drugs, however that's not a devolved matter, meaning the Scottish Gov can only do so much.  The Scottish Gov has for the last decade+ also had to offset the  policies of the tory government, bedroom tax, universal credit etc, this is not something that would be needed if Scotland had control of these matters.

I'm talking about both, neither disappears after Independence, and becomes a very much heavier albatross around the neck of the nation given the problems it causes for EU entry and credit rating.

Sorry to just focus on this bit, but to be clear, neither debt nor deficit (which are very different) have any impact on Scotland's ability to join the EU. The EU could not give a toss if Scotland is riddled with debt, or has none, it's not one of their conditions of entry.

So you're complaining about paying more tax, which will go to things like the SNHS (which is out performing other NHS services around the UK) but then complaining about not paying for prescriptions. So you want to pay more, but also pay less, is that right? Also you're suggesting to improve the health of the nation, we should stop giving people medication? I grew up with nothing, my family had serious health issues and struggled to pay for prescriptions, I am fully in favour of people not having that concern, because believe me, for many it is a very real concern. In terms of people who can afford to pay, it's been shown repeatedly (most recently with the TV license for OAPs) that means testing doesn't really work. They are a logistical nightmare to organise, and people are proud. If you can't afford to pay for your prescription, do you really want others to know that? The easiest route, is through taxation of those who can afford it.

Cool what do you suggest about drugs then? As what the Scottish Government want to do, they can't as it's not a devolved matter.

Debt and deficit aren't specifically mentioned in the Copenhagen criteria but would be included when considering if a country has a fully functioning economy.

Yes they do. A debt in excess of 3% of GDP means you cannot gain access to the EU according to EU rules. Scotland's deficit is 7% of GDP. So how can Scotland gain entry?


I'm complaining not that I'm paying more tax, but that the SNP are spunking it up the wall. Giving free prescriptions and free eye tests to people who can afford to pay it is a drain on the NHS. I also went to the dentist today and paid nothing for a check up, same as last time I went. Why amn't  I paying for that? Do you seriously think the EU will just take a country regardless of its financial situation? Do you really think they want another Greece on their hands? Half the countries in the EU are struggling, why would they want another?

Means testing needn't necessarily be costly. All you need to do is link the computer record to your NI number and you could easily work out who can pay with a simple Y/N flag based on contributions.  What sort of idiot thinks anyone is judging them if they claim free prescriptions or not? Who's even looking? It doesn't even need to be at sight. You could be sent a bill electronically for it.

Why aren't Scotland putting more money into drugs prevention? Why are they blaming Westminster for them being "hamstrung" on this issue when they already dealt with the drink driving level and workplace smoking? Dundee has the worst drugs issue in all of Europe. If it was a Westminster issue then I'd expect a comparable city in England or Wales too.
The SNP are masters at pinning failure on the Tories when they have been in power just as long.

THe point is that simply being in charge, as the SNP is for almost everything is not making Scotland an especially great place to live, so why would being Independent make it any better, and will demonstrably make it worse off considering it receives more from the government than it produces in GDP?

super_realist wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Shall we look at the EU?

On Brexit they had a system in place where every EU member country have to agree before moving onto a next stage. One country not happy? The process is halted. Now look at how the UK dealt with it? Quite differently? Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain. Tough. They are leaving - like it or lump it and no say on it. Seems to me like a dictatorship more so than the EU.

As for your otger points tattie you do realise that in 2014 matters such as pensions were covered. Perhaps you listened too much to Project Fear who were sounding off that Scots would lose their pension without any evidence of that and it was denied by the Yes campaign. Now spin forward to today and it is now being proposed by a Tory think tank led by Iain Duncan-Smith (the loon that states you can survive on £50 a week) that pensions should not be paid until 75. That will deprive a lot of Scots of any such payment having paid for it all of their lives. On other issues such as currency the options are out there. In the interim remain with the pound whilst processes are out in place to create own currency. And yes (despite Project Fear in 2014) that would be possible to remain with the pound and plausible as since stated by the Governor of the Bank of England. As for economy well there would be big changes in the long-term as there will be now that we are leaving the EU. I do not buy into the force fed crap we are too wee and poor to subsidise ourselves. Look at many similar sized countries around the world with less to trade with that survive just fine as an independent country - there ate lots of them. Healthcare? Look I am not painting the SNHS as some raging success here (far from it) but go and hunt down the stats and figures (even the BBC report it) that Scotland has the best performance figures over the rest of the UK. As for tavation levels I would not see them changing in the interim. Less taxes coming in but less outlay too.

I have said my piece on this and doubt I will convince you tattie-scone as you are entrenched in your views and I am entrenched in mines. One thing I can say is that Boris can kick the can down the road (as he will) but the question of Scottish independence will not go away whilst well over a million Scots support it.

Craig, why is you consistently fail to answer why you think Scotland would be better off independent? How many times have I asked now? 6-7 I would say and not a peep out of you, typical Indy voter, just as myopic a the Brexit voter, seems you just want your tartan covered passport.

ALso funny how you fail to criticise the SNP for their appalling record on health and education. Also funny that you want to leave one union because of being controlled by some institution far away, but want to jump straight back into another, despite the fact that Scotland wouldn't be admitted on the basis of debt.

So come on Craig, what's so great about Independence, and no running away this time.

When you can converse in a civil manner we will talk. Until then you are debating in a vacuum.

I have asked enough times for you to give me the best reason for Scottish independence and why you think Scotland would be better off, and you keep running away.

I'll take your reluctance to answer the question as you being as short on answers as a Brexit voter as to why they want out of the EU.

It's rather amusing that you accuse me of lacking civility when there is nothing that isn't civil in what I asked.

super_realist wrote:Yes they do. A debt in excess of 3% of GDP means you cannot gain access to the EU according to EU rules. Scotland's deficit is 7% of GDP. So how can Scotland gain entry?


I'm complaining not that I'm paying more tax, but that the SNP are spunking it up the wall. Giving free prescriptions and free eye tests to people who can afford to pay it is a drain on the NHS. I also went to the dentist today and paid nothing for a check up, same as last time I went. Why amn't  I paying for that? Do you seriously think the EU will just take a country regardless of its financial situation? Do you really think they want another Greece on their hands? Half the countries in the EU are struggling, why would they want another?

Means testing needn't necessarily be costly. All you need to do is link the computer record to your NI number and you could easily work out who can pay with a simple Y/N flag based on contributions.  What sort of idiot thinks anyone is judging them if they claim free prescriptions or not? Who's even looking? It doesn't even need to be at sight. You could be sent a bill electronically for it.

Why aren't Scotland putting more money into drugs prevention? Why are they blaming Westminster for them being "hamstrung" on this issue when they already dealt with the drink driving level and workplace smoking? Dundee has the worst drugs issue in all of Europe. If it was a Westminster issue then I'd expect a comparable city in England or Wales too.
The SNP are masters at pinning failure on the Tories when they have been in power just as long.

THe point is that simply being in charge, as the SNP is for almost everything is not making Scotland an especially great place to live, so why would being Independent make it any better, and will demonstrably make it worse off considering it receives more from the government than it produces in GDP?

Ok I really don't know how many more times I have to say this. Scottish deficit is currently listed at 7%, not debt. Scotland has no debt, yes if we become independent we will be responsible for a portion of the UK debt, but as yet that has not been negotiated. You are mixing the two up when they are very different. Secondly the EU doesn't care about debt (or deficit), it is not one of their criteria. If we want to adopt the Euro, then they become interested in debt because that's when your Greece scenario comes into play.

Ok but what happens if you have a lifelong illness, what happens if you have multiple lifelong illnesses. On paper looking at your NI contributions you might be deemed able to afford it, but in reality it's a massive expense. What happens if you've previously fallen on hard times, had to take some form of loan/mortgage which has significant repayment costs, your NI contributions won't take that into account. There are a number of reasons why we can't apply a simple Y/N flag, because it's not the whole picture.

OAPs do especially, they are terrible for claiming all the benefits they are entitled too, either because they don't know about them (which could become an issue if we go down the means testing route for prescriptions) or they are too proud to claim them. I know people at AgeScotland who tell me one of their biggest challenges is making pensioners aware of benefits they are eligible for, and then getting them to claim them. Whilst you might think they are idiotic for being too proud, it's a fact that people are, I don't know anyone who wants people to know they are too poor to afford to pay for something like medication, even if it's done remotely rather than later by post etc.

What more do you want them to do to prevent drugs, they're illegal. That's as much as you can do to prevent them, what they need is a way to make sure those taking them are safe and offered a way out, that's not permitted currently. They'd have a lot more powers open to them. You also can't compare drugs to things like smoking and alcohol as they are both legal substances, it's far easier to implement those kind of controls over something sold in shops and done in public.

I'm not saying Scotland is a utopia, but what I am saying is why wouldn't a country want to have full control over these types of things, rather than seeing what they are allowed to do by Westminster. Also I'm not saying the SNP are brilliant either, they undoubtably have issues, but they keep getting voted in so folk must think they are doing well enough. Lastly, unless you really want a conservative government, if Scotland was to become independent there is a real chance the like of labour or lib dems (assuming they kept a Scottish party) could get into power, as the SNP's main point is independence, if that was achieved, their draw would be decreased. So if it's specifically the SNP you don't like, then ironically voting for independence might be your best way to get shot of them.

If a Scotland free of the U.K. rejoined the EU, then it would almost certainly have to use the Euro as its currency. Only two EU member states secured opt outs from the Euro - the U.K. and Denmark - in the Maastricht Treaty.

The European Commission website states that - All EU Member States, except Denmark and the United Kingdom, are required to adopt the euro and join the euro area.

Sorry but that's not totally accurate, you have to signal an intention to join the Euro, but there is no requirement to ever actually use the Euro. Poland, Bulgaria, Denmark, Hungary, Sweden, Croatia, Czech Republic and Hungary are all part of the EU, but do not use the Euro.

Duty281 wrote:If a Scotland free of the U.K. rejoined the EU, then it would almost certainly have to use the Euro as its currency. Only two EU member states secured opt outs from the Euro - the U.K. and Denmark - in the Maastricht Treaty.

The European Commission website states that - All EU Member States, except Denmark and the United Kingdom, are required to adopt the euro and join the euro area.

Sweden too.

EWT Spoons wrote:

super_realist wrote:Yes they do. A debt in excess of 3% of GDP means you cannot gain access to the EU according to EU rules. Scotland's deficit is 7% of GDP. So how can Scotland gain entry?


I'm complaining not that I'm paying more tax, but that the SNP are spunking it up the wall. Giving free prescriptions and free eye tests to people who can afford to pay it is a drain on the NHS. I also went to the dentist today and paid nothing for a check up, same as last time I went. Why amn't  I paying for that? Do you seriously think the EU will just take a country regardless of its financial situation? Do you really think they want another Greece on their hands? Half the countries in the EU are struggling, why would they want another?

Means testing needn't necessarily be costly. All you need to do is link the computer record to your NI number and you could easily work out who can pay with a simple Y/N flag based on contributions.  What sort of idiot thinks anyone is judging them if they claim free prescriptions or not? Who's even looking? It doesn't even need to be at sight. You could be sent a bill electronically for it.

Why aren't Scotland putting more money into drugs prevention? Why are they blaming Westminster for them being "hamstrung" on this issue when they already dealt with the drink driving level and workplace smoking? Dundee has the worst drugs issue in all of Europe. If it was a Westminster issue then I'd expect a comparable city in England or Wales too.
The SNP are masters at pinning failure on the Tories when they have been in power just as long.

THe point is that simply being in charge, as the SNP is for almost everything is not making Scotland an especially great place to live, so why would being Independent make it any better, and will demonstrably make it worse off considering it receives more from the government than it produces in GDP?

Ok I really don't know how many more times I have to say this.  Scottish deficit is currently listed at 7%, not debt.  Scotland has no debt, yes if we become independent we will be responsible for a portion of the UK debt, but as yet that has not been negotiated.  You are mixing the two up when they are very different.  Secondly the EU doesn't care about debt (or deficit), it is not one of their criteria. If we want to adopt the Euro, then they become interested in debt because that's when your Greece scenario comes into play.

Ok but what happens if you have a lifelong illness, what happens if you have multiple lifelong illnesses.  On paper looking at your NI contributions you might be deemed able to afford it, but in reality it's a massive expense.  What happens if you've previously fallen on hard times, had to take some form of loan/mortgage which has significant repayment costs, your NI contributions won't take that into account.  There are a number of reasons why we can't apply a simple Y/N flag, because it's not the whole picture.

OAPs do especially, they are terrible for claiming all the benefits they are entitled too, either because they don't know about them (which could become an issue if we go down the means testing route for prescriptions) or they are too proud to claim them.  I know people at AgeScotland who tell me one of their biggest challenges is making pensioners aware of benefits they are eligible for, and then getting them to claim them.  Whilst you might think they are idiotic for being too proud, it's a fact that people are, I don't know anyone who wants people to know they are too poor to afford to pay for something like medication, even if it's done remotely rather than later by post etc.

What more do you want them to do to prevent drugs, they're illegal.  That's as much as you can do to prevent them, what they need is a way to make sure those taking them are safe and offered a way out, that's not permitted currently.  They'd have a lot more powers open to them.  You also can't compare drugs to things like smoking and alcohol as they are both legal substances, it's far easier to implement those kind of controls over something sold in shops and done in public.

I'm not saying Scotland is a utopia, but what I am saying is why wouldn't a country want to have full control over these types of things, rather than seeing what they are allowed to do by Westminster.  Also I'm not saying the SNP are brilliant either, they undoubtably have issues, but they keep getting voted in so folk must think they are doing well enough.  Lastly, unless you really want a conservative government, if Scotland was to become independent there is a real chance the like of labour or lib dems (assuming they kept a Scottish party) could get into power, as the SNP's main point is independence, if that was achieved, their draw would be decreased.  So if it's specifically the SNP you don't like, then ironically voting for independence might be your best way to get shot of them.

I'm not mixing them up at all. Scotland has a deficit of 7%, if it became Independent it would also inherit a share of the national debt of the UK. UK debt stands at 1.8 trillion, so if you based it on Population then you'd get around £135bn as a Scottish share. I don't know why you are saying that the EU doesn't care about debt, as if Scotland has none, because upon joining the EU monetary union it WOULD. How could Scotland keep the pound? They'd have to join the Euro.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_convergence_criteria


The EU has a criteria if your deficit is in excess of 3% of GDP I'm not sure why you are denying this. Debt must also not exceed 60% of GDP, which in the case of Scotland's national debt on the above figures would be nearer to 100%.

OK, I'm fine that the prescription charges are not black and white. I don't believe that unemployed, disabled, children or OAP's should have to pay it. Also, long term illnesses could also be exempt.

What should Scotland do to prevent use of drugs, I have no idea, but then it seems that the SNP doesn't either and it's their bloody job to do something about it, which is why they have the worst drugs issue in all of Europe. THey have the ability to do something about it though don't they? But all they do is blame Westminster. Funny how they try and blow smoke up their own backside for the SNHS being fractionally better than the rest of the UK, but wash their hands of the drugs problem, which is theirs to sort out.

I don't like the current Labour party either, they are a disgusting party. Yes, I do dislike the SNP, why wouldn't I? Trying to push a country down the independence route without giving any justification for it other than "make our own decisions" yet despite where they can make their own decisions they are making a mess of it. Why would anyone trust them to do anything when they don't do very well at the moment, and it's nothing to do with intervention from Westminster.

super_realist wrote:

EWT Spoons wrote:

super_realist wrote:Yes they do. A debt in excess of 3% of GDP means you cannot gain access to the EU according to EU rules. Scotland's deficit is 7% of GDP. So how can Scotland gain entry?


I'm complaining not that I'm paying more tax, but that the SNP are spunking it up the wall. Giving free prescriptions and free eye tests to people who can afford to pay it is a drain on the NHS. I also went to the dentist today and paid nothing for a check up, same as last time I went. Why amn't  I paying for that? Do you seriously think the EU will just take a country regardless of its financial situation? Do you really think they want another Greece on their hands? Half the countries in the EU are struggling, why would they want another?

Means testing needn't necessarily be costly. All you need to do is link the computer record to your NI number and you could easily work out who can pay with a simple Y/N flag based on contributions.  What sort of idiot thinks anyone is judging them if they claim free prescriptions or not? Who's even looking? It doesn't even need to be at sight. You could be sent a bill electronically for it.

Why aren't Scotland putting more money into drugs prevention? Why are they blaming Westminster for them being "hamstrung" on this issue when they already dealt with the drink driving level and workplace smoking? Dundee has the worst drugs issue in all of Europe. If it was a Westminster issue then I'd expect a comparable city in England or Wales too.
The SNP are masters at pinning failure on the Tories when they have been in power just as long.

THe point is that simply being in charge, as the SNP is for almost everything is not making Scotland an especially great place to live, so why would being Independent make it any better, and will demonstrably make it worse off considering it receives more from the government than it produces in GDP?

Ok I really don't know how many more times I have to say this.  Scottish deficit is currently listed at 7%, not debt.  Scotland has no debt, yes if we become independent we will be responsible for a portion of the UK debt, but as yet that has not been negotiated.  You are mixing the two up when they are very different.  Secondly the EU doesn't care about debt (or deficit), it is not one of their criteria. If we want to adopt the Euro, then they become interested in debt because that's when your Greece scenario comes into play.

Ok but what happens if you have a lifelong illness, what happens if you have multiple lifelong illnesses.  On paper looking at your NI contributions you might be deemed able to afford it, but in reality it's a massive expense.  What happens if you've previously fallen on hard times, had to take some form of loan/mortgage which has significant repayment costs, your NI contributions won't take that into account.  There are a number of reasons why we can't apply a simple Y/N flag, because it's not the whole picture.

OAPs do especially, they are terrible for claiming all the benefits they are entitled too, either because they don't know about them (which could become an issue if we go down the means testing route for prescriptions) or they are too proud to claim them.  I know people at AgeScotland who tell me one of their biggest challenges is making pensioners aware of benefits they are eligible for, and then getting them to claim them.  Whilst you might think they are idiotic for being too proud, it's a fact that people are, I don't know anyone who wants people to know they are too poor to afford to pay for something like medication, even if it's done remotely rather than later by post etc.

What more do you want them to do to prevent drugs, they're illegal.  That's as much as you can do to prevent them, what they need is a way to make sure those taking them are safe and offered a way out, that's not permitted currently.  They'd have a lot more powers open to them.  You also can't compare drugs to things like smoking and alcohol as they are both legal substances, it's far easier to implement those kind of controls over something sold in shops and done in public.

I'm not saying Scotland is a utopia, but what I am saying is why wouldn't a country want to have full control over these types of things, rather than seeing what they are allowed to do by Westminster.  Also I'm not saying the SNP are brilliant either, they undoubtably have issues, but they keep getting voted in so folk must think they are doing well enough.  Lastly, unless you really want a conservative government, if Scotland was to become independent there is a real chance the like of labour or lib dems (assuming they kept a Scottish party) could get into power, as the SNP's main point is independence, if that was achieved, their draw would be decreased.  So if it's specifically the SNP you don't like, then ironically voting for independence might be your best way to get shot of them.

I'm not mixing them up at all. Scotland has a deficit of 7%, if it became Independent it would also inherit a share of the national debt of the UK. UK debt stands at 1.8 trillion, so if you based it on Population then you'd get around £135bn as a Scottish share. I don't know why you are saying that the EU doesn't care about debt, as if Scotland has none, because upon joining the EU monetary union it WOULD. How could Scotland keep the pound? They'd have to join the Euro.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_convergence_criteria


The EU has a criteria if your deficit is in excess of 3% of GDP I'm not sure why you are denying this. Debt must also not exceed 60% of GDP, which in the case of Scotland's national debt on the above figures would be nearer to 100%.

OK, I'm fine that the prescription charges are not black and white. I don't believe that unemployed, disabled, children or OAP's should have to pay it. Also, long term illnesses could also be exempt.

What should Scotland do to prevent use of drugs, I have no idea, but then it seems that the SNP doesn't either and it's their bloody job to do something about it, which is why they have the worst drugs issue in all of Europe. THey have the ability to do something about it though don't they? But all they do is blame Westminster. Funny how they try and blow smoke up their own backside for the SNHS being fractionally better than the rest of the UK, but wash their hands of the drugs problem, which is theirs to sort out.

I don't like the current Labour party either, they are a disgusting party. Yes, I do dislike the SNP, why wouldn't I? Trying to push a country down the independence route without giving any justification for it other than "make our own decisions" yet despite where they can make their own decisions they are making a mess of it. Why would anyone trust them to do anything when they don't do very well at the moment, and it's nothing to do with intervention from Westminster.

Legalise them.

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:

super_realist wrote:

EWT Spoons wrote:

super_realist wrote:Yes they do. A debt in excess of 3% of GDP means you cannot gain access to the EU according to EU rules. Scotland's deficit is 7% of GDP. So how can Scotland gain entry?


I'm complaining not that I'm paying more tax, but that the SNP are spunking it up the wall. Giving free prescriptions and free eye tests to people who can afford to pay it is a drain on the NHS. I also went to the dentist today and paid nothing for a check up, same as last time I went. Why amn't  I paying for that? Do you seriously think the EU will just take a country regardless of its financial situation? Do you really think they want another Greece on their hands? Half the countries in the EU are struggling, why would they want another?

Means testing needn't necessarily be costly. All you need to do is link the computer record to your NI number and you could easily work out who can pay with a simple Y/N flag based on contributions.  What sort of idiot thinks anyone is judging them if they claim free prescriptions or not? Who's even looking? It doesn't even need to be at sight. You could be sent a bill electronically for it.

Why aren't Scotland putting more money into drugs prevention? Why are they blaming Westminster for them being "hamstrung" on this issue when they already dealt with the drink driving level and workplace smoking? Dundee has the worst drugs issue in all of Europe. If it was a Westminster issue then I'd expect a comparable city in England or Wales too.
The SNP are masters at pinning failure on the Tories when they have been in power just as long.

THe point is that simply being in charge, as the SNP is for almost everything is not making Scotland an especially great place to live, so why would being Independent make it any better, and will demonstrably make it worse off considering it receives more from the government than it produces in GDP?

Ok I really don't know how many more times I have to say this.  Scottish deficit is currently listed at 7%, not debt.  Scotland has no debt, yes if we become independent we will be responsible for a portion of the UK debt, but as yet that has not been negotiated.  You are mixing the two up when they are very different.  Secondly the EU doesn't care about debt (or deficit), it is not one of their criteria. If we want to adopt the Euro, then they become interested in debt because that's when your Greece scenario comes into play.

Ok but what happens if you have a lifelong illness, what happens if you have multiple lifelong illnesses.  On paper looking at your NI contributions you might be deemed able to afford it, but in reality it's a massive expense.  What happens if you've previously fallen on hard times, had to take some form of loan/mortgage which has significant repayment costs, your NI contributions won't take that into account.  There are a number of reasons why we can't apply a simple Y/N flag, because it's not the whole picture.

OAPs do especially, they are terrible for claiming all the benefits they are entitled too, either because they don't know about them (which could become an issue if we go down the means testing route for prescriptions) or they are too proud to claim them.  I know people at AgeScotland who tell me one of their biggest challenges is making pensioners aware of benefits they are eligible for, and then getting them to claim them.  Whilst you might think they are idiotic for being too proud, it's a fact that people are, I don't know anyone who wants people to know they are too poor to afford to pay for something like medication, even if it's done remotely rather than later by post etc.

What more do you want them to do to prevent drugs, they're illegal.  That's as much as you can do to prevent them, what they need is a way to make sure those taking them are safe and offered a way out, that's not permitted currently.  They'd have a lot more powers open to them.  You also can't compare drugs to things like smoking and alcohol as they are both legal substances, it's far easier to implement those kind of controls over something sold in shops and done in public.

I'm not saying Scotland is a utopia, but what I am saying is why wouldn't a country want to have full control over these types of things, rather than seeing what they are allowed to do by Westminster.  Also I'm not saying the SNP are brilliant either, they undoubtably have issues, but they keep getting voted in so folk must think they are doing well enough.  Lastly, unless you really want a conservative government, if Scotland was to become independent there is a real chance the like of labour or lib dems (assuming they kept a Scottish party) could get into power, as the SNP's main point is independence, if that was achieved, their draw would be decreased.  So if it's specifically the SNP you don't like, then ironically voting for independence might be your best way to get shot of them.

I'm not mixing them up at all. Scotland has a deficit of 7%, if it became Independent it would also inherit a share of the national debt of the UK. UK debt stands at 1.8 trillion, so if you based it on Population then you'd get around £135bn as a Scottish share. I don't know why you are saying that the EU doesn't care about debt, as if Scotland has none, because upon joining the EU monetary union it WOULD. How could Scotland keep the pound? They'd have to join the Euro.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_convergence_criteria


The EU has a criteria if your deficit is in excess of 3% of GDP I'm not sure why you are denying this. Debt must also not exceed 60% of GDP, which in the case of Scotland's national debt on the above figures would be nearer to 100%.

OK, I'm fine that the prescription charges are not black and white. I don't believe that unemployed, disabled, children or OAP's should have to pay it. Also, long term illnesses could also be exempt.

What should Scotland do to prevent use of drugs, I have no idea, but then it seems that the SNP doesn't either and it's their bloody job to do something about it, which is why they have the worst drugs issue in all of Europe. THey have the ability to do something about it though don't they? But all they do is blame Westminster. Funny how they try and blow smoke up their own backside for the SNHS being fractionally better than the rest of the UK, but wash their hands of the drugs problem, which is theirs to sort out.

I don't like the current Labour party either, they are a disgusting party. Yes, I do dislike the SNP, why wouldn't I? Trying to push a country down the independence route without giving any justification for it other than "make our own decisions" yet despite where they can make their own decisions they are making a mess of it. Why would anyone trust them to do anything when they don't do very well at the moment, and it's nothing to do with intervention from Westminster.

Legalise them.

What? People aren't drug addicts because they're illegal and they're on some sort of childish teenage revolt.
Legalising drugs will not stop the problems which get people into them. That's where the SNP have failed and continue to fail. Drugs are illegal all over the UK, but the rest of the UK doesn't have the problems Scotland have with them. So that's obviously not the reason for the problem.

Duty281 wrote:If a Scotland free of the U.K. rejoined the EU, then it would almost certainly have to use the Euro as its currency. Only two EU member states secured opt outs from the Euro - the U.K. and Denmark - in the Maastricht Treaty.

The European Commission website states that - All EU Member States, except Denmark and the United Kingdom, are required to adopt the euro and join the euro area.

As pointed out that is not true. I went to Romania this year and they don't use the Euro...

super_realist wrote:

....

What? People aren't drug addicts because they're illegal and they're on some sort of childish teenage revolt.
Legalising drugs will not stop the problems which get people into them. That's where the SNP have failed and continue to fail. Drugs are illegal all over the UK, but the rest of the UK doesn't have the problems Scotland have with them. So that's obviously not the reason for the problem.

Its not something that has gone away because its illegal either. It is far too late to take a step back but many of the most destructive drugs have come about because of the necessity to smuggle drives a demand for small amounts of higher potency.

It is a big industry. You could argue it would be easier to manage and regulate if it was legal, plus there is the opportunity for tax revenue that could be invested in proper care for the addicted and the chance to clear a few jail cells.

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Duty281 wrote:If a Scotland free of the U.K. rejoined the EU, then it would almost certainly have to use the Euro as its currency. Only two EU member states secured opt outs from the Euro - the U.K. and Denmark - in the Maastricht Treaty.

The European Commission website states that - All EU Member States, except Denmark and the United Kingdom, are required to adopt the euro and join the euro area.

As pointed out that is not true. I went to Romania this year and they don't use the Euro...

They are required by the EU Accession agreement to sign up to the Euro once the various criteria are met (I believe they’ll be on the Euro in a few years time), just as a Scotland free from the U.K. will be (if such a Scotland made the mistake of rejoining the EU, of course).

Duty281 wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Duty281 wrote:If a Scotland free of the U.K. rejoined the EU, then it would almost certainly have to use the Euro as its currency. Only two EU member states secured opt outs from the Euro - the U.K. and Denmark - in the Maastricht Treaty.

The European Commission website states that - All EU Member States, except Denmark and the United Kingdom, are required to adopt the euro and join the euro area.

As pointed out that is not true. I went to Romania this year and they don't use the Euro...

They are required by the EU Accession agreement to sign up to the Euro once the various criteria are met (I believe they’ll be on the Euro in a few years time), just as a Scotland free from the U.K. will be (if such a Scotland made the mistake of rejoining the EU, of course).

To be honest, taking the Euro is fine by me. It is a strong currency. People just want to keep the pound for cultural and traditional reasons.

"Adopt the Euro they said. It will be the best thing ever they said ."

Greece, 2009

The Euro is a strong currency in the same way that Scotland have a strong football team.

Duty281 wrote:The Euro is a strong currency in the same way that Scotland have a strong football team.

Or in the same way that Brexiteers have a strong argument.

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:The Euro is a strong currency in the same way that Scotland have a strong football team.

Or in the same way that Brexiteers have a strong argument.

You mean Will of the People isnt a strong argument?

A strong argument to want Brexit in the first place.

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Duty281 wrote:If a Scotland free of the U.K. rejoined the EU, then it would almost certainly have to use the Euro as its currency. Only two EU member states secured opt outs from the Euro - the U.K. and Denmark - in the Maastricht Treaty.

The European Commission website states that - All EU Member States, except Denmark and the United Kingdom, are required to adopt the euro and join the euro area.

As pointed out that is not true. I went to Romania this year and they don't use the Euro...

They are required by the EU Accession agreement to sign up to the Euro once the various criteria are met (I believe they’ll be on the Euro in a few years time), just as a Scotland free from the U.K. will be (if such a Scotland made the mistake of rejoining the EU, of course).

To be honest, taking the Euro is fine by me. It is a strong currency. People just want to keep the pound for cultural and traditional reasons.

Scotland don't meet the criteria for the Euro. So what would they use?

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:The Euro is a strong currency in the same way that Scotland have a strong football team.

Or in the same way that Brexiteers have a strong argument.

Or the same way that the SNP have a strong argument for Independence.

Samo wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:The Euro is a strong currency in the same way that Scotland have a strong football team.

Or in the same way that Brexiteers have a strong argument.

You mean Will of the People isnt a strong argument?

Nope, in that you ask a Breixiteer or an SNP voter for the reasons they want their desired outcome and you meet nothing but silence.

super_realist wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:The Euro is a strong currency in the same way that Scotland have a strong football team.

Or in the same way that Brexiteers have a strong argument.

Or the same way that the SNP have a strong argument for Independence.

Atleast they have a mandate, thats apparently all you need.

So when's the next Election? 2024?

Can't come soon enough for some I'd imagine.

Is there any chance of a mid-term coup (like we have here all the time) or is Boris pretty much locked in for the full term?

Pal Joey wrote:So when's the next Election? 2024?

Just as soon as the Labour Party finds another Leader who can appeal to the well heeled, super rich working class voter who have left the party in their droves since it acquired a Leader who stands for despicable working class working class voters.

As soon as the New Blair emerges - surrounded by the returning Blairite gang of followers, apologists and strategists - Labour will demand a new Election because they will claim to be the only bunch with the moral fiber to run a post-EU UK...plus, they'll reassert that Saddam did have WMDs!!!! But that he wot hid 'em in camel dung that was never searched properly!

Starmer voted for no investigation into Iraq a few years ago..

However Labour does need to appear to move to the right...Last GE told us amongst other things that you need some Print Press support with Social media..

Happy to vote in a GE for Starmer...Nandy...Jarvis...Bailey...Thornberry..

However the unkempt...foul mouthed...Vacuous...Narcissistic Phillips is a bridge too far..

Have to vote Green..

SecretFly wrote:

Pal Joey wrote:So when's the next Election? 2024?

Just as soon as the Labour Party finds another Leader who can appeal to the well heeled, super rich working class voter who have left the party in their droves since it acquired a Leader who stands for despicable working class working class voters.

As soon as the New Blair emerges - surrounded by the returning Blairite gang of followers, apologists and strategists - Labour will demand a new Election because they will claim to be the only bunch with the moral fiber to run a post-EU UK...plus, they'll reassert that Saddam did have WMDs!!!! But that he wot hid 'em in camel dung that was never searched properly!

For all JC's words there is little evidence that he had any more of an idealised view of the 'working class' whatever they are these days. For all their faults, real and imagined, Starmer and Phillips both have more experience of life at the bottom of the heap.

Perhaps if you bothered reading Labour's manifesto you might feel different or looked at Corbyn's record of fighting for higher wages...Less cuts and for less privatisation of the NHS you might reconsider.

I know what Corbyn stands for....Apart from drinking champagne at Murdoch Parties and trying to get on TV and espousing vacuous bollox who knows what Phillips stands for.???.

For sure Corbyn was crap but let's not pretend his heart wasn't with the Working class.

Just silly..

You can actually be out of touch but still try to do some of the right things.

One of the truly shocking things to have come out of the election was how much better the Tories played 'the working class ' than the Labour party. That could partially be explained by the Labour leadership being out of touch.

I have long felt that JC and Co have long had an idealised view of those they call the working classes, shaped by the 'anything but' North London choir and unsullied by any actual evidence from outside of the M25.

On a related note, I really hate that expression, 'working class'. I don't think it means a great deal any more.

Phillips has changed her stance on Iran and Brexit twice in the last 12 hours.....

Makes Sarah Palin look like Einstein.

Hope Starmer gets it.....The Adult in the room.

I joined the Labour Party a few weeks ago so that I could have a vote.  I'm not necessarily a full-time Labour voter/supporter, but I think it's especially important post-Brexit that there is a strong oppostition to any government and the Labour Party needs to be rescued from fantasists like Lansman and McCluskey.  

Of all of the possible candidates that might have run, Starmer wouldn't have been my first choice, but he's defnitely first choice out of the candidates who are standing.  As Truss says, the only adult in the room.

If he gets in, Super, do you think Starmer would try and tweak the Manifesto and bring it back a little towards the centre?

Or would that only create more turmoil within the Labour Party?

The Centre is exactly where Labour have been.  That's their problem.  Trying to appeal to a broad base of voters - Blairite Tory Lite v Marxist Hard Left.  
How 'centrist' can you get trying to be one single party appealing to such a divisive bunch?  
One of these sects will finally have to admit defeat at some point and -*gulp*- form a new party. But there is the rub.  The Name means more to some than their principles.  Better to continue the civil war within Labour than actually present a true united voice for voters to cling to.  Those two 'Labour' sects are oil and water.  They won't ever mix and you can't present a party to the public that supposedly champions the interests of both.  But that's the comical 'centrist' fence that Labour has been sitting on.    
The public ain't buying it anymore. .

Labour lost because large sections of their traditional supporters simply wanted Brexit and voted for the party they deemed most likely to get it done.  So despite all Corbyn's hardcore leftist policies and promises, party allegiances were torn up because Corbyn's Labour wasn't prepared to give them what they wanted on the main Election issue - Brexit.

I thought they were more towards the left with their "radical and ambitious" plans. You know, the ones that scared most people away. He doesn't sound centrist to me at all. I do realise Brexit also split a wedge right through them but regardless... but they are hopeless communicators anyway.

I think he will slowly try to bring the Manifesto back to the centre ground. He's not a Blairite by any means, but his support for the EU (in contrast to Corbyn's (at best) ambivalence to it) clearly demonstrates that he's closer to the centre ground than the previous leadership. He's been quite clever in not p1ssing off the left and I think he appeals to enough of the membership (which isn't as left as a lot of people think it is) to gain consensus.

The fact that Lansman (running the Long-Bailey campaign) and McCluskey don't support him is a massive positive.

Pal Joey wrote:I thought they were more towards the left with their "radical and ambitious" plans. You know, the ones that scared most people away. He doesn't sound centrist to me at all. I do realise Brexit also split a wedge right through them but regardless... but they are hopeless communicators anyway.

That's basically outlined my point.  

Leftism - in promises at least - was meant to get Corbyn's core supporters (hard left youngsters) out.  But Pro EUism - despite what the media might try to advance now and again - is a decidedly upper middle class, mobile-elite baby (Blairite side of the party).

True British Lefties are anti EU - it's a fact; and they proved it by deserting their champion Corbyn's in his hour of need.  The ultra Lefty plans were designed to bluff them into forgetting about Brexit.  But they didn't.

SecretFly wrote:Pro EUism - despite what the media might try to advance now and again - is a decidedly upper middle class, mobile-elite baby (Blairite side of the party).

True British Lefties are anti EU - it's a fact

It's not a fact at all.

It is.

There you go...more 'centrist' views from a United 606 party

Whatever you say, Fly.

superflyweight wrote:I think he will slowly try to bring the Manifesto back to the centre ground.  He's not a Blairite by any means, but his support for the EU (in contrast to Corbyn's (at best) ambivalence to it) clearly demonstrates that he's closer to the centre ground than the previous leadership.  He's been quite clever in not p1ssing off the left and I think he appeals to enough of the membership (which isn't as left as a lot of people think it is) to gain consensus.  

The fact that Lansman (running the Long-Bailey campaign) and McCluskey don't support him is a massive positive.  

Polls show that it was Corbyn not the policies that were unpopular...I suggest he only tinkers around the edges with policies.....Also Brexit hurt Labour and that will be a lesser issue come 2024.

The latest A+E figures...Foodbank usage.... and Bank of England reserve warnings about the imminent future show that the UK is in for a turbulent time....If Starmer keeps the 10.3 million Labour voters from 2019 brings back some Lib Dem switchers that hated Corbyn which he will....With more than 60 seats that are marginals (Con/Lab) he looks pretty much in good shape before he starts taking disgruntled Left wing Tories.

As for Bailey she is a lightweight but some of the personal criticism isn't good....Looks like the "Roswell Alien" etc..Completely unnecessary.....Will be Starmer vs Bailey for the job...Whatever anyone says about Corbyn he had the ability to connect with rank and file Labour members as two landslides show which Rebecca hasn't.....But as Corbyn isn't endorsing anyone it makes her job harder and I'm surprised he isn't as the left will be purged under Keir Starmer slowly and quietly..

Looks like Rayner is nailed on to win the DL position...Which is good.....A down to earth northern lady that can connect with the left.

Problem Labour has is the BAME candidates look like missing out in both races with not enough MPs nominating them....Not a good look..

But good times ahead for Labour hopefully....As I said I will take any of the candidates apart from Jess Phillips the British Sarah Palin.