Youtube comments of Andy Monaghan (@229andymon).
-
426
-
403
-
326
-
320
-
251
-
205
-
171
-
155
-
124
-
116
-
115
-
111
-
108
-
101
-
101
-
101
-
98
-
91
-
90
-
86
-
85
-
83
-
82
-
76
-
75
-
70
-
70
-
68
-
62
-
56
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
54
-
54
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
47
-
43
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
39
-
37
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
@ Yes, but nonetheless fighting Ukraine, even with huge material aid, and fighting the whole of NATO, even European NATO only, would be a whole different ballgame.
The point I’m trying to make is anti Russian people can’t have it both ways, if, as they make out, they’re struggling to beat Ukraine, then they can’t be any kind of threat to Poland, far less UK or France.
I get annoyed at those that criticise and belittle Russian progress in Ukraine, while telling us we need to worry about Russian troops marching up Argyle St in Glasgow one day.
My take is that the Ukraine war is proving we have less to fear from Russia, not more….
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
For any non Scots that may not be very aware of how modern day Scots view Clans, let me explain my POV, which I’d guess is pretty accurate.
We are unconcerned about Clans, which are considered a part of our history with no real relevance or impact to the present. Indeed you will find many Scots that are dismissive of or even hostile to the idea and history of Clans. If a MacGregor meets another MacGregor today, he will be far more interested in what football team he supports than their Clan affiliation.
Why the indifference? Well, we Scots have far more important things facing us today, both on a day to day basis (jobs, housing etc) but also the main national level issue engaging us, which is of course the struggle to re-establish an independent Scotland.
Why the antipathy? Many Scots (justifiably) blame most Clan chiefs for siding with, and even facilitating, the Brits in the “Scottish holocaust” that was The Clearances, when Scots were forced in droves off their ancestral homelands to places all over the world, including USA. The Highland glens that used to teem with people and life are still usually empty due to these horrific British policies. It gutted Scotland, and destroyed the Highland, Gaelic way of life forever. The Clan chiefs were, and always will be, blamed by ordinary Scots (regardless of which Clan they’re from) for their collusion in that.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@aaronaaronson7600 1. Why, if you believe in Scottish independence, would you care about the UK being weaker after we leave? We won't be in it..!
Would there even be a UK after we leave - technically no, so perhaps what UK will become should just be content to live happily in it's new skin. Scots don't owe Brits their assumed place in the world.
2. Indy supporters, like me, don't believe our country will be worse off after we leave, we believe things will improve. But in any case, you will be relieved of the need to worry about us.
3. Indy has been growing for decades now, it is a political goal that should be, and is, independent of what is happening in other places. It's about Scotland, not UK.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@mikejones-vd3fg Sentiments that has led to UK going from a manufacturing powerhouse to an underperformer of note.
When I started my first job, in the late 70s, it was with a big firm, but in one of their smaller factories, maybe under 100 employees. I remember being surprised at them having 3 canteens. The fancy one, with white linen and silver service, for around 4-5 senior managers, the next with checked tablecloths etc for around 12-15 middle managers and the the last with plastic chairs and formica tables for the oiks. It symbolised all that was wrong with Brit business - them and us, from top to bottom and in every way possible.
The company concerned went out of business, and I can assure you in no way due to unions or workforce.
Sure - treat your workforce like cattle, or the enemy, or just a necessary evil. It’s the Brit way.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@pixhammer May I make a serious and respectful suggestion?
Try to understand that not every issue that’s happening in UK has UK, Westminster, London, or England as it’s basis. Not all of us view what’s happening thru Union Jack specs.
The cause of Scottish independence has been growing for long before Brexit, or any other specific Brit issue. What’s happening in N Ireland is as much about Dublin and Brussels as London. When Scotland leaves the UK union, it will be more about us carefully choosing the best path for our country, as assessed thru many factors, the present Tory chimps tea party UKG, Brexit and the iniquities of our membership of the UK being merely some.
Even if UK miraculously comes to its senses and rejoined the EU, that wouldn’t mean we Scots could get rid of Trident from the Clyde or decide whether we want to participate in Brit military adventurism. In the unequal UK union, we can’t even classify movies..!We need independence to be able to run our country the way we want. In fact, given the growing divide between us and an England apparently hellbent on a suicidal right-wing crusade that has become an imperative.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
In Europe (and the US), the car markets are a zero sum game. So, every time a Chinese car is sold there, it’ll mean one less Merc, VW, Renault etc.
While the China market is still rising, that situation is pretty much replicated there too. Same with all other global markets. In the UK, there will be no tariffs against Chinese EVs, so I foresee a happy hunting ground for them there.
The US has raised the drawbridge against them, which will buy them time, at the expense of the US public, but the tariffs imposed by the EU won’t be enough to stop the Chinese invasion destroying much of the European car industry, IMO. What the US does in the longer term - I don’t know, coz, whether they like it or not, ICE is dead car walking.
I can’t see a way out for the Euro auto industry. Anybody got any suggestions?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Not necessarily. So long as it can be ensured no attempt will be made to influence an outcome by means that will benefit the person or agency being lobbied. In other words, if I or my company have for example a new battery technology, there should be nothing stopping me promoting that to an Energy ministry. But… if I offer something of benefit (money, shares, a job etc) to the minister or similar, that should be illegal. Right now you only need to declare any interest and in the case of say a job afterward, poorly policed. Persons being lobbied in these circumstances should be legally prevented from receiving benefits and shouldn’t be able to work for any company they help, inc any group companies, for, say, 5 years.
Not difficult to set up and police, I’d say.
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@jacobcohen9205 We did respect it. We’re still in the UK, when was the insurrection, did I miss it? But nowhere does it say a vote 8 years ago meant we can’t change our minds. Democracy can’t be atrophied, even by Brit unionists.
But, what has now transpired is, it doesn’t matter whether we’ve changed our minds or not, because we’ve not to be allowed to choose whether we want to be in the UK prison anymore - because Westminster says so. Of course you know that doesn’t apply to England, but I’ve yet to hear whether you regard that as fair or not. Well…?
While you’re there please tell me what this wonderful Scottish representation could get us that Westminster wasn’t inclined to give. Well…?
Some people (not many) in the SNP say they don’t want indy, that’s true, but you fail to note that some people in unionist parties do In fact up to 40% of Labour voters in some surveys and even some Tories. Or don’t they count in Unionville?
And I’ll answer your daft question about the EU really easily. We don’t need a ref about EU membership, coz it’s clear a majority of Scots want it. Why on earth wouldn’t we - look at the shambles No Mates Brexit UK is in. They can’t even sort out N Ireland.
You get answers, but like the Brit nationalist you are, you just ignore ones you don’t like.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Yes, it’s called democracy. Frustrating when it doesn’t go your way, eh?
Firstly, even if your utterly skewed analysis was somehow right, there would be logic in voting SNP even if you don’t agree with all they do, or even most of what they do. And that is because they are the best path to achieve independence, which, once achieved, will change everything. Until we get independence, we can only tinker with the extremely limited marginal powers unionist (only) politicians decided Holyrood was to have. This will include of course the ability to choose or reject the SNP as the government of our new independent country. After independence, the SNP will have to gain our votes for other than to gain independence. I wish them luck.
And yes, we do indeed want to end our Brit Brexit isolation and rejoin the EU. In the EU we will, if we so choose to join, agree to devolve some sovereignty to Brussels in return for the benefits of EU membership including membership of the critically important Single Market. Compare this to our incorporation into the Brit union where Scotland has no sovereignty to trade for benefits in the first place. Sounds like a great deal to me.
As for not having a vote in the EU, not sure if you’re old enough to have voted in Euro elections, but we actually had them. You could say that our votes had little effect on the composition of the EU Commission, and you’d be right, just like we Scots don’t have much effect on how Brit governments are also formed.
Lastly, English people do indeed exercise their votes, and to good effect. After all it is they who determine who rules in Westminster and they can also decide to leave the UK union whenever they like for whatever reason they like. A choice denied the rest of us. Wonderful, eh?
4
-
@PeterCampbell1 From what I hear it was actually a very well executed evacuation, never an easy military manoeuvre, I believe...
As for the rest of your comment, I agree Russian progress appears slow, but I suggest they are nonetheless winning and, once they take Donbas, which I predict will happen fairly soon, will have already achieved many of their objectives. I reckon from there they will probably move on Odessa and possibly also Kharkiv.
But your point about at what price is a very good one. My speculation is the price will be a new Cold War, not between NATO and Russia, but between NATO and an alliance of China and Russia. There wasn’t many bridges (political and economic) linking the West and Russia before the invasion, but those that were are being systematically destroyed.
Not good for us all, is my conclusion.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Us Scots have a reputation for frugality, which I won’t deny. Maybe it’s that, more than other issues, in me that makes me a fan of renewable energy. Here in Scotland we’re already producing more green electricity than we consume, with the same again in planning or construction, in our case mostly from onshore and offshore wind. While this energy isn’t “free”, (turbines aren’t cheap) the energy source is and always will be. It’s also safe and we don’t have to ask anyone to supply it to us, or risk getting it turned off or price increases. Of course getting the energy to us, whether for domestic heating or for transport, will be in the hands of private companies, who will of course extract from us as much as they can get, but that’s a lot more manageable and safe than relying on external forces.
Surely a technology crusade toward the goal of free source energy makes sense?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ Yes, he did, but he wasn’t just a product of an era, not everyone considered Indians and other peoples in as vehemently derogatory terms as he did. He was worse than most. And that’s just in terms of his undeniable racism, his other faults were often as bad. He was a rabid right wing Tory of the worst type, sending in troops to violently stop strikes and he was criticised for taking “gifts” for political influence. He was anti-Islam and his actions in Ireland were barbaric. He was complicit in an unnecessary famine in Bengal that killed around 3m people. He supported the use of poison gas in WW2 and had to be restrained by his generals from flooding Germany with gas, he supported the unnecessary firebombing of Dresden. Had the Germans beat UK, they would have undoubtedly hanged him as a war criminal.
As far as his military skills are concerned, the Americans were unimpressed with him, and no wonder, the architect of the Gallipoli disaster in WW1 was also the architect of the mistake that was the invasion of Italy in WW2. He was no military strategist.
He was no hero, and his bad much outweighs any good he might have done.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@pixhammer Really? by predicting the Indy vote will rise modestly after the next campaign, considering the last one raised it 50%. If you think another year or so of Brexit Brit rule, presided over by PM Loonytoon Truss, is going to change that, one of us is definitely naïve.
Anyway, as I said, the acid test is who’s confident (us) and who’s running scared (UKG). Of course you could ask for the polling on the subject the UKG did not long ago, but good luck with that, they’re refusing to release it.
Sorry, but Indyref2 is ours.
Incidentally, can I ask why you’re so negative about it? I ask coz I believe there is a case for union, just not a strong enough one vs running Scotland ourselves.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@loc4725 No, you didn’t “explain” anything. You attempted to justify a craven and cynical veto on Scottish democracy and failed. If the conditions allowed for (according the Parliament you pledge allegiance to) a referendum in 2014, what is the difference now? The Scottish people, via their elected representatives, wanted indyref1 - and now, via the same mechanism, we want Indyref2. Westminster decided (since it was supremely confident it would win hands down) to “allow” Indyref1, but, because it’s running scared of Indyref2 has decided we’re to be denied another choice as to whether we want to be in your unequal, unfair and involuntary union.
Let me “explain” to you what the situation is, it’s far simpler than you think. Big brave Dave Cameron thought he’d shoot the Scottish fox by “allowing” Indyref1 - when you lot were 70/30 up. Now that’s it’s far more even, Westminster has no stomach to test Brit “unity” in Scotland.
It’s basic Brit political chicanery, cynicism, cowardice and fear, nothing more, nothing less.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@apc9714 All those factors are important, but to assume the Russians have no moral, or no good weaponry etc, is to stretch credulity. If I were one of the poor Ukrainian troops going up against well entrenched positions of a foe that has air superiority, artillery superiority, bigger troop numbers and has had a year to dig in, I’d be terrified.
This is a defence that Russia *should*, on paper, win, but let’s see what happens. I know little about militarily tactics etc, but I do know these things are usually really difficult to predict.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ I’m not sure how to take your comments.
Firstly, Clans stopped having meaning after The Clearances, for the plain and simple fact the Clan system was anchored in the glens and the Highland Scots living in them. Once a Highlander left or was cleared (ethnically cleansed in today’s terminology) from their Glen, they very quickly forgot their Clan allegiance once in Glasgow or Inverness, or dumped it over the side on the boat to Canada. It had no meaning there and certainly retained no fondness or loyalty since it was usually their Chief that kicked them out at the point of a Brit Redcoat’s bayonet. The Clearances were horribly effective and achieved the ends the Brit Govt wanted (Highland deserts), but it came with many prices, one of them being the disappearance of Clan identity and loyalty and any Chief that still expected loyalty was as stupid as they were traitorous and cruel. Scots are very loyal people, but betray that and you won’t be getting it back in a hurry.
In my own case, some of my ancestors must have fought against the Campbells on many occasions and were often, literally, at daggers drawn. If I meet a Campbell today, which isn’t difficult since I live in Argyll, it means absolutely nothing to each of us.
However, it’s your remarks about modern Scotland that puzzle me. I’m not sure how you come to the conclusion that we have an overly utilitarian outlook, or that readopting Clan identities might “help” that. Neither idea I believe holds water.
Nowadays when you drive around our land you’ll see signs in Gaelic and there are other projects ongoing to promote or rescue aspects of our culture that were previously suppressed, forgotten or sidelined. Holyrood has reawakened Scottish politics and identity to a level unknown for generations and I see Scots (especially younger ones) becoming more and more confident in their Scottish skins. We are a welcoming people, and ethnic issues and tensions, while not unknown, aren’t a feature of our society. Anyone can wear a kilt, and often do. Our previous First Minister, ethnically Pakistani, wore a kilt to his inauguration and addressed the Parliament in Urdu. He was welcomed.
I think we’re doing fine in that regard, actually.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@nitsujism What has Labour done re railways? It has said it will take back into public ownership rail franchises currently operated by the private sector. Sounds great, right? But - firstly, it was already happening, some have already been transferred under the Tories due to catastrophic performance and other issues. Labour’s only alternative would’ve been to continue the Tory policy and re-issue licences to obviously failing and incompetent private companies. Not exactly manning the barricades, eh?
On the other hand we could discuss what Labour *aren’t* doing, like taxing the wealthy, tackle UK offshore tax havens or nationalising Water etc.
If you follow the excellent Richard Murphy, as I do, you’ll see he’s created a long list of sensible, un-radical and viable things Labour could, should, but won’t do.
Free breakfast clubs - yeah, a nice gesture, but what about Labour’s voting to continue the Tory 2 child benefits cap? Maybe if Labour wasn’t making so many poor people poorer, they wouldn’t need breakfast clubs, eh?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@RoachChaddjr Well, not everyone. British economic policy, both Labour and Tory, has been resolutely Londoncentric.
When all roads lead to Rome, Rome gets richer.
Britain is hopelessly over centralised, but it doesn’t have to be like that, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, all have decentralised economies.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@inigo_bpc OK, fair enough, I didn’t answer all your imaginings, including the Scandinavian NATO one. Let me do that now.
Russia probably guessed that would or certainly could happen is my take, but to compare the 2 threats to Russia is to overlook geography and demographics (and common sense).
Firstly, there’s no border between Sweden and Russia, but there is one between Russia and Finland. A very long one and one which would make a NATO invasion from that direction difficult to the point of complete insignificance. Think logistics, think vulnerability, think a whole host of reasons why we’re never going to see hordes of NATO troops freezing their assets off in barren Finnish wildernesses. You apparently believe the Russians to be stupid, but that mistake has been made before.
The real threat to Russia lies to its West, as anyone could see if they looked at a map and if they were still confused they could look at a history book and see where Russia has traditionally been invaded from when the West comes calling.
I ignored your point because it’s not a point.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This ridiculous and dangerous episode should make British people reflect on the advantages and disadvantages of FPTP vs PR.
Apologists of FPTP will tell us it provides "stable, decisive" govt, they will also, invariably, example Italy as what a lack of a "stable, decisive" govt looks like - ignoring the huge number of highly successful countries operating PR.
Well, this farcical chimps tea party called a UK Govt is "stable" (the Tories have a large majority, meaning we can't get rid of them until the next election, no matter how loony they become) and it's "decisive" - as we seen when the crazy, right-wing extremist mini budget appeared and was forced upon us.
How does "stable and decisive" look today?
It's long overdue UK dumped the medieval, unfair and unrepresentative FPTP electoral system so favoured by the 2 party leaderships that benefit from it. Will it probably mean Labour and the Tories split? Yes. Will it mean coalition politics? Yes. Looking at the news today - I'm thinking - "Where do I sign"?
The recently released annual Natcen study showed this - "For the first time since the British Social Attitudes survey began in 1983, more people in Britain favour introducing proportional representation for elections to the House of Commons than keeping the voting system as it is." That was last year - what do you think that figure will be now?
All we have to do now is convince both the Labour and the Tory party we're right and they're wrong. No-one said it was going to be easy, we'll be asking party leaders not known for selflessness or acting in anything other than party interest to give up a "shots each" system where Tweedle Dee waits around until he gets "his shot" to replace Tweedle Dum.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Eder-bk5mm Your first statement is just your opinion, unless you’d like to substantiate your claim the Russians don’t care about Russian people living in Russia. On the other hand there are Russians living in other countries that I see no significant evidence are supported by Moscow. Take for example the large numbers of Russians living in the Baltic states, some of whom claim to be discriminated against, do you see much evidence of Russian support for them? I don’t. As for ethnic Russians living in Ukraine, yes, Russia does support them, but the Ukrainians promised to respect their rights in Russian dominated ares such as the Donbas and there is evidence this was not done.
As for whether I would support independence movements within Russia, that would depend entirely on the circumstances, as is the case with any such movement throughout the world. For example I think the Russians should not have forcibly stopped Chechen independence. If, however, say the St Petersburg area wanted to separate from Russia, I’m not sure I would support such a move as if I were Russian I would consider that a definite part of the Russian nation.
Self determination can only be viewed on a case by case basis as the circumstances are never the same.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@wholelifeahead Firstly - who’s talking about having lots of referendums? We’re only going to need one more. But, even if we did need 10 or 50 more as long as there’s enough democratic support for 10 more then that’s what we should have. The key is support, which is the bedrock of any functioning democracy. However messy the people’s vote may be, it must be heard. And yes, I’d say that if it was unionists campaigning to re-unify with UK (they won’t, btw).
Second - You’ve ticked another unionist BS bingo box with your - it’s an “emotional” decision. It’s bugger all to do with emotion, you’ve been propagandised by the outrageously biased unionist Brit media into believing we all paint our faces blue and have swords above our mantle pieces. Do the SNP strike you as painting their faces blue? It’s a carefully considered (and intelligent) decision arrived at over many years. Give us some basic credit for Christ sake..!
Lastly. What is notably absent from the Scottish Indy debate is any feeling of Scottish exceptionalism. Which, let’s face it, doesn’t exactly sit well with your (forgiven) accusation we’ve got a chip on our shoulder, does it? I wish I could say the same for British (aka English) politics right now. We will be content with our status as a small European nation that is part of the EU. like Denmark or Ireland etc. I have zero problem with that.
The UK has lasted 300 years. Long enough.
Let me ask you a question that I would appreciate if you to answer thoughtfully and 100% truthfully. Is your concern about us leaving because of what the effects will be for Scotland, or UK? Because they aren’t the same.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@milhad.salihi Sure, I see that, I just get a bit frustrated when I see people routinely default to blaming the workforce for what are clearly management faults.
If you analyse what the difference to the selling price a, say, 10% shop floor wage increase vs a 5% would mean to the selling price of a car you’d be surprised just how incredibly small it is. You then have to ask yourself - are there alternatives to simply adding that cost into the selling price, could not the company cut sky high executive packages, or dividends or try to lower the energy bill, or, heaven forbid, make cars people want to buy?
You have to ask those questions, because you can bet your bottom dollar the management won’t.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ppen8359 Your response reminds me of the quote by Tacitus - “They create a desert, and they call it peace”. Iraq indeed is now a chaotic mess, same to a lesser extent is Syria, so yes, well done US for that, but to call that some kind of achievement, for any reason, strains credulity.
Iraq is a mess - and now a mess under the influence of Iran, the Taliban are back in control of Afghanistan, with a stronger hold over it than before the US invasion and the Russians outwitted the US in Syria to establish Russian influence there muscling out US presence. That glaringly obvious lack of US presence or influence is now the order of the day throughout the ME.
The US, through its disastrous foreign policy, has painted itself completely into the Israeli corner and is, as usual, letting that crazy tail wag the US dog. The danger the world faces now in the ME is possibly greater than at any time.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@daviddill5227 I think you’re being overly pessimistic about the rise of EVs. Yes, currently the growth has slowed, and yes, some companies are changing their - I’d say emphasis rather than overall direction, but does that mean EVs won’t ultimately replace ICE? No, I think at most it may delay an inevitability.
In so many ways EVs are (already) simply better than ICE, as steam was to sail, as cars were to horses, and they’re rapidly and consistently improving. Soon I reckon they’ll beat ICE on probably every metric, including price. Leaving only “petrol heads” unconvinced.
Whether you love EVs or hate them, the writing on the wall seems to be saying one thing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@chrisy6707 Well, that and the Labour Party were desperate to try to hold back the rising support for independence. Labour have never been seriously interested in devolution, and still aren’t, unionism is as ingrained in them as it is for the Tories, albeit for slightly different reasons.
At the time (I know, I was there) Labour didn’t seriously foresee an SNP Scotland, so were content to imagine Holyrood would continue being the glorified “Parish Council” dominated by Labour that Blair said he considered it to be. During Labour’s utterly mediocre 7 years in charge of Holyrood, their biggest boast was bringing in a smoking ban a year or so before the rest of UK. They never, at any time, considered any kind of challenge to Westminster, whether ruled by their own party - or the Tories. In other words, useless.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@CTHN7 Hi, yes I’d agree that seems to be the direction US is going.
However, where will US be after that couple of decades down that road?
The biggest auto market in the world today, by a clear margin, is China, after that you have Europe and US roughly equal with the others much further down the pack.
China will be 100% EV within a decade or 15 years max, so will Europe and I suspect most other of the smaller markets. EV tech will have moved forward in all transport sectors, led, we must assume, by China.
US will be isolated and alone, still making yesterdays tech for its own marooned market, which for a once mighty, profitable and global auto industry, will leave it a shadow of itself.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Source for your 1998 poll claim? I’m not saying you’re making it up, but I’ve had a quick look and can’t find. I’ve been watching closely the Indy movement since long before that time and I can tell you, without fear of contradiction, that if that result happened, it was an outlier, since support was way lower than that normally at that time. As my source, I cite an article by Prof L Paterson (Will support for independence go away) from Sept 23 that concisely charts the very erratic, but nonetheless increasing support for independence since the 1970s, particularly among Scotland’s young and well educated. In the 50s and 60s, it could be fair to say the SNP celebrated holding a deposit. To include myself as a (humble) source, I’ve been interested in Scottish politics through that time and I can assure you support for independence has grown hugely (but not consistently) since I’ve been watching it.
Of course that doesn’t mean it will continue to grow, indeed it could retreat, but if it did it would have to reverse a clear historical trend of erratic growth.
Currently it sits around 45%, which itself is around 50% higher than it was shortly before the 2014 referendum. The Indy movement is confident enough a new campaign and referendum will succeed that it is pressing for indyref2. The UK is blocking that, whether through fear (as I believe) or arrogance, desperation, cynicism or malice, I’ll leave to you. But to me one thing is clear, it’s definitely not from principle. What “principle” could there be in deliberately preventing us from a democratic choice?
However, let me finish by turning your tables and ask you to consider the position were it in reverse. The English people are extremely unlikely to ever be in the position the Scots are now, since they never not get what they want, but let’s imagine an English independence party is as successful as the SNP has been in Scotland. Who would stop them just leaving the UK union? Who would they need to “ask permission” from? Who would say they have no such right?
Because, in your wonderfully democratic “United” Kingdom, there is only one nation that can leave whenever it likes, for whatever reason it likes. The rest of us can’t.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dna9838 If you’re including me as one of your “appeasers” I’m not. I’m stating what I genuinely believe to be the actual situation, as opposed to what I’d like the situation to be. In fact I don’t like Putin and wouldn’t trust him any more than I’d trust many politicians around the world. But that doesn’t matter, the facts on the ground do.
Firstly, I’m not buying your one bite at a time theory. Not because I’m an “appeaser” but rather because it palpably doesn’t hold up. Russia knows the west is as opposed to it, and has now sanctioned it, as far as it can, that isn’t new. Russia is very much at nothing to lose stage with the west. So why then, did it not just take Georgia in 2008? What it actually did instead was to militarily intervene and then leave the disputed regions as so-called independent states. It did NOT annexe them. I ask again, if Russia is as you say, why stuff around doing this rather than just annexe them? Your theory doesn’t hold water.
As for Moldova and Belarus? Well, I don’t believe Russia is interested in annexing Moldova, but I would agree that could be a possibility in the case of Belarus should it try to take the same path Ukraine and Georgia did. Belarus is seen as being as strategically important to Russia as Ukraine. If they somehow did become prey to Russian oppression I would like to see all diplomatic and economic measures taken to help them (not that we have any left) but I would not intervene militarily. Why? Because I believe that could easily, as it still could in Ukraine, spiral into WW3 and nuclear Armageddon. You may be willing to risk annihilation to help Belarus, I’m not and I reckon I’d be in a majority in that case.
Were you as concerned about the fate of the people of Iraq when the west lied it’s way into a full scale invasion (and subsequent destruction) of their country, or did you “let it slide”?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@_blanding You make many points, but your central argument is the usual one of "basket case Scotland".
Apart from being offensively insulting, unsubstantiated and typically Brit unionist, I don't accept it. The subject is hugely complex as opposed to the blithe dismissal you provide and just how well Scotland will do once free of the dead hand of London control is dependent on many factors, some of which can only be estimated. If I asked you to elaborate your opinion regarding our economic hopelessness (be unable to do what many nations have done that have far less than our advantages), I fully expect we'd end up with the notorious GERS unionist mantra. Spoiler is I don't accept that either.
But let me rather pick up on a couple of your other mistakes.
Firstly, our indy will not "end" Scotland and England (I note you typically forget the other 2 nations). That is frankly absurd. However, it will end the UK, which I expect you are, again typically, equating with England, so perhaps that's what you mean.
Secondly your suggestion to try to make the unfair, undemocratic, unequal and now involuntary UK union more tolerable via a bunch of reforms no Westminster regime will make and a "British Council" will neither happen nor is any kind of substitute for Scots running Scotland, which we'll do far better than any London based unionist mob that does not have our best interests at heart. How would you propose this Camelot style "Council" would work anyway? How would you avoid the critical problem of England outvoting the rest of us put together several times over?.
You also make a fundamental error directly comparing Brexit with Scexit. The motivations and consequences of both are very different and if you don't understand that I seriously suggest you make a further effort to. The English made a drastic mistake with Brexit, for negative reasons and with drastic consequences, please don't tar us with their nationalistic, isolationist brush. I'm happy to discuss further how each exit will differ, but perhaps you could reflect further on some of the obvious differences first.
Lastly, I'll just mention that we will have no need of a UK style defence profile as we won't conduct an aggressive foreign policy bent on "promoting UK interests". Nor will we want your nuclear WMD 30 miles from our biggest population centre. I suggest you rather park them in the Thames, after all, you've been telling us how safe they are for decades. It is UK that will lose in that regard when we leave (not our fault) and if you really need proof, have a look at a map.
But, I'll end with a simple, direct question - is your "concern" around what's best for Scotland, or for UK, because I can categorically assure you they are not the same.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Usernamedefault. You’re not getting it. Which is a common unionist failing.
Firstly, England doesn’t have “disproportionate power” it has all power. What pathetic “powers” Westminster has decided/dictated Holyrood should have (Scotland doesn’t get a say in that) are devolved, which means ultimately retained by Westminster. All power in UK resides in Westminster, including that of shutting down Holyrood if it pleases.
Secondly who gets to says what England (and therefore Scotland) “deserves” or not? Oh, England of course, because of its “disproportionate power”. How handy is that wee circular argument?
Thirdly, for people like me it’s not (you really need to grasp this one) a case of “who deserves what” in the unequal, unfair, undemocratic and involuntary UK union, we don’t want the union at all - full stop. I’m not sure you understand the concept of Scottish independence. It means you run your country as you see fit and we do the same, it means England having no more say in the affairs of Scotland than it does Ireland or Latvia, for that matter. We’re no longer your concern (and vice versa) or yours to dictate to. The union will be basically over - not that that’s why we want what we do.
We’re not negotiating better terms (or “disproportionate consideration” as you so arrogantly put it) we intend to exit the contract. Consider that…
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
How can anyone expect these people to actually understand what a cost of living crisis means? I don't just mean the people radically affected, risking their health or even lives trying to heat (or pay for) their homes, albeit there will be plenty of them, but also the multitudes of us non-wealthy but not destitute people that will have to change our lifestyles to accommodate a crisis the Tories are making far worse than it need be though their ineptitude and greed. When did they last go and wait in a long queue for cheap petrol, when did they last pick up no name brands in a supermarket rather than named, decide to cancel a holiday or go to a cheaper place, forego meeting up with friends for a meal, decide to cancel or postpone re-decorating their house, buying a new pair of shoes? Etc Etc. Their lives will be unaffected, they will have no experience of any of these challenges. They will of course shed calculated amount of crocodile tears, they will say they sympathise, may even try to convince us they *empathise*, but they simply will have no relevant experience. In the case of Tories, they won't even want to.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It seems to me that Western Europe has yet to fully realise the implications of the end of the Cold War. What threat is the “new” Russia to Europe? Sure it has an impressive military on paper, but what would it do with that? Invade the whole of Europe, and then, even less likely, install puppet pro-Russian regimes that it could expect to last? That’s simply unbelievable., especially when we consider the weakness of the Russian economy. Russia economically is weaker than each of France, Germany or UK. In fact I believe Russia’s military strength is *defensive*, not aggressive. I don’t believe they have any intention, or capability, of invading Europe, but rather they’re actually scared of the west and their own military actions (in places like Georgia, Ukraine) are to protect it’s borders and even it’s existence. Russians have the campaigns of Napoleon and Hitler to remind them how much we are to be trusted. A united western force, especially if adequately resourced, would have no need to fear Russia, they have no desire to march their troops up the streets of Glasgow.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LIamaMcFudd If we get to “vote in the overlords” how come we have yet another Tory government we never voted for? Last time we voted for those overlords was 1955. Scotland doesn’t determine Brit politics, English voters do. Simple fact.
As for your attempt to compare membership of the EU with UK.
1. Membership of the EU is voluntary, UK not. It’s not easy to leave the EU, as UK has found out, but if you’re determined to be suicidally stupid, they can’t and won’t stop you. I would argue, on that basis, we are still, like Germany, France etc etc, independent.
2. The list of powers voluntarily ceded to Brussels is nowhere near the level of powers Scotland involuntarily has to give to London. In the UK Scotland can ban air rifles, in the EU we can ban nuclear weapons.
3. There is no one EU state that so dominates the union that it outnumbers and outvotes the rest several times over.
There are many more differences.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@readsomebooks666 Goodbye, Nicola Sturgeon, hello new leader. To quote Sturgeon, and any sensible observer, independence is not about one person, regardless who they may be. Fairly obvious stuff, I would’ve thought. Plenty talent on the SNP benches.
Unionism didn’t disappear (unfortunately) with Brave Dave Cameron, did it?
There’s only one way we’re going away, and that’s to arrange the Independence Day street parties. If you’re planning to join us for them, I’d suggest Edinburgh, they usually put on a good event. But… you’ll have plenty to choose from (all of Scotland).
Incidentally, why do you use a fake name - is it so that you can be “bolder”?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Bob-ts2tu And you don't think the same happens on the unionist side? That Scotland is often (in the hopelessly biased Brit media) portrayed as some kind of economic basket case full of druggies and benefits cheats happy to leach off an unaccountably generous and ever-patient England? I routinely see unionist propaganda that frankly is utter trash and I see it from social media right up to the BBC. I not only see propaganda trashing Scotland, but also propaganda praising Brit performance that is either BS or highly biased. In my view the UK economy is performing very poorly, mainly due to catastrophic Tory policies (Tories that Scots last voted for in 1955).
However, there are stone cold facts we cannot help but concede.
1. Scottish economic performance is mostly determined by UK decisions not Scottish. The main levers of economic power controlling all of UK are in Westminster, not Holyrood. So it's ironic that Brit failure is somehow labelled as Scottish. Scotland performs badly in UK therefore Scotland will perform even worse outside (where we will make decisions that suit our own economy). Yeah, that's logical - Not.
2. Brexit is a complete disaster, and is ruining not just Scotland, but also UK. We did not choose that course - but, as usual, our votes were cancelled in the unfair, unequal Brit union. This is normal. In 2015 Scotland returned all but 3 MPs as independence supporting. Did that get us independence - No. What did it get us - absolutely nothing that Westminster didn't want to give. That is what being Scotland in the UK union means.
All we want is a chance to decide, in the light of the changed circumstances we are in since 2014 (out the EU against our will) whether we want to remain in the union. Once we get that and vote to leave (as I'm confident we will) then we cease to become any issue or problem of yours. All we will ask for is good political relations and the best trading arrangement to suit both countries.
It's just a pity Westminster is choosing to block democracy because they know they will lose that referendum.
if you truly like Scotland, then try to like what's best for us, even if that is considered not good for UK.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To buy into the ludicrous notion that; Russia intends to invade Poland, attack NATO, sweep Russian troops through Europe etc etc, you have to believe the Russians are incapable of simple logic and/or Russia is completely hostage to a madman in the shape of Putin. Sadly many in the West have been so propagandised by their media (BBC included) they actually do believe that.
Let’s look at what should be some very basic and obvious facts;
Russia is struggling to overcome Ukraine, one of the poorest nations in Europe and with which it shares a huge land border, which gives it massive logistic and proximity advantages. It is also in some cases advancing into territory where there are people either supportive of Russia, or at least not fiercely anti-Russian.
Sure, Ukraine is being armed by the West, but only to an extent and not with ground troops or air forces etc.
I reckon Russia is generally winning, but only just and extremely slowly and at great cost.
How on earth do people in the West believe Russia could overcome the combined might of NATO which it would face the minute it crosses a NATO border. Whichever NATO country Russia invaded would become a battleground between Russian forces (as in Ukraine now) and a NATO force from every NATO nation, including all military elements. If Russia is struggling in Ukraine, how could it possible withstand that? How could it even persuade itself it could?
In Europe, we don’t even need US forces, the European NATO nations already outmatch Russian forces.
The entire “new USSR” idea is simply absurd and the product of stupid, or evil, Western minds. There are many reasons we can have to oppose Russian actions in Ukraine, but to prevent some kind of “invasion from the East” should definitely not be one of them.
I’ve asked this of people that believe it, and all I get back is “Putin is a madman, so all bets are off”.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@celanian8188 OK, just checked and your description is a bit misleading. Firstly, it’s clear the “sole responsibility” for running VW lies with the Management Board, not the Supervisory Board, however you are correct to say the Supervisory Board appoints and monitors the board, but… it is only “consulted directly” on major decisions, not take them.
If your analysis was correct, then why are the unions threatening to strike over the recent announcements around plant closures, ending of job guarantees and cancelling of wage rises? They could just veto them.
Sorry, but it seems clear who runs VW, and it’s not the unions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@celanian8188 I suspect he’s already cleared that with the board, in their consultation role. Even to make the announcement has affected the company significantly.
Wrt your example of wanting to double your wages, I know it’s not a serious analogy, but I think you’re doing unions a general disservice to assume they’d agree to such a proposal if it was clear the effect would indeed be to endanger the company. Their job is a wholistic one to look after the employees best interest (while taking the best interest of the company into consideration), and being made redundant obviously is the opposite of that.
They’re not, unlike what some believe, either stupid or reckless people, just as employers (normally) aren’t either. However, in the case of the legacy auto industry, I’m putting the blame for the invidious position they’re in, which will get far worse, squarely on the shoulders of the employers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I can't talk for the rest of Europe but here in Scotland, it doesn't surprise me that sales of BYD are slow (right now) and that's because most people haven't heard of them. As for NIO and Xpeng, I'm not even aware whether they're on sale here or not, if they are, they're invisible That's not a "catastrophic failure", it's to be expected. What would be a catastrophic failure is if that continues.
I attended a major energy exhibition in Glasgow recently and visited the stand of Arnold Clark, one of the biggest car retailers in the country that has just (very) recently started selling BYD in earnest - they had 5 EVs on the stand, 3 of which were Chinese owned - BYD, MG and Polestar. From what I could see, the car getting the most attention was the BMW (also most expensive) but the next was the BYD Atto 3.
Give them a chance to fail before you bury them, Sam... The same situation happened with Japanese and Korean cars - before mass uptake. I don't believe people will happily buy a Korean car, but will refuse to buy a Chinese one.
Are Scots different to other Europeans in this regard? I doubt it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ My tuppenceworth says it’s leadership that controls the direction of companies, including toward liquidation, not the shop floor workers. The media will tell us the shop floor labour cost are *the* determining factor in whether a company can sell cars at the right price. It’s not. Labour costs are actually quite a small portion of overall cost. There’s plenty other ways to cut costs - dividends, director and top management packages, bonuses, profits, dealer margins, cutting energy costs, cutting materials costs etc. But, we never hear about that, eh?
If I look at the situation companies like VW, Ford and Stellantis are in, I see them facing the wall, and I’m putting the blame firmly where it should be - at the boardroom door.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fumbles216 China does believe it should be able to tell Taiwan what to do - because it’s part of China. Have you not just explained why you believe Washington has the right to tell Texas what to do - what’s the difference?
As for Russia, I kinda agree with you and not.
Firstly, Russia only did what US would do in similar circumstances. When Cuba wanted Russian missiles, US told it to think again, when Chile voted communist, the US toppled their government. If Mexico falls out with US big time (not unlikely) joined BRICS and threatened to allow Chinese or Russian bases on their territory (unlikely), do you seriously think US would allow that? You kinda conceded earlier that US policy is dictated by what US considers its interests, rather than any overriding principles. Mexico’s “right” to do what it likes would be put in the same dumpster Ukraine’s was. That’s the world we live in, as you yourself described. Russia was prepared to allow an independent Ukraine as long as it remained neutral. It chose instead to poke the bear with a NATO stick.
Where I agree with you (sort of) is on the field. Russia is struggling to beat a much weaker Ukraine, even with Western material, which must be a source of embarrassment to them. The Ukrainians are fighting like tigers and making them pay for every metre taken. But take it they will, I believe. The Russians have improved, are now stronger than they were and I reckon it’s inevitable they will prevail. What that will mean by way of a settlement, I don’t know.
Anyhow, if that’s true - why are we in the West so paranoid about them? If they can’t get past Ukraine, why on earth should Poland worry a lost them, far less Germany or France?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I accept that the chances of a major nuclear accident or incident are very small, but then, I also am hoping that’s true of my chances of having a major crash in my car, or of a fire destroying my home.
But, in the cases of my home and car, even though the chances of major accidents are low, I still have to pay to insure against them, including any compensation for any 3rd parties my accidents may affect.
So, go ahead build new nuke stations, but only if they are insured against any 3rd party damage caused as the effect of an incident. There is no absolute need to build nuclear, it’s an option, so there’s no reason we should have to “cover” the nuclear industry.
How much would those responsible for Chernobyl have had to pay for the damage caused to Europe? How could we even calculate that? But why should we excuse them?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Eder-bk5mm You didn’t say Russia isn’t a free country, you said Russia doesn’t care about the rights of Russians in Russia. You then equate that with the (alleged) treatment of political opposition figures. I agree there is an element of gangsterism in Russia (and Ukraine, incidentally) both in politics and in the private sector, but to equate that with a generic lack of care about Russian rights is simplistic and misleading.
As for Putin’s indifference to suffering, why then was he recently re-elected with a massive majority? Was the election probably subject to some kind of interference? I expect so, but I also reckon even if it was squeaky clean he would still have won. We in the West don’t like to face up to this, but Putin is popular in Russia.
As for insistence of Russian aggression to the Baltic states, given the current situation I regard that as fairly restrained in the light of the build up of NATO military capability in the region, the very vocal support for Ukraine (urging NATO to supply more aggressive military weapons) and the highly anti-Russia stances of the Baltic leaders. You do that in the middle of a war…. what do you expect? If your idea of “aggression” in a war situation is the issuing of some arrest warrants for dismantling Soviet monuments, you have a low bar as to what constitutes aggression.
Look Putin is no angel and Russia no paradise, but neither is Ukraine, NATO, the Baltic states, Poland or the West generally. We’re making moves too, eh?. There is precious little going on I reckon can be assigned as all good or all bad IMO.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@madmax2069 It seems you didn’t read my comment. I said Scotland is producing “the equivalent of 100% of our electricity demand from renewables”. This can be backed up by any objective search. Similarly Scotland’s sole nuclear plant (Torness) will close in 4 years, not to be replaced with nuclear or any fossil fuel production - again search any objective source.
You have raised the different topic of base load, which is a far trickier subject. Given your devotion to research, you’ll know that Scotland’s power is generally fed into the UK national grid, meaning UK base load is dealt with at a UK level. But, yes, solar and wind without static battery storage leaves a base load problem. Which is why we need to marry renewable power with battery storage. Of course you’ll also have researched this doesn’t apply to hydro, which provides around 12% of Scottish electricity, with more planned.
As for your question about how much land would be required to replace nuclear with wind, do you know?
I’m sure you have researched the subject fully, so I can only refer you to the NREL in USA, that predicts very small percentages of land would be required to do this (around 1% in most states).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@choosewisely4722 If H2 were the only zero emission solution for transport I'd be for it. But it isn't, there's a far better one, you don't have to be "so against" something to rank it a bad 2nd out of 2. Why is it 2nd..? well that's a big discussion, which I note many commenters have already described, but suffice to say I just can't see how using energy to power an electrolyser to create H2 to power a fuel cell to power a battery to create motion can ever beat using the same energy to charge a battery for the same motion, but perhaps you can enlighten me on that.
As for the lithium mining/refining cost, that is factored into the price of the vehicle (same as you would need to factor in the cost of the extra energy you'd need to power electrolysers and the many extra components needed for H2 cars), and EVs are generally reducing in price, a trend I believe will continue with many commenters now predicting upcoming price parity of EVs with ICE.
I don't believe we will see every EV battery made from lithium, you forget the global $billions that is currently being poured into battery development and the many advancements we constantly see, such as sodium and solid state. But even if we were somehow confined to lithium (price of which has plummeted recently), I still don't regard that as an insurmountable barrier. The shortage is of refining capacity, rather than lithium itself.
You are correct to point out recent movements in share values, and I'm no stockbroker, but one thing I do know is that share prices, esp of growth stocks, go up and down like a yoyo, if you want to base an argument on that - good luck.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@douglastodd1947 Not a difficult guess. I’ve noted a steady conflation of the following in Scotland : Tory, Orange, Brexit and Unionist. Where has left wing unionism disappeared to, where has Scotland’s catholic community support for the Labour Party disappeared to?
For me this process strengthens the Indy cause. Most Scots are not Orange, not Tory, not Brexit and, as will be proven next year, not Unionist either.
Away from the Indy/Union debate, Brexit is the worst economic decision in British history. A catastrophic blunder, emanating from rampant English nationalism/British exceptionalism (take your pick, it’s the same thing basically) from which UK will never fully recover. In fact it will contribute hugely to the end of the UK itself.
You are one small part of a massive wrecking ball that is busy dismantling what you want to preserve. You’re making history, Douglas.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andrewclark8630 For me, it’s even more personal. I live here. I truly believe, once independent, Scotland will start becoming a country it will never become while being ruled by Westminster. Not massively different perhaps, but I believe significantly so in many respects. But in any case, it will be the Scotland we want. For one thing, it’s highly unlikely we’ll have Scottish Tory governments, we simply don’t like Tories that much, for another, we’ll rejoin our European family in the EU.
I have absolutely nothing against the other peoples of the UK, but I will leave the awful political union of the UK without a backward glance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andrewclark8630 It is not voluntary. The Scottish government, as democratically mandated by the Scottish people, requested a Section 30 to facilitate Indyref2, this was refused. Given it has also been decided by the UK Supreme Court that we cannot run our own referendum without one, this means there is no legally agreed route for Scots to make another choice as to whether we stay in the UK union. Reminder - nothing in the Edinburgh Agreement facilitating Indyref1 prevented us having another referendum in the future. So you are wrong, given Westminster has blocked any legal means for us to leave, the UK union is therefore involuntary.
So I ask you, do you consider it fair that only one of the UK nations can leave the union, for whatever reason it likes and whenever it likes. The rest of us cannot. Fair or not, Andrew?
As for your asking what Westminster is doing to anger us - well, plenty actually, in fact I’d say pretty much every decision it makes these days. But that’s not the point. We don’t want run better from Westminster, we want to run ourselves. I’m not concerned with your examples, I’m concerned with sovereignty, and Scotland’s lack of it. Whether we want to fund the oil industry or a hate speech law - should be our concern and ours alone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ZweiZwolf Actually, while there’s (almost) no indigenous car industry in UK, cars are the number 1 UK exported good. The biggest manufacturers are; Stellantis (Vauxhall), Nissan and JLR (Jaguar Land Rover) - owned by Tata of India. While nowhere near the importance of the German auto industry, it’s still a major employer in UK.
Indeed the example of UK, once a leader in the global auto industry and now a nobody, should serve to remind Americans that no one’s place in the world is guaranteed.
The UK players are in a very precarious situation, especially Vauxhall, so I would suggest there are major issues around flooding the UK market with Chinese EVs, but that’s my guess what’s about to happen nonetheless. Of course Brexit, which I consider the worst economic decision in Brit history, isn’t helping either.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@maxsch8454 To repeat, Scottish democracy will be perfectly normal and facilitate any legitimate political campaign to express itself appropriately. That would include a reunification campaign, should one arise. But it will be dealt with as and when (and if) it arises. I see no reason whatsoever it needs pre-set arrangements to help it. Personally, I believe there will be no significant such campaign and Scots will generally be happy to crack on establishing our regained country (and reentering the EU etc).
As for us needing Westminster approval, well, yes and no. For a start that’s just what Westminster has already prevented by blocking it, so, given that will not stop independence (just delay it) it means we must now explore other means to obtain that approval. The current SNP proposal is to use the next UK GE as a proxy for Indy, which, if successful, would put immense pressure on the UKG to accept. Of course UKG could continue stonewalling, but every such step leads both nations down a very dark and destructive path that profits none. We must continue to hope that fairness and democracy eventually win the day, because the only alternative is UDI, which would hurt the UK more than Scotland, I suggest. In the past I would have described such an eventuality as being in the world of fantasy, but the UK has, over the past 20 years or so in particular, showed me just how capable of fantasy it is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Scotttyist Firstly, I don't accept Zeihan's biased, overly negative and incorrect account of my country and our economy. His is the same BS we see from Brit unionists. In his case though his motivation is to see the USs Brit puppet stay united.
So - far from being considered "undesirable" by the EU, I think they will welcome us with open arms and try to ensure our entry is as easy and quick as possible - why wouldn't they?
Secondly, it's not a question of people, it's a question of politics. The Scots and English people get along fine, it's only in politics and the nature of what it means for Scotland to be in the crap Brit union that is the issue.
The reality of UK politics is that England utterly dominates UK to the point where it outvotes the rest of us several times over. Thus in 2015 when all but 3 Scottish MPs were SNP, that incredible majority and support enabled us to get exactly nothing that Westminster didn't want to give.
Another example came with Brexit - 62% of Scots wanted to stay and were completely cancelled by 51% of (mainly) English that wanted to leave, result - we left.
Yet another - Scots last voted Tory in 1955, yet we get inflicted with Tory governments time and time again coz the English love them.
But - my personal favourite is in the situation where, while we are being forcibly prevented from even getting a new choice on whether we want to remain in their union, if an English independence party were to get anything like the same support as the SNP has - it could simply take England out the union without even having to ask anyone.
We are a capable, resourceful people with a sound economy and well able to run our country, for our people, and I believe far, far better than any Westminster govt (we never vote for) will ever do "on our behalf".
I truly believe Scotland will never look back once we cast off the dead hand of Westminster rule.
1
-
1
-
@BioniqBob Hi, I was just interested whether US negativity around EVs was coming primarily from safety concerns or just fear of change or some kind of anti-China feelings. We have these in Scotland too, but my guess is much less than US. I'd say most Scots are generally positive toward the idea of EVs and the benefits they'll bring, even if there are a few details they still need convincing of.
Also we don't have an auto industry to speak of, so we neither have vested interests nor a powerful lobby resisting change.
For me, US really needs to embrace what is the obvious EV future, whatever you think of Elon Musk, the US should be thanking him for what Tesla is doing, not vilifying him. Without Tesla, the US would be hopelessly adrift in a gas sea, as I reckon Japan is. Scotland once made much of the world's shipping, now we have almost none. Nations can and do lose massive manufacturing capability, it's far from impossible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ScottishRoss27 They’re unionists because they consider their country to be the United Kingdom, which they disagree Scotland should leave.
I used the term “technically” for a reason. Because while in the eyes of the world, and the UK govt, Scotland is perceived as a “nation”, technically that definition has no foundation in practical reality or legal status. There is no technical Scottish “nationality”, Scotland has no sovereign power, has no rights or representation on international bodies and *on paper* Scotland is simply a part of the UK. As far as the EU is concerned for example, they refuse to formally comment on Scottish independence as they regard UK as the only party with which they can officially talk. Scotland, I’m afraid to say, is a nation in name only.
But… while indyref1 was generally a loss for the Indy movement, it did have 2 positive outcomes, it lifted support for Indy to impressive, consistent and viable levels and through it, the UK govt conceded Scotland had a right to secede. This differentiates us from the Catalonia situation, where Madrid refuses to concede Catalonia has that right. Of course, there would be nothing stopping UK from walking back their stance, but I doubt that would happen.
As for “appealing to Westminster’s better nature” regarding their UN “obligations” - good luck with that. I’m sure they’re already well aware of those - while blocking Indyref2.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oscarholman Again I find myself in disagreement. Most people aren’t wealthy and a car is usually their second most expensive purchase, assuming they own a house. Expecting such people, including me, incidentally, to put political principle before their wallets is a big ask, and that’s assuming they share your views on China. Indeed, I expect many might not even be aware their MG or whatever comes from China, or care.
If the Chinese are going to repeat the Japanese experience of the 70s, offering better products at better prices, my guess is they’ll get the same results. Let’s face it, we’re probably all using and buying things made in China all the time already.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ Is Scotland a country? Well, what is a country? If you mean just a place and people, then Scotland is a country, but, is Scotland a country same as, for example, Brazil, then no, Scotland is not a country.
What’s the difference?
Sovereignty. Brazil has 100% sovereignty, Scotland has 0%. Without sovereignty, what do you have? Not a (real) country in my book and I expect most people’s.
As for the camper van, no it’s never OK to steal. But if you steal a Mars Bar from Tesco you’ll get treated one way, rob the Bank of England, you’ll get treated another. In UK, the SNP steals a Mars Bar (assuming they did) and there’s police tents outside the party leader’s house, while UK theft like the truly outrageous PPE corruption, involving biblical amounts of trousered cash by figures at the top of the UK establishment, goes ignored. And let’s not mention the expenses scandal or we’ll be here all day.
Incidentally, since you’re so concerned about hungry and homeless people, the alleged theft of party funds by the SNP involved, well, party funds, unlike the PPE scandal that involved massive sums of taxpayer’s hard earned money - that could’ve been used to house and feed people.
Scotland needs no lessons in ethics from Westminster.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Alwaysquestion123 So, let me get this straight. The SNP is a party absolutely committed to Scottish independence, far from hiding this, they shout it from the rooftops. Anyone, even unionists, could not seriously claim a vote for them is not a vote for independence. They went to the polls and asked for a mandate to go for Indyref2 and got it.
So they’re *not* listening to us by doing exactly that?
While you ponder that, and who’s been convicted, please answer me this. Do you consider it fair that of the 4 nations that make up the UK, only 1 can leave the union whenever it pleases, for whatever reason it pleases, while the rest of us can’t.
Take your time, don’t jump into this without thinking.
1
-
@Alwaysquestion123 Yes, no problems at all. HS2, hailed as the Great Brit Project to unite north and south, to run from over centralised London to Manchester and Leeds for a cost of approx £32bn.
It’s now a semi local line linking 2 southern cites that a Construction Industry report estimated recently will cost £100bn, and counting. The line to Birmingham was originally due to be complete next year, latest estimate 2033.
How about the good old Brit triumph of their CV19 test and trace system? From chair of Public Accounts Committee. The national Test and Trace programme was allocated eye watering sums of taxpayers' money in the midst of a global health and economic crisis. It set out bold ambitions but has failed to achieve them despite the vast sums thrown at it. They went on, It is muddled, overstated and eye wateringly expensive. They added the use of “overpaid consultants” alone would cost £ hundreds of millions. This Brit disaster cost taxpayers almost 20% of the entire NHS budget for England in 2021.
Up for more? I have plenty more.
As for the A9, it’s not 20 years late as I suspect you know full well. The SNP wanted to do it earlier but we’re prevented by unionists forcing thru the Edinburgh tram project instead. It began in 2015 and is running approx 10 years late with an estimated cost of £3.7bn. Not good, for sure, but not in the Brit league either… not by a long, long way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ginojaco That’s rich coming from someone that’s just dodged the Brexit argument. England’s decision (yes, England) to leave Europe is a total disaster, and thankfully more and more people in UK are coming to accept that.
I have already mentioned that, regarding finances, the unionist case is falsely predicated on information (whether you accept that info or not) based on economic data taken from Scotland as an integral part of the UK economy We simply don’t know what Indy finances will look like, even from day 1, but we can safely assume a Scottish govt will not want the same model. For me, for example, I think the Scottish govt should go into negotiations with UKG on the basis of we take no UK debt in return for other concessions etc. As I mentioned, economy is the most complex part of the debate, and the one unionists are least informed about, preferring instead to swallow the UKG propaganda on it hook, line and sinker.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@loc4725 You put it far too simply.
The way you explain it, Scotland has no more right to determine our own future than, say, Yorkshire. That is not the case, like it or not, and the reason why is what undermines your POV.
The union was, like most unions are when created (including the many that have disintegrated) assumed to be forever and no scenario was envisaged, or plan allowed for, dissolution. If we take the Soviet Union for example, they had no route for its constituent states to secede either. But they did. There was no accepted route for Norway to leave union with Sweden, but it did. In fact history is replete with such examples of states that did precisely what you insist Scotland can’t. Thankfully.
Because each claim for independence must and should be taken on its own merits. For example, although the debate must be an English one, and not for Scots, were Yorkshire to claim independence, I assume the attitude of Westminster would be very different to that toward Scotland, and would be exactly that of Madrid’s attitude to Catalonian independence (that it has no “right” to it). It’s the same attitude you share towards Scotland.
But we are *not* Yorkshire and Westminster has accepted that we are different and must be treated so. The 2014 referendum established that very clearly. This is not disputed by Westminster.
Westminster’s attitude currently is that we *do* have the right to secede, but they are not currently inclined to allow us to begin executing that right. It is not the same as Madrid’s attitude to Catalonia, or yours to Scotland.
Therefore - your “Catalonia comparison” is basically wrong, it doesn’t fit the current reality of where UK and Scotland currently are - becalmed in a cynical and cowardly democratic morass of Westminster’s deliberate making.
Besides, let me paint a very possible (I would say probable) outcome of your attitude if writ into statute (perish the thought) - either Westminster walks back it’s acceptance of Scotland’s right to self-determination, or, runs it’s own all-UK referendum, which would result in a rejection of Scottish independence.
Both would establish, beyond any reasonable doubt, we are kept in the union with no means to escape it, if we chose. What a nightmare for *all* of us!
Do you believe that viable? Do you believe me and those like me would accept that? Do you believe England wants that - would you want it? No one with any sense would.
You haven’t thought this all the way through.
1
-
@loc4725 Again you come back with "you signed up for this" when that is not in dispute.
What is in dispute is the current UK govts attitude to whether Scots have the right to self determination now , regardless of what we signed up for or not in 1707.
PM M Thatcher was unequivocally clear that Scotland has such a right, and stated so, a view backed by PM J Major.
Following the 2014 ref, the all party Smith Commission, established by the UKG, concluded nothing in the ensuing Edinburgh Agreement could stop Scottish independence in the future - if the Scottish people so choose. Again that is crystal clear.
If that's not acceptance of a right to self determination I'm struggling to know what is. But .. please show me your evidence it is the position of the UKG that we do *not*, rather than the current situation is not suitable for it.
The SC judgement you refer to does not, incidentally, it refers to a specific legal position, not on the right of self determination.
Incidentally, have no fear of us hanging on and "bothering" you (like wayward children) after we foxtrot oscar from the awful Brit union. Why on earth do you think we want to leave it..?
We won't be looking back....
1
-
@loc4725 Your argument is essentially, and exclusively, de jure, mine is de facto. I concede yours, you reject mine.
You say there is no constitutional right, within the UK framework, that Scotland can draw on to secede from the UK union - that is true. If you regard that alone as the “winning factor” for you - well done! You win. Indeed I have said as much in a past comment where I say the UKG can at any time walk back it’s de facto acceptance of Scotland’s right to self determination, established via the 2014 referendum debates and outcomes. Whether Westminster accepts Scotland has the right to secede or not is, and will be until we leave, entirely up to it. The same applies to N Ireland incidentally, where the UKG, at this point, has formally accepted NI could secede. It could simply reverse that position too. It won’t though, because, again, de facto in this case also trumps de jure.
However, you cannot deny the UKG accepted then (2014) the principle of Scottish independence, and you cannot now prove it has subsequently reversed that position. The Edinburgh Agreement nowhere states, or even alludes, to this precedent being unrepeatable, which it would have to in normal circumstances were that to be it’s position. But, again, regardless of it’s current position, it could at any point, do as it pleases, “proving” your de jure case.
If Westminster wanted to establish your position, all it has to do is formally state that Scotland does not have a right to self determination. Why does it not do so, and instead fannys about with pathetic excuses for a real position such as mooting the statements by Sturgeon and Salmond (“once in a generation”) that you so accurately describe as meaningless?
The SG could appeal directly to the UN on the basis of self-détermination, but that response would be by no means certain and in any case, even if successful, UK could simply disregard. It is in control of its position on the question, not the UN. Personally I expect such a case would fail, but by that point it wouldn’t be de jure rights that would be the driving force, rather de facto. If we ever get there, I suspect the UK would be (effectively) over. Could we get there? Until the recent cowardly and cynical Westminster blockade against indyref2 I would’ve said no, but now that Westminster is deliberately painting the SNP into a corner, I’m not so sure.
Instead where we are now is a position where the Indy movement has been forced by Westminster arrogance and fear to consider other routes. Would a successful SNP appeal to make the next Scottish GE a mandate to begin secession talks with UKG a de jure right? No. Would the UK union therefore be safe? No. De jure vs de facto.
Westminster is raising the stakes, but independence is by no means cardless. Our strength is in the fact we only need to win once, and (in spite of short term Brit propaganda to the contrary) we aren’t going away.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@adenwellsmith6908 You’re running out of rope. The statements made at the time by 2 ex SNP political leaders carry absolutely zero official capacity or authority. There is *nothing* in the Edinburgh Declaration, that facilitated Indyref1, to say that must prevent us from another choice. In any case, how can it be we are offered no chance to change or minds, and who is in control of such a decision to offer us no such chance? Clearly not any amount of Scottish votes you care to mention.
10 years later, the democratically elected Scottish government was mandated to inform Westminster we want them to facilitate Indyref2. You cannot, with any seriousness, tell me, if Westminster can refuse that, we have the right to leave the UK. We simply do not. The UK union is involuntary, it’s as clear as that and I suspect you’re well aware that is the case.
And to repeat, once again, if we were to swap England with Scotland in this scenario, England would be an independent country.
Not because English votes are “worth more” - because there are just far more of them.
If you can leave if *you* decide, and we cant, you can’t escape the inherent unfairness of that. You cant.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@adenwellsmith6908 Nope, the “rules” are those created by Westminster, the ex SNP leadership had “views”. But… even if that was true, if one SNP leadership thought something 10 years ago you still haven’t even tried to explain to me why later leaders can’t change that. What political party ever operated any other way? It’s a ridiculous notion.
Is this all you have to justify imprisoning Scotland in your horrible union?
Look, it’s very simple, if we’re not allowed to change our mind, it’s not a functioning democracy, that goes without saying. If we’re not allowed to change our mind, it’s not a voluntary union. If we’re not allowed to change our mind, the union is undemocratic, unfair and unequal.
Just admit it and say you want to keep us - coz you don’t want to lose us and don’t give a flying fandango whether it’s fair or democratic or whatever. Just be honest, it’s not like you’re making a decent argument or anything.
1
-
@adenwellsmith6908 I’m well aware what Salmond did, you don’t have to tell me, I was here at the time.
So, you obviously have no intention of explaining why we’re unable to change our mind on this political issue, in spite of us telling you in no uncertain terms that’s exactly what’s happened. Any other party can obviously do so, on any other issue, but on this issue we, uniquely, can’t. It’s a unionist mystery. We must just suck up this Westminster diktat, that all.
End of conversation, it’s been a wonderful exchange of views, you’ve been a hugely informed, fair and convincing champion of the unionist cause.
In conclusion, I’m just wondering if you’d be happy accepting our independence in the event Indy parties do actually manage to get a majority of Scottish MPs.
Yes, I know you can’t see that happening, but I also reckon you’d be very reluctant to accept *any* circumstances where we cast off tne dead hand of Westminster misrule, so pardon me for being very sceptical on that account.
We’ll have to prise your fingers off us one by one, won’t we?
1
-
@adenwellsmith6908 Ah, some actual points rather than the tired old “once in a generation” stuff.
Good.
Firstly, the English will never be given the chance to vote us out. If Westminster is running scared of Indyref2 (oh yes it is) you think they’d risk asking you? Not a chance, my friend. This may surprise you, but I have a lot of respect for the English people and I believe if you asked them if they want to “get rid of us” they’d say no, but… I also reckon if you asked them if they should interfere (unlike their leaders) in our decisions regarding independence they’d also say no. Go ahead with that question instead, would be my advice. Now let’s get to your “negotiation”.
The SNPs position on currency is that we move to a Scottish currency as soon as practically possible and use the UK£ in the meantime but not in a monetary union. You can’t stop that, btw…
You will not be required to insure Scottish banks. RBS has said when we go Indy it will relocate it’s HQ to London so you will insure that.
Sadly, because England voted to leave the EU and Scotland will rejoin it once we escape the UK union, freedom of movement will be ruled via those channels. Until then I expect you’re wrong and we’ll have freedom of movement as that will suit both countries. I’ll remind you Scotland buys more from England than sells to it and our imports from England will make us one of UKs top export markets. I don’t think market hungry Jimmy no mates Brexit UK will choose to damage that relationship, certainly not for petty spite.
The Scottish government will pay Scottish pensions. This wouldn’t be the case if UK had a pension pot, like sensible countries, but rather pays their unfortunate pensioners the pittance it does from current account. You’ll be aware I’m sure just how atrocious the UK pension is - one of the lowest in Europe. That’s not a bar that’ll be difficult to get over, eh?
Any other questions?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andrewdouglas1963 What are the “main differences” between the Slovaks and the Czechs? The Norwegians and the Swedes, the Irish and the Brits, I could go on…. I’m sure the leaders of the Soviet Union would’ve agreed 100% with your view, according to them the USSR was one big, similar, happy family.
Firstly, there doesn’t have to be differences for a nation to want independence and the right to self determination, nor should there be. After we leave the UK Union I expect, and hope, there will be many differences that will emerge, Chris stated one of them by way of the kind of politics Scotland favours vis a vis England for example, but I’m just as sure there will also remain many similarities.
If we decide we want our country to be independent, that’s perfectly sufficient. We don’t owe anyone else an explanation why.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@treeaboo Thanks for your response. You make a few good points albeit I disagree with your conclusions.
As you list them…
Greece is desperate to stay in the EU. I would agree that’s an example where the EU showed its teeth, but only because Greece got itself into a mess. You omit that relations between the EU and it’s other members are normally productive and cordial. You’re trying to use the exception to prove the rule. Also - Scotland isn’t Greece.
You make a fundamental mistake equating Brexit with Scexit. The motivation and outcomes will be very different. Scotland will be rejoining one of the worlds largest and most successful trading entities, not voluntarily isolating and sanctioning itself, as with Brexit. Brexit was definitely “separatist” but to tell me an Indy Scotland set on joining the EU is similar simply doesn’t hold water.
As for trading ramifications, again there are fundamental differences between Brexit and Scexit. The EUs ethos is to promote inter-EU trade - and vice versa, and there is little UK produces that EU members will not be able to source within their own market. On the other hand that will not be the case for Scottish/UK trade, there will be no reason for UK not to continue trading with us, since our trading terms will be at the very least as good as anyone else’s.
Regarding our “representation” in UK - it’s useless. It’s not the bums on seats that counts, it’s what they can achieve with it and with the SNPs representation we can plainly see that amounts to zero. In 2015, Scotland reduced the Scottish unionist parties to 1 solitary MP each. What did the SNP get with that astounding show of democratic support? Nothing, that’s what. Our representation at Westminster is akin to 10 wolves and 1 sheep having an equal say on what’s for dinner.
I wont go into whether we get financially supported by the UK or not because it’s a hugely complex issue, but if Scotland in the UK equals economic failure then believing the best solution is to stay in it doesn’t make sense to me. I believe a Scottish govt will run the Scottish economy better than any Westminster one will and the present incumbents of Westminster prove that beyond question. Besides, I also believe that’s our decision to make.
As for your opinion that federalism and/or PR will solve UKs political dilemmas, I disagree, PR would be a huge improvement, but the fundamental issues between the UK states would remain and federalism simply won’t work in the UK given the complete dominance of England.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Pizza23333 Source for your 1998 poll claim? I’m not saying you’re making it up, but I’ve had a quick look and can’t find. I’ve been watching closely the Indy movement since long before that time and I can tell you, without fear of contradiction, that if that result happened, it was an outlier, since support was way lower than that normally at that time. As my source, I cite an article by Prof L Paterson (Will support for independence go away) from Sept 23 that concisely charts the very erratic, but nonetheless increasing support for independence since the 1970s, particularly among Scotland’s young and well educated. In the 50s and 60s, it could be fair to say the SNP celebrated holding a deposit. To include myself as a (humble) source, I’ve been interested in Scottish politics through that time and I can assure you support for independence has grown hugely (but not consistently) since I’ve been watching it.
Of course that doesn’t mean it will continue to grow, indeed it could retreat, but if it did it would have to reverse a clear historical trend of erratic growth.
Currently it sits around 45%, which itself is around 50% higher than it was shortly before the 2014 referendum. The Indy movement is confident enough a new campaign and referendum will succeed that it is pressing for indyref2. The UK is blocking that, whether through fear (as I believe) or arrogance, desperation, cynicism or malice, I’ll leave to you. But to me one thing is clear, it’s definitely not from principle. What “principle” could there be in deliberately preventing us from a democratic choice?
However, let me finish by turning your tables and ask you to consider the position were it in reverse. The English people are extremely unlikely to ever be in the position the Scots are now, since they never not get what they want, but let’s imagine an English independence party is as successful as the SNP has been in Scotland. Who would stop them just leaving the UK union? Who would they need to “ask permission” from? Who would say they have no such right?
Because, in your wonderfully democratic “United” Kingdom, there is only one nation that can leave whenever it likes, for whatever reason it likes. The rest of us can’t.
1
-
1
-
@Pizza23333 Source for your 1998 poll claim? I’m not saying you’re making it up, but I’ve had a quick look and can’t find. I’ve been watching closely the Indy movement since long before that time and I can tell you, without fear of contradiction, that if that result happened, it was an outlier, since support was way lower than that normally at that time. As my source, I cite an article by Prof L Paterson (Will support for independence go away) from Sept 23 that concisely charts the very erratic, but nonetheless increasing support for independence since the 1970s, particularly among Scotland’s young and well educated. In the 50s and 60s, it could be fair to say the SNP celebrated holding a deposit. To include myself as a (humble) source, I’ve been interested in Scottish politics through that time and I can assure you support for independence has grown hugely (but not consistently) since I’ve been watching it.
Of course that doesn’t mean it will continue to grow, indeed it could retreat, but if it did it would have to reverse a clear historical trend of erratic growth.
Currently it sits around 45%, which itself is around 50% higher than it was shortly before the 2014 referendum. The Indy movement is confident enough a new campaign and referendum will succeed that it is pressing for indyref2. The UK is blocking that, whether through fear (as I believe) or arrogance, desperation, cynicism or malice, I’ll leave to you. But to me one thing is clear, it’s definitely not from principle. What “principle” could there be in deliberately preventing us from a democratic choice?
However, let me finish by turning your tables and ask you to consider the position were it in reverse. The English people are extremely unlikely to ever be in the position the Scots are now, since they never not get what they want, but let’s imagine an English independence party is as successful as the SNP has been in Scotland. Who would stop them just leaving the UK union? Who would they need to “ask permission” from? Who would say they have no such right?
Because, in your wonderfully democratic “United” Kingdom, there is only one nation that can leave whenever it likes, for whatever reason it likes. The rest of us can’t
1
-
@Pizza23333 Firstly, the SNP is not the independence movement (and Sturgeon certainly isn’t) it is a political party, which is nowadays under pressure from smaller Indy parties that also have their own definitions and positions.
There is no reason to separate the reasons you cite. Brexit is a justification for Indyref2, a consistent majority support for Indy is also a justification, they aren’t mutually exclusive. As a political party they have the right to determine their own justifications for their positions, political parties do it all the time. The Scottish people have the right to agree with them or not.
As for changing an election to a de facto referendum, this was aimed at the next Scottish elections, not UK. Labour will have a much harder challenge overturning SNP seats then. Because, let’s face it, Westminster ignores SNP MPs.
And why did the SNP turn to this tactic? Well, because of the Westminster veto against Scottish democracy of course.
1
-
@Pizza23333 The “whole point” is that the SNP and the other Indy parties believe Indy to be the best path for Scotland. If you believe in something like that, you don’t just drop it at the first sign of an electoral dip. Perhaps you’re a Labour supporter and don’t understand that. Back when Labour had both principles (a long time ago now) and a spine they were the same. They had to build up support too, everyone promoting new ideas does and in politics support is always volatile. I really hope you unionists do ascribe any Labour resurgence in Scotland down to the demise of Indy. Be my guest.
The SNP have maintained their belief in Indy for many decades beginning when they were lucky to get any votes at all. In the 50s their support was virtually non existent, in the 60s it began to rise and it has continued to rise, in a very non linear way, ever since. Even if the SNP support drops dramatically, they will continue to believe in Indy’ as will I.
You unionists like to think there’s some mysterious threshold where Indy support cannot or will not pass. Good, maintain that nonsense too.
I’m sure the Tories will still believe their tripe will be the best path for UK even after they get a drubbing at the next GE. In fact they’d disappoint me if they didn’t. People like the Labour leadership, on the other hand, have views that bend with the wind, but Indy isn’t like that. Either you want Scotland to control its own future and be able to create the Scotland we want, or you prefer to leave that with the likes of Bojo, Truss or Sir Keir. You seriously think that goes away?
Political parties *all* set out their stalls according to what they believe will get them the most support. I hope the Indy parties continue to do so too. If a de facto referendum will get us over the line, great! If instead some other tactic will, adopt it! No one will force any voter to vote for us.
As for the UK/Scottish de facto pledge, I took my info from the SNP site directly. You can check if you like. I will say it’s ambiguous about the UK GE, but not the Scottish.
Finally,mp you are wrong about Westminster not having a veto on Scottish democracy. They 100% do, and are exercising it as we write. The UK govt has blocked any legally accepted means for us to decide whether we can choose our future. Those “rules” you mention are yours, not ours. The Scottish govt requested a section 30, and was blocked, it then proposed running an advisory one of its own, also blocked by the Uk Supreme Court. If that isn’t an effective veto, tell me what is.
Anyway, I note you forgot my question about the fairness of only the English being able to leave the union if they choose. Would you care to comment?
1
-
@Pizza23333 Do you know what? You could be right.
I can’t predict the future, and it could be that the present travails the SNP and Indy movement are facing are *not* just a temporary setback on a road that has featured big highs and big lows for the Indy cause. Again you could be right that Scots have some kind of “natural barrier” for Indy support that will make Indy forever a minority position. I can’t dismiss that possibility.
I’m not sure whether you believe indy will, from here, diminish to the point of insignificance, or perhaps hang around, strong but not strong enough “forever the bridesmaid, never the bride” (what a nightmare scenario for both of us that would be).
But… on the other hand, why should I dismiss a clear long term trend that goes back at least 50 years of a (definitely) erratic, but nonetheless overall consistent, *increase* in Indy support? In the 1980s, SNP support crashed, so badly it had many, including myself, wondering if that sealed the fate of the Indy movement. What *did* happen? Take the course of support since the 1950s, and ask any statistician to iron out the peaks and troughs and give you a trend over the period. That trend will be up.
Indy hadn’t peaked in the 70s, any more than we should believe it has peaked now. The Indy movement recovered in the 80s and support increased to the point of coming reasonably close to winning Indyref1. Unlike you, I cannot “unsee” this long term trend any more than I can see the future. You see the present as clear evidence we have now reached this “Indy barrier” against which the movement will forever crash its waves in vain. I see no reason to believe that and suggest it is only blind optimism on your part to do so.
Getting back rather to concrete situations, your attempt to dispute my contention that England could leave the union as it chooses is simply wrong.
An English Indy movement would *not* have to have lost a referendum. In fact it wouldn’t have to have a referendum at all. It also wouldn’t have to have been at a majority of MPs point repeatedly, as you suggest, it can leave upon first achieving a majority. It may *choose to* run a referendum but there would be nothing stopping it simply enacting English UDI. The commitment to a referendum by the SNP (was) a voluntary one, at least until the movement hit the Westminster blockade forcing it to consider alternative paths for Scottish democracy to work.
If an ENP got same number of MPs that the SNP has in Scotland (and especially had in 2015) nothing could stop it doing as it pleases, since that would represent a majority of Westminster MPs which would in turn mean them *being* the UK govt that would ratify the UDI. The SNP must ask the unionist UKG for permission, the ENP would be asking themselves. Incidentally, even if they didn’t get as much support as the SNP, given they could count on support from both the SNP and Plaid Cymru, they could still enact even in a minority.
Personally I feel an ENP would (probably) decide to run a referendum, and if so it’s possible they could lose, but I find this implausible. We are always up against the whole British state and unionist media, an EMP would be in a vary different, more positive, environment. In any case, even if that happened, and English indy was rejected, they could instead pass legislation making an English Parliament and making it quasi independent, leaving only some rump powers with a, by that time, sidelined and neutered Westminster. Another alternative would be to end the blockade against Scottish democracy and instead *encourage* it. Since our leaving would also achieve their ends. Nothing would stop them doing these things. So everywhere, England has options Scotland does not.
This is of course utter speculation, since England has no need of a Parliament. Your couple of exceptions to the “England gets what it wants” rule only proves the rule. My suppositions aren’t meant to prove this *will* happen, but rather it *could*
Scotland is not of course the same, we simply don’t have the same decision making powers and never will while imprisoned in the union. The union is fundamentally and inherently unequal. And unlike your “this far and no further” attitude to Indy support, that’s not a value judgement, it’s stone cold fact.
1
-
@Pizza23333 You can believe Indy has “topped out” or whatever all you like. I see no reason to believe that, and I have history on my side, but if you prefer to - knock yourself out.
Your analysis of what would happen if an English Indy party (EIP) had the same results as the SNP in Scotland is full of errors.
Firstly, there is no mandate on any Indy party (existing or fictional) requiring a referendum to be held as part of a secession. The SNP have alway said they *want* one (until the Westminster blockade of Scottish democracy prevented this) but there is nothing that says this is necessary. This would’ve applied to an EIP too, meaning at the time of their first Westminster majority, they could’ve chosen not to hold one and simply declared UDI.
So - they would *not* have to have held a referendum, far less lost one.
Secondly, if they achieved the same (or anything like the same) level of support in England that the SNP did in Scotland, they would have a Westminster majority, so your talk of a “minority position” is wrong. Actually, given they could rely on support from the SNP and Plaid they could even win without having a majority in England.
So - they would not have “the same place to ask” since, as should be very clear, they would *be* the place to ask. The SNP has to ask the unionist UK govt, an EIP under the same circumstances, would *be* the UK govt. I’m really puzzled you claim not to realise that. If you are indeed as confused about British politics as that, I’m not surprised you’ve come up with the notions you have.
Lastly, even if you weren’t wrong (which isn’t possible, but let’s just imagine) and the EIP led UK Govt refuses its own request to UDI, other options available to it in that case would be;
1. Lifting the Westminster blockade on Scottish independence. Which could create a parliamentary crisis that could propel the dissolution of the union.
2. Create an English parliament and assign to it such a level of powers as to render UK a rule neutered and useless. Which would probably have the same effect as (1).
This is all total speculation of course, the English have no need of sovereignty as they have de facto sovereignty via Westminster. I’m only citing them to prove you’re very wrong in your laying out of an outcome reversal between the SNP and EIP.
Because, as I suspect you actually know. My original comment stands - only England can leave the UK union if it likes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pissiole5654 Yes, I reckon that’s a fair point. But the fat lady hasn’t finished singing yet, and I think the Russians will grind some kind of solution acceptable to themselves by the end of this. Unless of course NATO decides to step up support to direct level, which I reckon means WW3.
Have you considered though, if what you say is true, why on Earth then the paranoia, panic, propaganda and ubiquitous over-rating of the Russian threat to the rest of Europe? If they can’t beat one of the poorest nations in Europe (on their border) why are places like Germany and UK now responding to the Russian “threat” by increasing defence spending etc? The European NATO nations, without even counting the US, already outspend, outgun and generally outmatch Russia. Where’s the threat?
It can’t be both ways, they can’t be both useless and a massive threat.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Some years ago, my late father died and I inherited his house, which I decided to renovate. For many reasons, this took far longer than I intended, in fact around 8 years. For that entire 8 years these same TV licence letters would arrive, addressed to the occupier, threatening more and more severe penalties. Visits were also often threatened, cases opened etc.
During this period, the house was empty and obviously not occupied, as any casual look in the window, beside the front door, would have clearly shown. There was nothing inside, including a TV. Given I knew there was no way I could be prosecuted in these circumstances, I completely ignored these threats.
Once finished, I sold the house. For all I know the letters are still being sent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
guy Like all nations, including, I have no doubt, the one you come from, China has its issues, some serious. But the Chinese people are astonishingly better off now than they were a generation ago. Meanwhile, in the UK I come from, in the same time frame, the gap between rich and poor has widened to an obscene level. In UK, the biggest growth sector has been in banking - Food Banks. However, my question wasn’t about China, it was about the hypocrisy of US backing of a breakaway state (in another country) when their own country was formed out of a war they waged to prevent exactly that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I disagree with this diatribe. Firstly, I’d like to know how many years this guy has spent in Glasgow, cause my guess is NANE. I have, including working in George Sq for years and I remember well coming out the office to clouds of diesel and petrol fumes when cars and buses crawled round the square. OK they don’t go round the square now, but they still do in the rest of the city and there are still few electric buses and no electric lorries etc. It doesn’t have to be like 1950s smog to be dangerous. Another thing is - why drive into the centre anyway? Glasgow is cursed with a motorway that rings the city, so you don’t need to go through it to get anywhere. So - get out your car, avoid traffic jams and parking problems and use the plentiful alternative transport options instead. Get a local train, tube or bus into the centre, if you’re as old as I am you get the bus free too!
Oh, and buy an electric car and stop using expensive, polluting and politically difficult fossil fuels from dodgy countries while you’re at it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wolfgangpreier9160 The robotaxi “industry” isn’t even an industry yet, it’s in its early infancy, so I wouldn’t guess where it’ll be in time.
Are you referring to the actual (driverless) vehicles, rather than the service? If so then I suppose it’s possible Tesla might be able to dominate that market with their cybercab, but only for a while. I suspect they wouldn’t be allowed that for long. As soon as that takes off other producers would quickly jump in, assuming they’re not already planning to do so.
In any case, if Tesla, or any other company, manages a temporary monopoly as a reward for being quickest, I wouldn’t be too worried about that. To be frank, I’m not sure why you are?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheBruvleigh Really? OK then, give me one example of where this wonderful "weight" got us anything Westminster didn't want to give.......
Our parliament has a list of powers 100% decided upon by Brit unionists, powers incidentally that could be taken back by Westminster at it's whim. Tell you what - you have a look at them and then the list of powers retained by Westminster and then come back and tell me where real power lies in UK.
In 2015 for example, all but 3 Scottish MPs were SNP, so what did this incredible majority backing independence get? Did it get independence - Nope. Did it get, well, anything - Nope. That. my friend is what being Scotland in the crap Brit union means - like 10 wolves and 1 sheep getting an equal say on what's for dinner.
We will gladly hand back, with ribbons on, this fantastic arrangement we have in UK when we leave. In actuality, the Brit union is unfair, undemocratic, unequal and involuntary.
No thanks..!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@_blanding I’m glad I gave you a few things to think about, and, I note, you appear to have walked back somewhat your basket case Scotland stance, which even many unionist Scots detest.
If I may say, your last comment isn’t particularly well constructed, and meanders and mixes up points and sentiments, which I’ll now have to try to separate to respond to.
Firstly, even if I believed (I don’t) your suggestion that our rulers won’t be any better than UKs was true, I’d still want it, because at the very least we would’ve appointed them and it would be our challenge to try to sort out (which we would have the means to do). Because…. as we stand right now, we’re being ruled from London by a party Scots last voted for in 1955, and by any honest appraisal the present incumbents of Westminster couldn’t run a whelk stall. Could we do better than that - well, it’s not a high bar, is it? But generally, do I believe Scots appointed to run Scotland (for Scotland) will do so better than any UK administration?, yes, and I don’t believe that in any way unrealistic. Incidentally, I don’t believe Westminster “evil” (that was your word) just incompetent, unnecessary (for us) and unrepresentative of Scottish views, interests and aspirations. In any case, if your argument for us staying is reduced to saying we won’t be any better than if we stay, it’s hardly a glowing testimony for the union, eh? Not exactly “where do I sign”….
However it’s in your understanding of Scexit that you exhibit a real lack of understanding, especially when you attempt to link to Brexit. Indy Scotland will join many unions, including the one we’ve just been forced to leave, and leave one (UK). So to equate us with Brexiteers that only wanted to leave the EU is simply wrong. Incidentally, that wasn’t our intention, we wanted to leave the UK union and still have open borders with UK, but of course English Brexit torpedoed that, eh? So, your assertion we want to “be alone” is utter nonsense. It’s the English that want to be alone, we want to get back to being part of our European family.
As for your “brick wall” trading analogy - you’re dead wrong there too. If true all we’d have is the same brick wall UK will have with any other country. Why would rUK stop trading with Scotland? We’ll have the same trading conditions as anywhere else and still have all the natural advantages of proximity and a geographic border. You may also want to reflect on the fact that rUK sells more to Scotland than buys from it, and at a level akin to Germany. You seriously think market-hungry Brexit UK will want to bite that hand? On the other hand, while English Brexit will have made our trade with UK more difficult (as it has with the rest of Europe) it will also have made ours far easier with one of the biggest trading blocks on the planet. Good swap I’d say.
I really liked your comment about us losing our fishing rights… ! You didn’t think that through, did you? Firstly, they will be ours to surrender (if we decide to do that) as opposed to Westminster surrendering them on our behalf and giving us nada back, and if we do decide to - it will be to swap for benefits that will come directly to Edinburgh. Hooray, say I. PS, where will UK get its fish..? Same place it’ll get its Green energy - Scotland.
Your last point refers to close historic and cultural ties. Yes, true, but no closer than those for, say Norway and Sweden, Czechia and Slovakia, Ireland and UK, or even Ukraine and Russia. Scotland won’t drift off into the Atlantic after we leave the UK union, you’ll still be able to visit your Granny in Inverness and Scots will still be able to watch Coronation St. we just won’t have to do so in a toxic political union.
Will we be better off Indy? Would we be better off staying in UK? Time will tell, but my money is on Edinburgh, not London.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you *really* want to contextualise what is being reported, then don’t stop at mentioning the discounts being offered but rather explain how they can be offered. Which is - the price of batteries falling like a lead balloon. Batteries make up around 60% of the price of an EV.
EVs should, and will, be cheaper, not just to buy, but also to run. EVs have approximately 50% of the parts of an ICE car. Instead of a complex package of internal mechanical systems, an EV has a battery and a motor.
As for the energy required to run them, there are plans in place to increase green energy generation, so that’s another red herring.
As for “only” 18.5% of cars sold being EV, yes, over the year. For the past couple of months it’s been around 25% and that % will grow.
This entire story is so full of holes you could spit peas through it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nitsujism He’s a professor of accountancy, written books on taxation policies and one of cleverest guys not to be listened to by Labour. So you’ll pardon me I hope for preferring to listen to him rather than Labour sellouts, apparatchiks and apologists.
Transpennine Express and Southeastern were already taken into public ownership, even the Tories couldn’t save them. You’re easy pleased.
As for voting *for* the Tory child poverty bill, what was wrong with last week? Why vote FOR it? Why wait if they’ll do it “eventually”, keeping kids in deprivation? Why are you so obviously making excuses for them?
Labour is showing their true colours, and there’s more Tory inspired austerity misery on the way, which you can try to excuse if you like, I won’t be. Nor will I be taken in by the nonsense about looking in the cupboard and shock, horror, found it bare.
To give them their due, they at least aren’t even pretending to be left-wing anymore. They are a centrist party, and I say that without a trace of bias. It’s the truth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@4literv6 I take many of your points, but… firstly, it would be dangerous to regard jobs as only those directly employed by auto makers, how many jobs and businesses are involved in the huge auto supply chain? Secondly, the legacy supply chain is already looking at a difficult future in any case given there will quite simply be fewer of them needed as EV sales increase. The average EV has around 50% of the number of components an ICE has, with an EV battery only having around 1% of the list of components an engine has. All told, around 70% of the much smaller list of components of an EV are different to an ICE.
What does this mean? For me, it’s difficult to foresee anything other than a radical decline in the number of supply chain companies, and jobs, as EV sales increase, with fewer suppliers supplying bigger quantities of often different components.
The US auto industry, as currently constituted, is in danger regardless of government actions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andrewwotherspoona5722 I also expect we will at least do better than in the union, but it will probably be tough at first. I don’t believe UK will try to deliberately put a spoke in our wheels, but neither will they be helpful either. Which is fine, we can’t expect otherwise.
For me it’s not primarily about money, it’s about being able to create the kind of Scotland we want, which will I’m sure have real differences to RUK (aka England). Small at first, but growing with time. If RUK doesn’t repair the Brexit disaster and stays out of Europe, those differences will be bigger, with a “more European” Scotland to UKs isolationism, US orientation and xenophobia.
We will also, as you point out, start heading toward a Scandinavian style society (hopefully) that will be far more equitable, humane and fair than the right wing, US style, corporate oriented hell that England is becoming.
I don’t like the way UKs going generally, it’s direction is depressing and worrying.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lukefleetwood7958 Where do I start correcting you?
Firstly, the SNP are one of 3 Indy parties in Scotland that will contest elections. I’m not going to tell you which they are, you can look for yourself as it will help you get more educated about the subject you say you know something about.
Secondly, the Spanish will not block Scottish EU entry, their stance is it has nothing to do with Catalonian Indy (which it hasn’t).
Thirdly, by stating that Westminster “won’t permit” us to choose whether we want to stay in your awful UK union or not you concede it is involuntary. Which joins; unequal, unfair and undemocratic. Why on earth do you support such a dreadful “United” Kingdom? Only “United” because Scotland’s not allowed to leave. You really want that?
In any case, UK doesn’t rule the waves anymore, in fact it’s busy losing what little influence it has left in the world. You will not stop Scottish democracy, no matter how much Brit bluster you use.
Lastly, yes, Brexit will result in relative isolation for the xenophobic Brit state, with trade with its biggest market seriously compromised. Answer me this, given the EUs ethos is to encourage inter-EU trade, and avoid as much ex-EU trade as possible, what UK goods and services do you believe EU members will continue to buy as opposed to going to other EU members to obtain them (far easier and cheaper).?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@StephenB-c9b “Public health is poor”. Health is a massive field, you need to both be specific and source your evidence. Take mortality rates for example, Scotland has always had high rates c/w rUK, that does not mean our healthcare is poor, it is due to other factors, such as traditional high levels of alcohol use and now drugs, which are issues common in many English regions. If you want a better comparison, you can say there is a north/south divide in health stats throughout the UK. It certainly does not justify your deprecating Scotland in that regard. Our NHS compares well in UK with other issues such as waiting times, number of nurses and doctors, money spent on NHS etc. We also offer our people free eye tests and prescriptions. Put it this way, give me a free choice to be sick in Scotland or north of England, I’m staying where I am.
And where did the EU comment come from? As for EU “fiscal criteria” can you show me where you got your stats around what the finances of an independent Scotland will be once we’ve cast off the dead hand of Westminster control? Not the present finances of Scotland as an integral part of the failing UK economy, I mean what our financial situation will be after we’ve divvied up our share of UK assets. Because only then will we know what the real situation of independent Scottish finances are, eh?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fiveninenowNOW Technically yes, Scottish MPs can vote on English affairs and not vice versa. But again - who’s to blame for that arrangement? British unionists, that’s who..! Not us, we don’t want to be in Westminster at all..! As it happens the SNP has a voluntary code of not going so, given we believe the English should decide English matters.
We don’t want scraps from Westminster’s table, we don’t want English people’s money or anything else. All we want is the chance (yes, to choose again, - democracy didn’t stop in 2014) whether we want to be in your unequal union.
As you appear to be acknowledging - the very right English people have at their disposal and always have had.
You can fix Westminster if you like, good luck to you, but no fixing will let Scots choose what kind of economy, society and politics we want.
Keep your unequal, unfair union, and all that comes with it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Kaiserbill99 No, I don’t, I understand that completely. I also understand what you refer to as “Scotland’s deficit” is related to the performance of Scotland- as an integral part of the UK economy, whereby a huge part of Scotland’s spending is directly in the hands of Westminster and where the main levers of economic power (for all UK) lie with Westminster. Westminster is also, of course, responsible for setting the block grant, which relates to spending outwith Scotland.
So you point to “Scottish” performance - in such an environment- and then infer Scottish failure, where what you are actually seeing is British failure. You also fail to note that these figures will not and cannot represent the finances of an independent Scotland, which must and will be different.
As for UK debt, I’m assuming you aren’t contesting that this is and will remain entirely the responsibility of UK. Meaning UK will have to go into the secession negotiations needing us to accept responsibility for some of it. My own position would be that we should start by assuming no such responsibility, albeit willing to engage in a debate around the whole issue of Brit debt vs assets and advantageous trade relations.
1
-
@Kaiserbill99 Took you a while to find?
I’ve been around the fringes of the Indy movement for many years, I don’t see this utopia cult you unionists love to cite. It doesn’t exist. Indeed a big criticism of the SNPs approach to finances by a large portion of the movement is that they have been too conservative and negative, as with Andrew Wilson’s work for example.
Most sensible Indy’s fully realise we will have a big task unravelling generations of Brit failure, but none believe it’s not worth doing. Anyway you slice or dice the question, Scots running Scotland from Scotland and for Scotland beats it being run on our behalf by people we never elect running not for our best interests and usually atrociously.
Incidentally, nothing you have said contradicts what I said. Current performance reflects Brit failure, not Scottish, and the Indy Scottish economy will not be like the failed Brit model. Why else do you think we Indys want independence, for things to remain the same, to continue the failed Brit model?
There are other voices of course regarding Scotland’s finances, FoA is not the only one. But I can understand how their comments will appeal to those desperately seeking negativity around Scottish independence. That you are one is fairly obvious, but may I ask why you are so inclined? Are you Scottish for example?
1
-
1
-
@stephanledford9792 My comment was around Denmark and it’s similarity to Scotland, apart from being able to run their own country and being rich. I don’t know anything about Greenland.
I appreciate you mean well, but you say you “actually” think Scotland capable of doing what every other small nation that became independent can do, and usually prospered doing. As if such a thought is somehow radical or illogical.
Of course we will be able to run a successful nation, and I refuse to contemplate that we won’t run Scotland better from Edinburgh than outsourcing the running of it to Westminster unionist politicians that do not have our best interests at heart, but instead those of UK. “They’re the same” unionists will say in response. No they’re not. Taking us out the EU against our will being a good recent example.
It’s difficult to swim against the tide of unionist propaganda pumped relentlessly at us via the biased Brit media, including the BBC. My attitude to the question of how well an independent Scotland will fare is to ask just that - how well will we do, not how *badly*. We are a capable and resourceful people with a good, sound economy. Have a look at analyses of how crap the UK has been wrt economic performance over the past, say, 50 years. It’s terrible. Look up GDP per capita and look at Brit decline - to the point now where it’s a matter of time before the ex Soviet states start overtaking it. Im not saying that to slag it off, I’m saying why on earth should I accept we can’t do better than that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@renerpho I agree with much you say. This result is undoubtedly a blow to the Indy movement, but… independence will be created in and executed from Holyrood, not Westminster. There has never been any prospect of Scottish leverage of any significance in that place, and there never will be. In terms of actual power and influence, we can’t lose what we’ve never had. If we lose Holyrood - that’s different.
Having said that, I’m sure Labour, through their Scottish puppet show, will orchestrate some mirrors and beads for us, made to be noteworthy, but that will not in any way seriously enhance Scottish decision making powers. They’re not stupid enough we must assume to do nothing before the next Holyrood GE, that would give fuel to the SNP, but neither will they risk giving useful tools to Holyrood. They’ll site the Great British (we can expect to see a lot of Great British stuff) Energy company here for example. They’ll trumpet that as some kind of proof of Brit largesse, the “broad shoulders” of the UK yadayada, when it actually doesn’t make sense to site it anywhere else and the practical effects to Scotland will be negligible. But… all good politicking stuff that any clever unionist party should do.
However I’d mention a few things.
Firstly, we don’t know how many SNP supporters switched votes in order to end the reign of the toxic Tories. Labour used this extensively as a plea where they maintained only a vote for them could achieve that. Complete nonsense, but I suspect many SNP voters fell for it, given the extreme level of disgust with the Tories this time throughout UK. They can’t count on those votes next time, when it’s them defending their record.
By 2016, the Tory press will have been training their guns on Labour for some time, and we can only assume the Tories will generally improve, since it’s almost impossible to believe they could get worse. The gloss will probably have been coming off Labour for a while by then, with the usual scandals and sleaze etc that bedevils Westminster. Every party has a shelf life in government, as the SNP is seeing and by 2026 corrosion will already have started in Labour.
However they try and wrap themselves in tartan up here, Labour is seen as a UK party, which is OK when you’re fighting a UK election, far less so when you’re fighting a Scottish one.
Lastly, let’s not forget what happened in 2015, a year after Indyref1, when the SNP achieving the astonishing result of reducing all the unionist parties to a mere 3 Scottish MPs. How could it be that, 1 year after rejecting independence, we Scots do that? Because we wanted to ensure Westminster didn’t regard us as resigned to accepting nothing instead. The 2015 result basically said - we may have said no to independence, but don’t assume we therefore want nothing. Will that happen in 2026 after this result? It’s very possible.
Of course, the SNP are to blame for their own failure, and they must now start to repair their house. How will they do that and how will they treat the independence question? Frankly I don’t know. How can a party built upon the premise of independence not continue to maintain that’s the best path for us? Do they try to engage with Labour to extend more power to Holyrood? That may be a good tactic, given Labour are saying they want to work with the SNP, but that’s just for show, Labour will of course have no intention of that meaning other than a few trinkets and baubles. Perhaps showing the Scots the shallowness of Labour aspiration for Scotland via that tactic would work.
To pick up, hopefully not being seen as pedantic, about your comment that it’s political representation that gets things done - sorry, but it’s not always so. In Westminster SNP representation has never got anything done, even in 2015 when almost every Scottish MP was SNP. It’s power and the ability to wield power that gets things done, and in what is called British democracy, the only power allowed is wielded by unionist parties. Sinn Fein MPs don’t even take up their useless representation, why should they?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DJWESG1 Indeed, in fact an increase in labour costs could even lead in some cases to redundancies. But, if the alternative is paying peanuts, not only do you risk getting (demotivated) monkeys, but you condemn people to a rubbish life.
We also need to study far more carefully than we normally do how much exactly is represented by a rise in labour cost, as well as alternatives to saving that money. If the labour component of production cost is, say, 10%, then a 10% rise in that cost, wouldn’t even represent a 1% rise in the price, given profit margin is added. How many people that comment a wage rise demand is “too much” have any clue how much that actually works out?
Of course, a reduction in profits, directors bonuses and salaries or dividends could also be considered, but how often do we see that? Far easier to blame the poor schmuks on the shop floor, eh. They must bear the burden, including for management mistakes, like VW dieselgate for instance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@keithparker1346 It’s Belgian, the D’Hondt system. Labour picked it as it makes getting an overall majority very difficult. Their fear was of an SNP government in Holyrood that they believed would always be outvoted by the 3 mainstream unionist parties. Which worked at the start, before the SNP started achieving what they considered impossible by getting absolute majorities.
The SNP only managed this due to the consolidation of the Indy vote with them, but this has started to fragment recently with the Greens and ALBA making inroads into the Indy vote.
Of course in an unfair FPTP system, this fragmentation could spell a big challenge for the Indy movement, but in Holyrood elections, it doesn’t. Any Indy vote, for whichever party, gets counted. In my case for example, I vote SNP for my local MSP and Green on the “party list “.
It’s a far better system than FPTP, but that’s to insult it with faint praise. FPTP is frankly dreadful and only kept alive by the cynicism and selfishness of Labour and the Tories, who are the only Brit parties to benefit from it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KZN9378 I’ve listened to many of his interviews and lectures, in fact I’m considering going back to university to study International relations, so I’m fairly well acquainted with the Realism school, but, every day’s a school day as they say. I’m not sure I agree he’s just against other powers becoming regional hegemons, he often outlines how “good” it is to have the US protecting sealanes and generally safeguarding world trade and enforcing the (US created) rules based world order.
I’m open to persuasion, but as far as I can see, he’s not just the posterboy for Realism, but he’s also an example of what he describes as the strongest political force in the world - nationalism. IMO he ticks enough boxes to be regarded as a US nationalist.
Wrt Taiwan, the US wouldn’t be “coerced” into one path, it could choose to sabre rattle or otherwise accept, but Mearscheimer says it should instead directly confront China. I disagree, for many reasons, one being I see no need to support the continuation of the US hegemony. Unlike me however, Mearscheimer is a very influential figure, so he must realise he could conceivably contribute to what he suggests.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@donaldhysa4836 OK, but I disagree. UKR is taking a pounding every day, and not just on the battlefield. Their economy, infrastructure, manpower, military, exports, agriculture, etc etc. Russia is suffering manpower and military, but are in a far better position to take losses. It was never going to be otherwise - Russia is just too big for them. You're seeing what you want to see, the fight is just too asymmetrical.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dharley189 Good afternoon. With respect, perhaps it’s because I’m in Europe, I see it from a different perspective. As I say, even if I wasn’t a fan, or even hated them, I’d still be convinced of their inevitability. I’m around your age and I may not see the day when ICE cars (and other ICE vehicles) are collectors items, but it won’t be long after. My kids certainly will.
You mention China, as well you should, since whatever you think of them, it’s undeniable they’ve been planning to dominate the auto world with EVs for the last 20-30 years. Tesla aside, China is miles ahead in that race with BYD as their front runner among many EV makers. As for price and availability for the working person, there are already decent Chinese EVs selling (in China) for low prices $10-$15k, so I don’t think we’ll have long for those to be hitting showrooms in Europe and US. Try as the West will, I doubt we’ll be able to hold back that tide. As Bob said - the times, they are a changin’….
Anyway, nice talking. I expect your weather is far better than mine. Cold, wet and stormy here in Argyll, Scotland.
1
-
1