The Dirty Independence Question

[Comfy Bean]

13 hours ago, eFestivals said:

The only 'rage' here is at lies and duplicitousness - tho mostly it's just laughter at how you want to shit on your family with lies.

 

#idiotsonbothsides 

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Turns out the charade was only in your head . No need to send your " note " North at the moment. NS has other business to be getting on with for now.

This from earlier today.... the Tories will be back to an empty campaign drawing board for the local elections !

Ms Sturgeon said: "There is not going to be an independence referendum in 2017, I don't think there is anybody who thinks that is the case."

 

It's not Sturgeon who gets to decide when it happens, tho, is it? It's the gift of Westminster, if they wish to gift it at all.

(just to be clear, I wouldn't agree with WM turning one down).

But anyway, anyone who says "I'm not bluffing" is someone who's bluffing. The ones who aren't bluffing don't need to outline their bluff.

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

#idiotsonbothsides 

If you're not trying to shit on your family with lies, why do you have to do stuff like deny the relevance of GERS and what its numbers say about an iScotland's economic future?

In the words of Mr Alex Salmond in the Scottish Govts own White Paper for Independence when basing Scotland's future on its numbers :-

GERS is the authoritative publication on Scotland’s public finances.

In the words of the Scottish Govt on their own website:-

The Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) web area provides information on the annually published GERS report. GERS is compiled by statisticians and economists in the Office of the Chief Economic Adviser of the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government's Chief Statistician takes responsibility for this publication.

and

Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) is a National Statistics publication. It estimates the contribution of revenue raised in Scotland toward the goods and services provided for the benefit of Scotland. The estimates in this publication are consistent with the UK Public Sector Finances published in July 2016.

But hey, £9Bn will fall from the sky and your family won't be rolling in shit of your making.

[russycarps]

shocking to read that the north sea oil fields are now actually a net drain on public finances, as the tax payer is committed to contribute towards the decommissioning costs as the industry is wound-down. The deficit between revenues and tax relief is forecast to be a massive £500m this fiscal year. With a treasury bill of £5bn by 2021.

The uk can easily swallow these costs. But it's yet another catastrophic blow to the case for an iscotland.

oh dear.

 

[LJS]

25 minutes ago, russycarps said:

shocking to read that the north sea oil fields are now actually a net drain on public finances, as the tax payer is committed to contribute towards the decommissioning costs as the industry is wound-down. The deficit between revenues and tax relief is forecast to be a massive £500m this fiscal year. With a treasury bill of £5bn by 2021.

The uk can easily swallow these costs. But it's yet another catastrophic blow to the case for an iscotland.

oh dear.

ignoring the fact that this is a bit of an oversimplification, there are opportunities as well as costs involved in decommissioning.

And is it any surprise that Westminster having pissed 40 years of oil revenues up the wall leaves us in a position where the taxpayer will have to foot some of the bill for decommissioning work?

Yet another compelling argument for binning Westminster.

[eFestivals]

24 minutes ago, russycarps said:

shocking to read that the north sea oil fields are now actually a net drain on public finances, as the tax payer is committed to contribute towards the decommissioning costs as the industry is wound-down. The deficit between revenues and tax relief is forecast to be a massive £500m this fiscal year. With a treasury bill of £5bn by 2021.

The uk can easily swallow these costs. But it's yet another catastrophic blow to the case for an iscotland.

oh dear.

To be fair, those are costs the UK is likely to carry if Scotland became indy tomorrow, as it's the UK that's had the tax revenues.

Of course, tho, if iScotland decided to do one of the many mad and stupid things that snippers have convinced themselves as fair - like making the UK pay Scottish pensions, or not taking its share of UK debts - then the UK will laugh at iScotland and tell it to have fun all by itself.

The UK will give a fair deal, as long as the same comes from Scotland.

Beyond a split, tho, there will be newer rigs that iScotland will carry the decommissioning costs of, and those costs make what's left of the oil pretty damn worthless to Scotland.

[Comfy Bean]

10 hours ago, russycarps said:

........ it's yet another catastrophic blow to the case for an iscotland.

 

 

I`m not entirely sure it is Russy but maybe you are right.

Have you noticed anything else recently that in your view, could strengthen the case for Scotland being indy from rUK ?

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I`m not entirely sure it is Russy but maybe you are right.

Have you noticed anything else recently that in your view, could strengthen the case for Scotland being indy from rUK ?

whether it "strengthens" anything depends on how much the people of Scotland want to be unnecessarily poorer.

It would be highly amusing for people to think the solution to brexit making them poorer is to make themselves even poorer than brexit will make them.

Care to tell me how being bigly-poorer is a strong case against being a little bit poorer?

[LJS]

28 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

whether it "strengthens" anything depends on how much the people of Scotland want to be unnecessarily poorer.

It would be highly amusing for people to think the solution to brexit making them poorer is to make themselves even poorer than brexit will make them.

Care to tell me how being bigly-poorer is a strong case against being a little bit poorer?

Now some of the people are poor in the purse
They don't have the cash at the read
And some of the people are crippled and lame
They can never stand up true and steady
And some of the people are poor in the head
Like the simpleton fools that you see
But most of the people are poor in the heart
It's the worst kind of poor, it's the worst kind of poor you can be

Ting-a-ling, Ting-a-Ling, the Devil he leans on your bell,
The future looks black as before
And the sun never shines, oh the sun never shines on the poor

[eFestivals]

get back to me that you know what poor is when you start blaming the right place for cuts in Scotland - the SNP.

 

[eFestivals]

Gotta laugh .... May unveils a plan that's at least as good as Sturgeon's 'EU for Scotland' plan, and Sturgeon pretends she's throwing her toys out of the pram.

I say 'pretends', because that's at least three times now that May has made clear Scotland won't be getting a deal anything like Sturgeon says, and the threat remains just a threat, and with the consequences of that delivered threat far worse onto Scotland than brexit. As I saw one wag say, it's wanting to chop off the other three limbs after May has hacked off a leg.

And while May's plan is ... erm ... "ambitious" because it's seemingly asking for the impossible, Sturgeon's plan is at least as 'hopeful' for the impossible, with it even explicitly admitting that what's laid out might not be doable. Since publication, it's also had explicit rejections by some of those who would need to agree (Spain, just for a change), and not even Sturgeon's own brexit advisers think its possible.

(All May has had back from her 'ambitious' plans are comments that commitments will come with obligations - which is actually code for 'a deal around this might be possible').

My take is that Sturgeon is desperate for May to tell her she won't be allowed another indyref. May is very wisely pretending Sturgeon isn't there, letting Sturgeon dangle on her own string.

So anyway, if you're not bluffing Sturgeon, why the delay?

 

[Comfy Bean]

Hi Neil,

Sturgeon confirmed last week that there will not be an Indy ref this year.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

C

[LJS]

1 hour ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Hi Neil,

Sturgeon confirmed last week that there will not be an Indy ref this year.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

C

aha! she might have been bluffing, though!

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, LJS said:

aha! she might have been bluffing, though!

She might ... bluffing about a bluff that she's bluffing.

So anyway: before March 2019* - she explicitly said it, remember - and not this year, which means sometime in 2018 or in early 2019.
(* providing a50 is done this March)

Which means the UK will have fully left the EU long before Scotland is indy, meaning all chance of any 'stay in' interim deal is dead. So Scotland would be leaving the UK to stay in the EU but not staying in the EU: great logic.

Tho of course Spain has already made clear, countless times, that they'll be no special favours for a breakaway region as it will set a precedent for other breakaway regions - which one of Sturgeon's brexit-advisor sidekicks pointed out was an issue for many EU states, not just Spain.

So let's see how quickly Scotland might be in the EU via the normal application process, its only route. How long did it take for the last 3 applicants? Over 10 years for each one.

BUT ... each of those countries already had a stable sovereign currency and central bank - and two of them ran a budget surplus at time of application too (the other a small deficit), whereas Scotland will require around 10 years of currency/central bank operation before they meet the terms to apply, and will need to first sort its humongous deficit via humongous cuts.

People like comfy say that the SNP should wait till after the next election for another indyref when they'll be another tory govt (didn't work last time ), plus because the shite from brexit should have (so the snippers meme goes) kicked in and decimated Scotland's economy.

Which means that the deficit won't have been reduced - LJS's big hope for victory, remember - and in fact (from that meme) things will be worse than they've ever been, and snippers say the answer to that is to make things even worse by cutting off 60% on top of cutting off 15% of trade.. Yeah, that'll sell.

Sturgeon says indy is necessary to protect the 80,000 jobs that rely on Europe (but doesn't give a shit about protecting the 350,000 jobs which rely on the rest of the UK). Yet May's plan will - supposedly - protect those EU-related jobs.

So all that's left to appeal from the EU is for new immigration... meaning that Sturgeon wants Scotland to be indy to benefit no one in Scotland. Yep, I reckon that'll sell, too.

It's looking good guys.... when's the white paper being published? I fancy a read of some comedy gold.

Edited January 19, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Hi Neil,

Sturgeon confirmed last week that there will not be an Indy ref this year.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

C

and she confirmed last week that it would* happen before March 2019.

(*providing May triggers a50 this March).

Don't go forgetting the March 2019 date, I reckon it might have some relevance for a few pisstakes in 2 years.

[LJS]

23 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

She might ... bluffing about a bluff that she's bluffing.

So anyway: before March 2019* - she explicitly said it, remember - and not this year, which means sometime in 2018 or in early 2019.
(* providing a50 is done this March)

Which means the UK will have fully left the EU long before Scotland is indy, meaning all chance of any 'stay in' interim deal is dead. So Scotland would be leaving the UK to stay in the EU but not staying in the EU: great logic.

Tho of course Spain has already made clear, countless times, that they'll be no special favours for a breakaway region as it will set a precedent for other breakaway regions - which one of Sturgeon's brexit-advisor sidekicks pointed out was an issue for many EU states, not just Spain.

So let's see how quickly Scotland might be in the EU via the normal application process, its only route. How long did it take for the last 3 applicants? Over 10 years for each one.

BUT ... each of those countries already had a stable sovereign currency and central bank - and two of them ran a budget surplus at time of application too (the other a small deficit), whereas Scotland will require around 10 years of currency/central bank operation before they meet the terms to apply, and will need to first sort its humongous deficit via humongous cuts.

People like comfy say that the SNP should wait till after the next election for another indyref when they'll be another tory govt (didn't work last time ), plus because the shite from brexit should have (so the snippers meme goes) kicked in and decimated Scotland's economy.

Which means that the deficit won't have been reduced - LJS's big hope for victory, remember - and in fact (from that meme) things will be worse than they've ever been, and snippers say the answer to that is to make things even worse by cutting off 60% on top of cutting off 15% of trade.. Yeah, that'll sell.

Sturgeon says indy is necessary to protect the 80,000 jobs that rely on Europe (but doesn't give a shit about protecting the 350,000 jobs which rely on the rest of the UK). Yet May's plan will - supposedly - protect those EU-related jobs.

So all that's left to appeal from the EU is for new immigration... meaning that Sturgeon wants Scotland to be indy to benefit no one in Scotland. Yep, I reckon that'll sell, too.

It's looking good guys.... when's the white paper being published? I fancy a read of some comedy gold.

amusingly, elsewhere you are happy to champion Tmay's Xmas list without pointing out that negotiation is a 2 way process and the "other side" might just want something from the negotiations whilst ignoring senior EU voices stating clearly it ain't gonna happen.

Meanwhile a couple of Spanish guys are enough to rule out Scotland's chances. 

This choice is increasingly about the sort of country we want to live in. It is becoming increasingly clear that you are perfectly happy in a Tory little Britain.

I'm not.

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

amusingly, elsewhere you are happy to champion Tmay's Xmas list without pointing out that negotiation is a 2 way process and the "other side" might just want something from the negotiations whilst ignoring senior EU voices stating clearly it ain't gonna happen.

EU voices said a pick & mix for full single market access wasn't possible.

If you cared to notice after May's speech the other day, they merely said that the sort of access May was suggesting would come with obligations and commitments.

Given that Turkey, South Korea and Canada all have access - with attached obligations and commitments - and May is aiming for a similar deal, she's put the ball in the right park, and now it's only sorting the rules for that game.

It helps if you pay attention and know what facts are.

 

Quote

Meanwhile a couple of Spanish guys are enough to rule out Scotland's chances. 

Not "a couple of Spanish guys". A consistent line by govts in Spain of differing parties over decades.

It helps if you pay attention and know what facts are.

 

Quote

This choice is increasingly about the sort of country we want to live in.

Yep. The choices are:-

1. a country of around the current wealth levels, or
2. a country that's significantly poorer but independent.

I know what you choice is, but have you bothered to listen to what most of Scoland's choice is? It's not greater poverty.

 

Quote

It is becoming increasingly clear that you are perfectly happy in a Tory little Britain.

I'm not.

I'm not so self-centred that I want 

1. independence for my house at a cost to others.
2. to make my neighbours poorer
3. to use a lie to make my neighbours poorer.
4. to pretend to my neighbours that i'm making them richer on the basis of fantasies.

You're more than welcome to chase your dream, but don't be a utter c**t  by pretending you want to help people you know you're going to screw worse than any tory.

[Comfy Bean]

11 hours ago, eFestivals said:

People like comfy say that the SNP should wait till after the next election for another indyref when they'll be another tory govt.

That has been my view since the last vote. My reasons were / are that a " fair " amount of time should be left between the 2 votes. I also think we seem to have been voting non-stop for several years now with one thing and another and I was factoring that in.

I also believe that a fair number of people who voted NO last time ( only a 5% swing required remember ) were Labour voters who thought Milliband would have been the next PM. These people can reasonably expect the next GE and perhaps many more to come to be won by the Tories. I think this could result in some of them voting for Indy hoping that with indy we would see a resurgent Labour party in Scotland ( I agree with this ).

Now we have Brexit after we were told that staying in the union was the only way to stay in the eu. I believe that a fair number of people who voted no last time ( only a 5% swing required remember ) would change their vote if there was another indy ref. Nearly 2 in 3 Scots voted to remain with all 32 counts coming up remain.

I think Brexit and another Tory GE win against a shambolic Labour could be enough to get indy over the line.

I probably agree with Neil that NS doesn`t think she has the numbers as we stand but I think she may well roll the dice by 2019 and of course we may well get a ge before then.

NS is talking about the type of Country she wants Scotland to be. Some folk think it`s all about the money but Sturgeon doesn`t and when she goes to the people living in Scotland on this she will have my full support.

[Comfy Bean]

On 1/9/2017 at 9:39 PM, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Turns out the charade was only in your head . No need to send your " note " North at the moment. NS has other business to be getting on with for now.

This from earlier today.... the Tories will be back to an empty campaign drawing board for the local elections !

Ms Sturgeon said: "There is not going to be an independence referendum in 2017, I don't think there is anybody who thinks that is the case."

 

Turns out yet another of my predictions was way way wide of the mark.

I have just received through the door the campaign leaflet from the Conservative and Unionist Party 

I`ll have a look for an electronic copy to post or I might quote some of the highlights.

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

That has been my view since the last vote. My reasons were / are that a " fair " amount of time should be left between the 2 votes. I also think we seem to have been voting non-stop for several years now with one thing and another and I was factoring that in.

I get why you've said around 2022.

But it doesn't fit with what Sturgeon has explicitly said, of an indyref before March 2019 (providing a50 is triggered by this March).

 

12 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I also believe that a fair number of people who voted NO last time ( only a 5% swing required remember ) were Labour voters who thought Milliband would have been the next PM. These people can reasonably expect the next GE and perhaps many more to come to be won by the Tories. I think this could result in some of them voting for Indy hoping that with indy we would see a resurgent Labour party in Scotland ( I agree with this ).

If that were the case, then polling should be picking up the changed minds. It's not.

(it's probably the case that there are a small-ish number, but that there's also a smallish number who've jumped the other way for whatever reasons - either because they've lost faith with indy, or because they don't want the EU).

 

12 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Now we have Brexit after we were told that staying in the union was the only way to stay in the eu. I believe that a fair number of people who voted no last time ( only a 5% swing required remember ) would change their vote if there was another indy ref. Nearly 2 in 3 Scots voted to remain with all 32 counts coming up remain.

Ah, the famous "we were lied to" myth.

It doesn't stand up, because Salmond and Sturgeon pointed out at the time that an already planned EUref might drag Scotland out of the EU. 

It was all out in the open - it even made the white paper - and the Scottish people rejected the indy line.

Meanwhile, if "being dragged out against our will" stands up, can the parts of Scotland that don't want indy remain in the UK?

No says you. "Scotland is a country". Yeah, blood and soil, we all know about that. :rolleyes:

 

12 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I think Brexit and another Tory GE win against a shambolic Labour could be enough to get indy over the line.

You might be right, tho there's nothing to suggest that you are right now.

 

12 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

I probably agree with Neil that NS doesn`t think she has the numbers as we stand but I think she may well roll the dice by 2019 and of course we may well get a ge before then.

I reckon NS is desperate for May to tell her it won't be allowed, to give her a get out.

(To be fair to May, not allowing it would be quite reasonable against the practicalities, until after the brexit process has been gone thru. Trying to manage two different massive administrative splits at the same time would be the stuff of nightmares).

Tho I reckon May won't rule it out before Sturgeon has put a ref bill thru the SG - if at all -  so Sturgeon will have to make the leap towards an indyref even if it doesn't actually take place.

It's a very difficult thing for May to get right politically, because of the grievance-mining Sturgeon could make off the back of the wrong call, so it's hard to know how she might handle it. If I were her I think I'd probably tell Sturgeon to fill her boots in the belief indy would lose, tho that's a risky game to play.

 

12 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

NS is talking about the type of Country she wants Scotland to be.

yet she never mentions the HUMONGOUS cuts in public spending that would be part of the type of county Scotland would be. 

And it would be Scotland's poorest who took the brunt of that. After all, the likes of you and LJS believe indy can't make you poorer, meaning that you won't accept the cuts falling on the things that you benefit by. It'll be you and people like you who advocates shafting Scotland's poor.

Sturgeon is already making blatant lies to you about tory austerity, which doesn't exist in Scotland (as proven by the latest SG budget), so lies about what indy will cost the people of Scotland  is just more of the same.

12 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Some folk think it`s all about the money but Sturgeon doesn`t and when she goes to the people living in Scotland on this she will have my full support.

If Sturgeon doesn't think it's about the money, why is she lying to Scotland about the money?

FFS. :lol:

 

 

 

[LJS]

On 1/20/2017 at 8:23 AM, eFestivals said:

I get why you've said around 2022.

But it doesn't fit with what Sturgeon has explicitly said, of an indyref before March 2019 (providing a50 is triggered by this March).

Comfy in giving his opinion. You may not be aware of this but we are still allowed to disagree with Nicola. (Presumably that will change after Indy )

Quote

 

If that were the case, then polling should be picking up the changed minds. It's not.

(it's probably the case that there are a small-ish number, but that there's also a smallish number who've jumped the other way for whatever reasons - either because they've lost faith with indy, or because they don't want the EU).

The next lot of polling will be interesting. I think you are right that so far swings one way have been cancelled out by Roundabouts the other.

Quote

 

Ah, the famous "we were lied to" myth.

It doesn't stand up, because Salmond and Sturgeon pointed out at the time that an already planned EUref might drag Scotland out of the EU. 

And the no campaign said the mechanism for taking Scotland out the EU was a yes vote (you see what they're doing there, don't you?) Also when specifically tackled on this, Ruth Davidson said an EU referendum was unlikely because a Tory government was unlikely.

Quote

It was all out in the open - it even made the white paper - and the Scottish people rejected the indy line.

Did the white paper say there would be an EU referendum & did it say the Vote would be to leave? 

Quote

Meanwhile, if "being dragged out against our will" stands up, can the parts of Scotland that don't want indy remain in the UK?

I am not aware of any parts of Scotland that are claiming not to be part of Scotland. Are you?

Quote

No says you. "Scotland is a country". Yeah, blood and soil, we all know about that.

Whether Scotland is a country is debatable. What is not debatable is that must Scots believe Scotland is a country...as indeed do most UK politicians it would appear.

What is also not debatable, in my view, is that using Nazi references is desperate, offensive & pathetic.

Quote

 

You might be right, tho there's nothing to suggest that you are right now.

 

I reckon NS is desperate for May to tell her it won't be allowed, to give her a get out.

I think you might be partially right but only because a Tory prime minister preventing Scotland from holding a referendum would probably add 3-5% to the yes vote. *

 

*no source....pure guesswork.

 

Quote

(To be fair to May, not allowing it would be quite reasonable against the practicalities, until after the brexit process has been gone thru. Trying to manage two different massive administrative splits at the same time would be the stuff of nightmares).

Tho I reckon May won't rule it out before Sturgeon has put a ref bill thru the SG - if at all -  so Sturgeon will have to make the leap towards an indyref even if it doesn't actually take place.

It's a very difficult thing for May to get right politically, because of the grievance-mining Sturgeon could make off the back of the wrong call,

Do you mean the grievance mining caused by the UK government refusing to allow the SG a referendum that you have already accepted they have a mandate to call?

You do realise some grievances are legitimate & justified?

Quote

so it's hard to know how she might handle it. If I were her I think I'd probably tell Sturgeon to fill her boots in the belief indy would lose, tho that's a risky game to play.

I agree.

Quote

yet she never mentions the HUMONGOUS cuts in public spending that would be part of the type of county Scotland would be. 

That's because they are made up by you.

Quote

And it would be Scotland's poorest who took the brunt of that. After all, the likes of you and LJS believe indy can't make you poorer,

This is a lie. Please withdraw it and apologise or provide evidence to support you lies 

Neil is a serial killer.

Quote

meaning that you won't accept the cuts falling on the things that you benefit by. It'll be you and people like you who advocates shafting Scotland's poor.

No one has advocated shafting Scotland's poor. Another lie.

Quote

Sturgeon is already making blatant lies to you about tory austerity,

Really?

Quote

which doesn't exist in Scotland (as proven by the latest SG budget),

So how come the reduction on the onshore deficit which you have grudgingly accepted is all down to Tory austerity, if there is no Tory austerity?

Quote

so lies about what indy will cost the people of Scotland  is just more of the same.

You would know because you are the one scaremongering about the costs of Indy.

Quote

If Sturgeon doesn't think it's about the money, why is she lying to Scotland about the money?

I have no idea what point you are failing miserably to make here. There is no one claiming that "the money" is the most important point.

You are the only person who seems to think it's all about the money. Not quite sure what that says about you.

Quote

FFS.

 

STFU

Edited January 21, 2017 by LJS

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

Comfy in giving his opinion. You may not be aware of this but we are still allowed to disagree with Nicola. (Presumably that will change after Indy )

Yep, but I'm concentrating right now on Sturgeon bottling it. 

If she's not done the deed - done and dusted - by March 2019, she'll have bottled it.

Have I mentioned that I think she'll bottle it, that she's playing a poor game of bluff?

11 hours ago, LJS said:

And the no campaign said the mechanism for taking Scotland out the EU was a yes vote (you see what they're doing there, don't you?) Also when specifically tackled on this, Ruth Davidson said an EU referendum was unlikely because a Tory government was unlikely.

the SNP said voting no would be a vote that took Scotland out of the EU, and Scots still voted no.

That's a relevant expression of people in Scotland, and has relevance for that lack of reaction to Scotland being taken out of the EU via the UK vote.

11 hours ago, LJS said:

Did the white paper say there would be an EU referendum & did it say the Vote would be to leave? 

The white paper mentioned the possibility of an EU ref and it's possible consequences for Scotland, to try and scare people into voting yes. And Scots rejected what the SNP were saying.

It said: "If we remain in the UK, the Conservative Party’s promise of an in/out referendum on EU membership raises the serious possibility that Scotland will be forced to leave the EU against the wishes of the people of Scotland" (page 60).

It also said: "What impact will the Conservative Party proposal to have a UK referendum on EU membership have? It is the view of the current Scottish Government that the only real risk to Scotland’s membership of the EU is the referendum proposed by the Prime Minister. 298070_Q&A Chapters_FIN.indd 460 19/11/2013 14:06 461 The Scottish Government does not wish Scotland to leave the EU and does not support the Prime Minister’s plans to hold an in-out referendum on EU membership. Following a vote for independence, Scotland will become an independent EU member state before the planned in-out referendum on the EU in 2017. However, if we do not become independent, we risk being taken out of the EU against our will." (page 460)

The SNP have already made these arguments, and the people of Scotland have rejected these arguments.

Never mind?

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

I am not aware of any parts of Scotland that are claiming not to be part of Scotland. Are you?

I'm not aware of any parts of the UK that are claiming not to be part of the UK. Are you?

FFS.

Sturgeon accepted the UK vote on the EU so-very-much that she officially campaigned for one side of that divide. That's a strange rejection by anyone's dictionary.

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

Whether Scotland is a country is debatable. What is not debatable is that must Scots believe Scotland is a country...as indeed do most UK politicians it would appear.

What is also not debatable, in my view, is that using Nazi references is desperate, offensive & pathetic.

If Scotland's want of independence is the 'civic' that people like you like to claim, the argument that "Scotland is a country" like it gives a greater right of self-determination should never be made.

The relevance "Scotland is a country" has to a civic movement is...? None at all.

It's a blood and soil reference.

The Nazi references are Sturgeon's own, when she proclaims "Scotland is a country" like it's meaningful for a civic movement when it's *only* a statement of blood and soil.

What don't you understand about your glorious leader's grand claims, apart from nothing at all (as you've just shown)?

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

I think you might be partially right but only because a Tory prime minister preventing Scotland from holding a referendum would probably add 3-5% to the yes vote. *

 

*no source....pure guesswork.

I reckon it might show a small jump (around the levels you claim)  in opinion polling, tho I doubt it would follow thru by anything like the same extent in the real vote.

11 hours ago, LJS said:

Do you mean the grievance mining caused by the UK government refusing to allow the SG a referendum that you have already accepted they have a mandate to call?

You do realise some grievances are legitimate & justified?

Some grievances would be justified, yep.

But the UK can't refuse a referendum that isn't planned, so the onus is on Sturgeon to first call a ref ... which she's strangely reluctant to do.

The ball is in Sturgeon's court, not May's. For all the while Sturgeon doesn't hit that ball she's bottling it.