(05-27-2019, 10:46 PM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote: I don't know what any of your symbols mean...

(05-27-2019, 10:46 PM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote: I don't know what any of your symbols mean.

All I know is that the people have spoken and the globalists are losing.  YAY!!!!...

(05-28-2019, 11:25 AM)gordi Wrote: The state-controlled media (BBC et al) do not help one bit. Continually misleading and downplaying the strength of feeling in Scotland.
I'll show you a small example here:

This graphic was screen-grabbed from the BBC's own News Webpages.
A quick glance at it would suggest that the SNP narrowly won the election in this region, closely followed by Brexit, Labour and the Tory (Conservatives) right?
But LOOK at the ACTUAL FIGURES on the left.
The SNP's yellow coloured bar on the chart should be more than DOUBLE the height that it is shown there.
The SNP got More votes than Brexit, Labour and Tory Combined! (Almost as many as Brexit, Labour, Tory and LD's combined!!!) but it is shown graphically as a very narrow win. THIS is the problem.
An EQUAL partner should not be ignored, manipulated or abused like this...

Quote:PS - Ugh! I just noticed that BIAD fully answered the query about all the symbols and abbreviations whilst I
was constructing my post! (Sorry for repeating a lot of that here!)

(05-28-2019, 12:15 PM)Wallfire Wrote: Interesting thing about the Scots is they are not the same people I knew in the late 70s and 80s. They were a strong and proud people, now they just seem sad and lost.  What I have noticed now is that the English seem to see the Scots as a child like people who need to be controlled and guided.
This could be because after the practice of divide and control that has been going on for 100s of years the self confidence of the Scots has been undermined to a point that even if given independence they would not have the emotional strength to handle it.
So what will become of Scotland ? I think it will just continue been used and bled dry as the system has been set up and no one from either side knows how to change it, or what will happen if it is changed.

(05-28-2019, 12:36 PM)gordi Wrote: Wow, are you in for a shock. LOL

The Scots are are strong and proud as ever.
They have been deceived by the lies of WM and their media puppets for decades, but (as I mentioned above) I can sense a real build-up of frustration at that.
There is a REAL sense of resentment and anger. One look at the results on that EU election map of the UK should show you that real Scots are voting in their droves for an alternative to WM domination. (If they are sad/lost/controlled/guided/child-like - then why/how are they voting for a completely different future than England? The patterns on that map cannot be any clearer.)

Confidence?
Emotional Strength?
Are you kidding me??
Can you not see the movement of opinion behind the numbers on these EU election results?

As soon as Brexit is confirmed, that will constitute a major material change to the circumstances of the UK Union.
The Scottish Government has already declared that this will trigger a new Scottish Independence Referendum - BUT it will be set up and run by THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT, NOT WM like last time.
I am very confident that a Scottish Election, run by Scots for Scots will be fair and decisive.
Scotland will declare Independence from the UK in the not-too-distant future, and I've NEVER been more confident of that.

Can I just say that I think it's quite sad that England and Scotland seem to be drifting apart?
But sometimes, (as with all kinds of relationships...) there comes a time where the two partners want different futures for their own health & happiness.
That time has now come. IMHO.


G

Quote:Independent Scotland would face 'extended austerity' under SNP

Growth commission’s strategy would lead to extra decade of cuts and restraint, says IFS.



'An independent Scotland would face an extra 10 years of austerity if it implemented plans outlined by a Scottish
National party report, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned.

The IFS, a highly regarded economics research institute, said proposals from the SNP’s growth commission published
in May would leave Scotland’s weak public finances facing continued cost-cutting and restraint.

Analysis by David Phillips, an IFS economist, said the commission should be commended for being honest about “the
challenging public finance position an independent Scotland would start life with”. However, he disputed its claims that its
economic strategy would end austerity. Its analysis in fact implied cuts in spending and benefits equal to 4% of GDP over
a 10-year period. 

“Their proposals imply another decade of the sort of restraint on public spending that Scotland is currently experiencing.
If this is austerity, then austerity would be extended under the commission’s proposals,” he said.

His analysis was seized on by pro-UK opposition parties. Murdo Fraser, the Scottish Conservatives’ shadow finance secretary,
said Sturgeon “should simply admit it: independence comes at a huge cost. Until she does, nobody should believe a word she
says.”

Patrick Harvie, co-leader of the pro-independence Scottish Greens, said the IFS was right to challenge the SNP’s report.
“The compelling case for independence will be one which abandons rather than extends austerity economics,” he said.
“Broadening the tax base to include both corporate profits and asset wealth will offer a better way forward.”

The IFS’s conclusions will be seen as a challenge to Nicola Sturgeon, the first minister, who strongly defended the commission’s
work at the SNP’s spring conference six days ago. An SNP spokesman rejected the IFS conclusions and insisted the commission
had explicitly rejected further austerity and planned real-terms growth in spending.

“The growth commission contrasts the clear opportunities of independence with the despair and economic damage of Brexit
–and replaces fear with optimism and hope about Scotland’s future,” he said. Phillips said the most recent Scottish government
spending and taxation data covering both devolved and UK public spending in Scotland meant the country currently had an
effective budget deficit of 8.3%.

The UK’s overall deficit, which included Scotland’s overspending, was 2.3% of UK GDP. That meant UK taxpayers were subsidising
Scottish spending by about £1,750 per person, a “fiscal transfer” equivalent to 6% of Scottish GDP. Under the commission’s forecasts
the deficit would be more than 7%.

He said the commission report was far more sober than the Scottish government’s previous claims before the 2014 independence
referendum. The commission was right to ignore future oil revenues in its forecasts because they were finite, but that increased the
pressures on spending.

He chastised the commission for failing to set out where cuts would fall or taking any account of the likely trade barriers that would
affect trade with the rest of the UK if Scotland rejoined the EU after Brexit. Philips said he could quibble with other assumptions in
its report but added that it did make sensible proposals on increasing productivity and increasing immigration, to counterbalance
Scotland’s ageing population.

His analysis was released soon after the Scottish and Welsh governments published a letter they had sent to Sajid Javid, the home
secretary, complaining that the UK government had failed to consult them on his plans for allowing EU citizens to remain in the UK
after Brexit.

Sturgeon called for immigration powers to be fully devolved to Scotland last weekend. She is worried that Scotland’s ageing
population and weak birth rates are damaging the economy, and wants to boost immigration to help increase productivity.

Fiona Hyslop, the Scottish external affairs secretary, and Mark Drakeford, the Welsh finance secretary, asked for an urgent meeting
with Javid. They added they remained “deeply troubled” that they had yet to see any details about the UK government’s new but
much-delayed immigration bill...'

(05-28-2019, 01:03 PM)BIAD Wrote: As I said above, the propaganda has been on-going for ages and in fairness, I'd suggest it's evolved
into a social acceptance in England. (The Guardian article is from early last year and check out the image...
Nicola Sturgeon looks very small).

Quote:Independent Scotland would face 'extended austerity' under SNP

Growth commission’s strategy would lead to extra decade of cuts and restraint, says IFS....

...'An independent Scotland would face an extra 10 years of austerity if it implemented plans outlined by a Scottish
National party report, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned.....

The Guardian:

Quote:In 1974, two American political scientists, Hugh Heclo and Aaron Wildavsky, published an influential book about the workings of the British state called The Private Government of Public Money, which argued that an extraordinarily small clique of officials, who know one another well, dominate Britain’s decisions about taxation and spending. More than 40 years later, while the IFS vaunts its independence, multiple ties bind Ridgmount Street, Whitehall and Westminster.

For instance, Paul Johnson served in the Treasury between his first stint at the IFS and returning as director. Prior to the IFS, Johnson was tutorial partner at Keble College Oxford to Ed Balls, the former shadow chancellor. Balls’s pre-government journalistic career at the FT moved in parallel to Robert Chote’s, who was then at the Independent. Chote preceded Johnson as director of the IFS. During his tenure at the IFS, Chote’s wife Sharon White was building a career at the Treasury that would culminate in her role as second permanent secretary at the department. In 1997 Gus O’Donnell, who would go on to become head of the civil service, was in Washington as the UK executive director on the boards of the IMF and World Bank; he held a wedding party at his house for Chote and White. Later, when Chote wrote to Gus O’Donnell to bemoan the Treasury briefing against the IFS, he ended his letter with the words “We have all known each other for a long time …”

from: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/15/british-umpire-how-institute-fiscal-studies-became-most-influential-voice-in-uk-economic-debate

(05-28-2019, 01:33 PM)Wallfire Wrote: Its easy to have a paper rebellion, it costs nothing and makes people feel good. But what happens when the truth about independence hits home. Is Scotland going to brake free from England and sell its self to the EU  ?.
If Scotland tries to make it on its own are the people willing to take a drop in the standard of living, work longer hours for less money, less med support, pensions reduced, all these thing for the next 20 or so years in order to make sure Scotland is a good place for the children to live in the future ?
A paper rebellion is an easy way to control people, makes people feel like they have some power. But the price of independence is far too high and will not be accepted by the people. The soft life of today or a hard life for the next 20 years so that Scotland will be a free and good place to live ?
The youth will take the soft life.
The life  people in Finland lived after the war in order to give a better life to the future generations is not something the youth of today could do. Like so many countries Finland sold its freedom and soul to the EU, Scotland will do the same. Not because it wants to, but because the youth of today only know of the internet and me want me want. They care not for what happens next year as long as they have silly harmless things to fell good about rebelling. Its a feel good generation, not a fighting generation.

(05-28-2019, 03:43 PM)Wallfire Wrote: I support you fully, Britain has been ripping Scotland off for so long that it has become normal. But I also see the mess that Britain is in has little to do with leaving the EU and more to do with the anger of a people whos culture and way of life has been destroyed and they are hitting back the only way they can as it would never be aloud to express the anger where it belongs.
Back in the 80s I was in a pub with a group of Scottish soldiers, they started singing  O Flower of Scotland 
It was the energy and passion and respect  that I felt coming for the men singing that deeply impressed me.
"When will we see your like again"
A good question that cannot be answered......  yet
I hope the Scots understand what Independence means, and dont just do it so they can kick the Brits in the balls. No country that I know off has ever had an easy first 10-20 years of Independence.

(05-28-2019, 03:03 PM)gordi Wrote: The way it works is worryingly simple:
The UK Govt takes approx 85% of Tax revenues raised in Scotland and then (generously) allocates about 35% back to Scotland to "balance the books" there (via Barnett Formula).
The remaining revenues are spent "on Scotland's behalf" by Westminster, but mostly on important "UK infrastructure" projects like:

The High Speed Rail Link (HS1/Channel Tunnel Link) £5.8Billion,
CrossRail (Reading/Heathrow - London - Shenfield/Abbey Wood) £17.6Billion,
HS2 (London - West Midlands - Manchester / Leeds) at least £56Billion *estimated cost.
Crossrail2 (SW London - NE London) at least £30Billion *estimated cost.

Now these projects are all based solely in England (mostly London), come nowhere near to Scotland at any point, and it's very unclear how they will benefit Scotland in any way, but because WM describes them as "UK" infrastructure projects, the monies spent there are apportioned accordingly in the UK's balance sheets with Scotland paying it's "fair share" of almost 10% of the costs...

Tada! with just these 4 projects alone costing over £104Billion, that means that over £10Billion is suddenly wiped off of Scotland's balance sheet to fund English (UK) infrastructure projects!
It is sheer genius!
In the meantime, the Scottish Government does what it can to protect and develop Scotland's infrastructure, but we NEVER receive massive "UK" funding for any "Scottish" projects... funny that.

Quote:'...The latest slap in the face that I came across (quite recently although actually published 5 yrs ago) was a proposed
infrastructure project which would "divert" fresh water from the Scottish Borders region down to the parched Southern
areas of England via a series of new canals or pipelines...'

Quote:Sorry if my posts come across as a bit of a rant, but this stuff really gets my blood boiling!

(05-28-2019, 05:40 PM)BIAD Wrote: ...Again, I'm not batting for the 'sasanach'-side in this debate, but I was interested in knowing where the monies were
generated in Scotland. I only know the brochure-version and unsure about how the money from the oil was dispersed...



...Nope, it's not a rant and I know where you're coming from.

Quote:'...The Barnett formula is said to have "no legal standing or democratic justification", and, being merely a convention,
could be changed at will by the Treasury. In recent years, Barnett himself has called it a "terrible mistake".

In 2009, the House of Lords Select Committee on the Barnett Formula concluded that "the Barnett Formula should no
longer be used to determine annual increases in the block grant for the United Kingdom's devolved administrations...
A new system which allocates resources to the devolved administrations based on an explicit assessment of their
relative needs should be introduced."

Following the September 2014 Scottish independence referendum, the Barnett formula came to widespread attention
amid concerns that in a last-minute government bid to sway voters against independence, Scotland had been promised
continued high public spending....'

Quote:How the formula works

The formula applies only to expenditure on issues for which the devolved administrations (as opposed to UK central government)
are responsible. Its principle is that any increase or reduction in expenditure in England will automatically lead to a proportionate
increase or reduction in resources for the devolved governments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Analogous arrangements apply to categories of expense which are only controlled by some of the devolved governments.
The formula is not applied to all public expenditure, but is the default option if no other decisions are made. Expenditure is allocated
en bloc, not by service, allowing each devolved administration to allocate these funds as it believes appropriate.

Where the central government department funding covers England only
For areas of funding where the corresponding central government department funding covers England only, for example education
and health, the formula for funding to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland consists of a baseline plus increases based on the
increases in public spending in England in comparable programmes, applied in proportion to current populations:

Extra funding in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland = Extra funding in England x (multiplied by) population proportion compared
to England x (multiplied by)  the extent to which the relevant English departmental programme is comparable with the services
carried out by the devolved administration.

For example, in 2000, the Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh populations were taken to be 3.69%, 10.34% and 5.93% (respectively)
of the population of England. For programmes in the Department of Health, the comparability factor for Scotland and Wales was 99.7%.

Therefore, if £1 billion was to be added to planned health expenditure in England, then the extra amount added to the Scottish block,
compared to the year before, would be £1bn x 10.34% x 99.7% = £103 million, and the amount added to the Welsh block would be
£1bn x 5.93% x 99.7% = £59.1 million.