|
|
Post by happyjack on Aug 19, 2024 8:03:09 GMT
It's rather telling that no devolved government has ever been able to run a budget surplus despite assistance from the Barnett formula. Actually, Vinny, in the early years of devolution the Scottish Government did run budget surpluses and returned the money that was underspent to Westminster. That, of course, was long before the SNP got their hands deep into the public purse.. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Aug 19, 2024 8:33:44 GMT
In the early days of New Labour Gordon Brown ran budget surpluses, but after 2001 it was buy now PAY later and that ended in tears.
Anyway, budget surpluses are vital.
Returned money? Of course, Scotland shares part of the national debt and our shared debt needs paying down.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Aug 19, 2024 8:54:48 GMT
. What mythical rules do I waffle on about that don’t exist and what new rules have I made up on the hop to constrain democracy? ive asked numerous times regarding your alleged rules and timescales of indy referendums. You implied earlier , that the 2014 referendum was a one off opportunity , once in a generation ( a generation never actually being quantified ) once in a lifetime. Your words. You also use a former first ministers alleged words to reinforce this garbage. so I asked which rules of democracy , or law , back this up ? you cant or won't tell me , as they dont exist. the closest we have to a benchmark is as moray and I have said the GFA. every 7 years. upon digging further , showing how much daily shite you talk , I see that between 1714 , and 1978 there were 26 Scottish home rule bills voted on in the uk parliament. in 1979 , there was a devolution referendum , in 1997 , another one , and the independence referendum in 2014. so between 1714 , to 2014 , a 300 year period , there have been 29 votes on Scotlands self rule , approx one every 10.3 years. Not one mention , or law , or democratic rule , that it can only be a one off or once in a generation. By my reckoning happy , we are due another soon. If you really believe what you say above then you are displaying further evidence of your difficulty with processing and understanding what you read; either that or you are simply engaging in another bout of your hallmark cheap chicanery. I suspect that it is a combination of the two but, whether I am right or wrong in my suspicions, the bottom line is that you are once again putting words in my mouth. As you well know, the one opportunity / once in a lifetime / once in a generation phrases are not my own words but the words utilised by various factions of the YES movement, including the SNP leadership and the SNP ScotGov, before and during the 2014 indyref campaign, including by the then FM and by his then deputy and his immediate successor as FM, a role that she held for 9 years immediately following the indyref. They, along with the YES campaign in general, used these words and sold the one opportunity / once in a lifetime / once in a generation message to the Scottish people; there is no “alleged” about it, nor is there anything remotely “garbage” about it, as the evidence I have pointed to makes clear. That you seem determined to deny this is concerning. We can have different opinions on things but if you are willing to deny blatant and self-evident facts as you are doing here then you not only diminish yourself but render engaging with you on such matters pointless. The rules and the law for when another indyref can happen are the same rules and law that applied to the 2014 indyref and the same as they have always been i.e. another indyref will only happen if and when a majority of MPs can be sufficiently persuaded of the merits of holding another indyref to vote for one when an indyref bill is presented to parliament. You can do whatever reckoning you like if it makes you feel better, but none of that will change the veracity of what I describe above or bring another indyref any closer. |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Aug 19, 2024 8:59:57 GMT
In the early days of New Labour Gordon Brown ran budget surpluses, but after 2001 it was buy now PAY later and that ended in tears. Anyway, budget surpluses are vital. Returned money? Of course, Scotland shares part of the national debt and our shared debt needs paying down. That’s not what I was saying, Vinny. In the early years of devolution the then Scottish Executive ( there was none of that puffed up “Scottish Government” posturing back then) found that the block grant was so generous that they simply could not find enough things to spend all of it on so they returned whatever monies they didn’t spend each year to HM Treasury. |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Aug 19, 2024 9:43:38 GMT
What clue is in what name? The Kingdom of Great Britain ( i.e. the country of Great Britain) was formed in 1707 when the pre-existing countries of Scotland and England (inc. Wales) ceased to exist and instead united into a single new country and unitary state. Sure, it remained multi-national when this happened and remained multi-national throughout its 94 year period of existence (and, indeed, there still remains a Scottish nation, an English nation and a Welsh nation to this day) at which point it ceased to exist as a country when it in turn merged or united with The Kingdom of Ireland to form the new successor country and unitary state of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Prior to this second union or merger, Ireland was not part of either England nor of Great Britain, albeit that it was a client state under the control of one or the other for several centuries prior to that event. the kingdom of great Britain , and ireland was a part of it. it wasnt a country .it was a multi national kingdom , with a legislature in London , and a colonial legislature in Dublin. Scotland didnt cease to exist. Wales ceased to exist legally as a country in the 16th century as I explained ,with a series of laws enacted which abolished Wales , made it part of england , and ended the old welsh legal system of hywel da. Then individuals representing the welsh were admitted to the former English only parliament. It was simply re arranging the deckchairs as the power of the monarchy , the dual monarchy , which england thought they could use to control scotland , waned , so they needed the political representation sent to Westminster to curb the threat of Scotlands parliament leaving the kingdom which was created in 1603. not 1707. Do try and keep up. another one like vinny who knows nothing about his own multi national state, yet rants deliriously about it incessantly. Are you now trying to tell me the English king was not king of ireland pre 1603? Ireland was a kingdom of the English crown , ruled by the English crown via its colonial parliament , since the Tudor times , and like scotland ,when the power of. the crown waned , they bribed the irish colonial lords into union in 1801 to maintain Englands power over Ireland. re arranging the deck chairs. So I repeat , there has never in history been a country called great Britain. It is a geographical name , like Scandinavia , or Iberia , an island . always throughout history multi national multi ethnic , as far back as scholastic research can penetrate over two thousand years. For someone who likes to think he knows so much you understand very little. This is probably down to your obsessive need to spin and twist everything to suit your banal Indy posturing but, whatever the cause, it is quite sad, really. i am not going to repeat everything that I said above because what I said is correct and doesn’t need repeating in full so I will just reiterate the key points I.e. Scotland and England both ceased to exist as countries when they united in 1707 to form the new country of Great Britain. The country of Great Britain ceased to exist in 1801 when it united with the country of Ireland to form the new country commonly referrered to as the UK. Ireland was a client state under the domination and the rule of England and/or Great Britain for several centuries prior to the formation of the UK but it was never part of England or Great Britain. You are correct to say that Great Britain is a geographical name i.e. the name of the largest island in the British Isles, but surely, even with your restricted ability to understand things, you realise that that doesn’t preclude it from also being, or from having also been, the name of a country, which it was from 1707 until 1801 and which, presumably, it would be again if Irish reunification were ever to happen. |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Aug 19, 2024 14:18:26 GMT
I think you can answer that. If Scotland were a drain on the UK's coffers, Westminster would deliver independence on a silver platter. But the Scots, who comprise only about 12% of the UK population, are sitting on natural asset resources valued at around 30-34% of the total UK annual value, not so? I'm guessing that is something Westminster doesn't want to pass up. without a doubt Ripley. These people are so mental they keep deluding themselves that england subsidies scotland. Its nothing new though , the idea they went out , colonised countries , and brought civilisation and subsidy to the empire , rather than the other way around. How Britain stole $45 trillion from India
And lied about it.
There is a story that is commonly told in Britain that the colonisation of India – as horrible as it may have been – was not of any major economic benefit to Britain itself. If anything, the administration of India was a cost to Britain. So the fact that the empire was sustained for so long – the story goes – was a gesture of Britain’s benevolence.
New research by the renowned economist Utsa Patnaik – just published by Columbia University Press – deals a crushing blow to this narrative. Drawing on nearly two centuries of detailed data on tax and trade, Patnaik calculated that Britain drained a total of nearly $45 trillion from India during the period 1765 to 1938.
It’s a staggering sum. For perspective, $45 trillion is 17 times more than the total annual gross domestic product of the United Kingdom today. www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2018/12/19/how-britain-stole-45-trillion-from-india Indeed, that's the harsh truth. When independence happens, it will be most interesting to see the extent of Westminster's creative accounting practices revealed. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Aug 19, 2024 15:28:45 GMT
The UK has only been a democracy since the 1920s. Hardly surprising that we had a bit of sorting things out to do even in the 1930s.
Nevertheless the UK stood up to National Socialism whilst the SNP wanted us to be defeated by it, in order to create a Quisling state in Scotland free of English people.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 19, 2024 15:35:01 GMT
The UK has only been a democracy since the 1920s. Hardly surprising that we had a bit of sorting things out to do even in the 1930s. Nevertheless the UK stood up to National Socialism whilst the SNP wanted us to be defeated by it, in order to create a Quisling state in Scotland free of English people. FFS, I used to rate you as a genuinely intelligent and balanced poster; now you are almost as looney, and detached from reality as Rebirth. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Aug 19, 2024 16:31:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Aug 19, 2024 21:44:34 GMT
I think you can answer that. If Scotland were a drain on the UK's coffers, Westminster would deliver independence on a silver platter. But the Scots, who comprise only about 12% of the UK population, are sitting on natural asset resources valued at around 30-34% of the total UK annual value, not so? I'm guessing that is something Westminster doesn't want to pass up. without a doubt Ripley. These people are so mental they keep deluding themselves that england subsidies scotland. Its nothing new though , the idea they went out , colonised countries , and brought civilisation and subsidy to the empire , rather than the other way around. How Britain stole $45 trillion from India
And lied about it.
There is a story that is commonly told in Britain that the colonisation of India – as horrible as it may have been – was not of any major economic benefit to Britain itself. If anything, the administration of India was a cost to Britain. So the fact that the empire was sustained for so long – the story goes – was a gesture of Britain’s benevolence.
New research by the renowned economist Utsa Patnaik – just published by Columbia University Press – deals a crushing blow to this narrative. Drawing on nearly two centuries of detailed data on tax and trade, Patnaik calculated that Britain drained a total of nearly $45 trillion from India during the period 1765 to 1938.
It’s a staggering sum. For perspective, $45 trillion is 17 times more than the total annual gross domestic product of the United Kingdom today. www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2018/12/19/how-britain-stole-45-trillion-from-indiawell that has been debunked by many people - I'm surprised you fell for it. Although thinking about it, it fits quite nicely with your victimhood syndrome. British India and the $45-Trillion Lie |
|
|
|
Post by Rebirth on Aug 19, 2024 23:58:22 GMT
without a doubt Ripley. These people are so mental they keep deluding themselves that england subsidies scotland. Its nothing new though , the idea they went out , colonised countries , and brought civilisation and subsidy to the empire , rather than the other way around. How Britain stole $45 trillion from India
And lied about it.
There is a story that is commonly told in Britain that the colonisation of India – as horrible as it may have been – was not of any major economic benefit to Britain itself. If anything, the administration of India was a cost to Britain. So the fact that the empire was sustained for so long – the story goes – was a gesture of Britain’s benevolence.
New research by the renowned economist Utsa Patnaik – just published by Columbia University Press – deals a crushing blow to this narrative. Drawing on nearly two centuries of detailed data on tax and trade, Patnaik calculated that Britain drained a total of nearly $45 trillion from India during the period 1765 to 1938.
It’s a staggering sum. For perspective, $45 trillion is 17 times more than the total annual gross domestic product of the United Kingdom today. www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2018/12/19/how-britain-stole-45-trillion-from-indiawell that has been debunked by many people - I'm surprised you fell for it. Although thinking about it, it fits quite nicely with your victimhood syndrome. British India and the $45-Trillion LieRipley's, too. |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Aug 20, 2024 10:18:11 GMT
We should not be surprised about any of this. With diminishing levels of Indy enthusiasm amongst the Scottish people, no credible economic case for Indy to offer, no solution to the fiscal devastation that independence would bring, and 25 years worth of evidence that decision-making from Holyrood does not result in better government after all, what is left for Indy supporters to say or do other than to prop up and indulge each other’s victimhood syndroms, unwarranted anti-UK prejudices, and cringeworthy conspiracy theories, all of which are on display in the exchanges above? We should probably just leave them in peace to wallow in their self-pity, their twisted resentment and their paranoia, safe in the knowledge that they can’t cause much harm now that the threat of independence has thankfully been kicked into the long grass for the foreseeable future at least.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Aug 20, 2024 11:55:21 GMT
Like I say, pull the rug from under them.
Abolish devolution. Save everyone a lot of money and spend it where it's most needed.
Places like Jaywick, which really are deprived.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Aug 20, 2024 12:59:10 GMT
I have a lot of sympathy with your view that money is limited and that what is available should go where it is most needed, Vinny, and it is certainly hard to argue with that principle. However, you are obviously a better man than I am in this respect because for as long as Westminster continues to provide Scotland (and therefore me and those that I care about) with such a massive fiscal boost year after year after year, then I am happy for that to continue as it improves our lives and those of the Scottish people in general, the most needy and most vulnerable in particular, by providing us with benefits and quality of lives that far exceed what most of us would otherwise be able to enjoy within or outwith the UK. That is so self-evident from the GERS reports that it baffles me why so many of my fellow Scots want to walk away from all of that and bring horrendous fiscal damage crashing down upon our heads instead - yet they have the bare-faced cheek to claim that they are the ones who care about Scotland and the Scottish people!
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Aug 20, 2024 13:12:43 GMT
If Scotland needs subsidy, then it should be subsidised.
If it does not, then redirect taxpayers to the most deprived parts of the UK.
I believe in means testing, not favouritism.
|
|
