Jump to content

Jedi2

Trust Member
  • Posts

    2,775
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by Jedi2

  1. Ultimately though 2 or 3 charges surrounding financial malpractice and you might think 'possibly no worse than what most clubs in the PL get up to'. But, when it's the most expensive squad ever assembled (over a period of several years) bankrolled, not by one or two major investors, but an oil rich nation state which can bring political pressure to bear on others, you begin to wonder if there is more to it. Interesting that allegations seem to follow Guardiola around...from the match fixing investigations into his time as manager if Barca, and now this. Doesn't mean that he is 'guilty' of course unless proven so by a tribunal, but interesting none the less.
  2. Remember the days of Kilmarnock 0 v Partick Thistle 1 being an absolute stick on result when they would come to RP, score fairly early and then sit in, time waste, their way to what felt like always winning by 1 goal. Also the marathon Scottish Cup ties in 83..was at the 1st,3rd, and 4th games..you just knew they were going to score late on in ET when it was at 0-0.
  3. The reason City are unlikely to be found guilty remains that it would be tantamount to accusing a nation state, in this case, the UAE of 'cheating'. That opens too many political cans of worms, and with the UAE being a major oil producing outlet, politics would trump ethics.
  4. There will be Saudi teams in it without a doubt. Man City eyeing it up as an 'escape route' if the FA find against them with the 115 charges? as suggested above. Could easily see them being the first franchise to move to Saudi while keeping the name Man City, and wouldn't be surprised to see Guardiola taking the Saudi national team job alongside his City role (for an 'extra' £20 million or so a year of course)
  5. Number of WM seats has been reduced to 57, so 29 is now a majority (which again could be reached by various psychologists calculations on around 35% of the vote). So not UDI, but asking the monarch to dissolve the Treaty of Union on those terms...could they/should they, do that?
  6. So if the SNP get their 29 seats in the next few months, Scotland would now be in a 'hostage' situation? As said my preferred route to Constitutional change is a govt formed by between 40-45% of the vote which then, with cross parliamentary support makes changes with over 50%...same as is required (and accepted by both sides) in any Referendum. If the 29 seats occur, the SNP can of course approach Charles to dissolve the 1707 Act of Union by Royal Prerogative. Not Westminster, not Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak, but the monarch. In fact with a current 'mandate' in the Scottish Parliament as they have, they could take that route tomorrow. Why then, don't they?
  7. Clearly, in order to form a govt in the first place, Labour would need somewhere around 40-45% of the vote. In order to pass Constitutional changes, they would need cross parliamentary support which I imagine, would come from the Lib Dems (who would probably have secured around 10% of the vote, and are always open to Constitutional change, and who knows, maybe even the SNP MPs). Therefore those Constitutional changes would only go through with the support of party groupings combined which had over 50% of the public vote in a GE. Not quite sure why that's an 'affront to democracy'. Could the SNP have declared UDI after the GEs of 2015, 17 and 19? By their current position, yes, they could, but they presumably believed then that it would be a hard sell. Thatcher was 'open' to the idea when the SNP were returning 3 MPs to Westminster so was hardly a 'risky' strategy for her. You will also note that earlier in the thread I stated that I think that there should have been a Referendum in this Holyrood session as the SNP currently have a mandate for one with the Greens.
  8. No, what I'm saying is that the summary here appears to be that if the SNP win 29 or 30 seats next year possibly on a 35% share, (which would be a loss of around 20 seats), means that Scotland is then Independent. I reckon that scenario would be a rather hard sell to the general public. Not entirely sure what is 'knobish' about that assertion. I have never mentioned any affront to democracy, that, apparently is the Tories winning 43% of the share in 2019 but still being 'allowed' to form a govt by the corrupt Westminster system. Labour will also not be able to form a govt next year (and implement any kind of Constitutional change)without around 40-45% of the vote, time will tell if they achieve that or not..there is a long way to go.35% UK wide doesn't get a 'landslide' of any kind..it gets a defeat.
  9. It's 'Unionist Colonialism' for UDI to take place in theory with 35% (or less) support in an election? Independence it seems, is therefore just a few months away. With their almost unblemished record in govt over 17 years, an irresistible proposal for how Independence would work, and a devastatingly popular Humza Yousaf in charge, the SNP seem set to win almost every seat in Scotland at the GE, and don't need to worry about vote percentages.
  10. Is the 'current assault on the powers of Holyrood' a reference to the GRA? The first and only time in 24 years of Devolution that Westminster has had to challenge a bill which contravenes the Equality Act which applies across the UK? That the one? Starmer isn't going to challenge crumbling public services...what are the neoliberal SNP doing to challenge that in Scotland? Freezing Council Tax?
  11. On the topic of percentages of the vote..current SNP policy is 'win a majority of seats at the GE and that's it, we are Independent'. Around 35% of the vote (which they could get) would probably be enough to win most seats. So, is that enough for a UDI? Can see them taking it to the UN...what percentage did you get?..35. What percentage voted for parties which back the union...er, 65r%..that seems fair. Speaking of broken promises..wasn't a National Care Service a 'flagship policy' for this Parliament? Yet now on the back burner for 'at least 3 years' Or what about replacing Council Tax with a local income tax (policy since 2007)..Still waiting. Or maybe the Ferry Replacements?
  12. Well we only have 2 years until your prediction comes to fruition, so not too long to wait.
  13. 18 months tops...so by your calculations we will be Independent and back in the EU by mid 2026 (after the SNP comfortably win the majority of seats at the GE presumably) That pesky EU Acquis again.. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-converges-principles-new-debt-rules-no-deal-yet-details-2023-03-14/ Requirements for new applicants (which Scotland is, with the UK outside the EU)..3% public debt (currently at 9% and rising) and by the SNP's own estimates requiring a near decade of essentially austerity to get to 3% or less. Don't object to EFTA, but that ain't SNP policy.
  14. Let's say there was a Referendum in the next couple of years (don't think there will be, but still). Yes win by 52-48...(and a divided electorate, same as Brexit, bit hey, that's democracy) you then have probably 5 (at least) years of negotiations to get an agreement on shared debt/assets/how its all going to work. Then (going by the plans) 10 years of cutting spending to meet EU criteria during which time Sterling is still used...So we are 15 years in, and then have a 'maybe/maybe not' back in the EU, during which time public services have been cut back to the bone...not a 'colony' as you put it but all that time before the 'golden age' arrives? Thr SNP have surely done damage to the Yes campaign over the past year. They may not be the 'Independence Campaign' but they are the voting side of it. As a right wing party (economically) with a preference for low tax, low regulation, boosting private sector over public, the Scottish economy is not in great shape. Add in the financial 'shenanigans' which may or not get to court. Are they in a position to 'sweep the board' at the GE next year and declare UDI or get another Ref?
  15. A 'colony' which has very other power under its remit?
  16. When you live on an island (which Scotland would still be post-Independence, unless you tow it away), it makes sense to me to have a shared defence.The cost of Scotland setting up its own security services (equivalents of M15, M16 etc), as well as a navy to patrol the North Sea, a defensive army..is prohibitive. If a Council of the Nations is set up after the next GE as currently proposed with the H of L abolished, it makes sense for Scotland not to send MPs to Westminster. That process is a starting point to have the very few remaining reserved powers of immigration, broadcasting, and parts of employment law transfered to Holyrood. Also, when you live on a shared island, immigration policy in one part obviously affects others so there has to be some areas of agreement on quotas etc. Under those circumstances, Scotland would effectively have decision making over all its own affairs, without the cost of setting up a separate defence. The reps on the Council of Nations would have a power of veto over any issues which negatively affected legislation in Scotland. Still live on a shared island, but all political decisions of consequence are made in Edinburgh not London. All taxes are raised and spent in Scotland. There is no Barnett Formula as don't need one. Scottish govt is able to borrow on its own terms. The only current route to that is a Labour govt making good on its proposal for the Council of Nations, with negotiations to follow on the other powers. (Another Tory govt will never pursue anything other than the status quo). The alternative is 'waiting' on Westminster to ever agree to another Independence Referendum
  17. My preference would still be for Full Fiscal Autonomy..powers over all issues apart from defence/foreign policy. Means that Scotland would be entirely responsible for tax, borrowing and spending, while using the pound. No Scottish MPs at Westminster but could send reps to a Council of the Nations. Reckon if the SNP switched to campaigning for this after next year could be a winner...don't even need a Referendum..it would be an agreement between Holyrood and WM to set it up.
  18. Again, I'm.not saying that Scotland couldn't be Independent, of course it could. Should there be another Referendum? Yes, as the current Scot govt currently have a mandate for one, and in the event of a majority voting Yes, of course that should be it. However, I still reckon that it would be a bumpy few years to say the least, that negotiations would take a while, that a move to a Scot currency would be a minefield, and that using the pound would probably last for some time, meaning that it wouldn't really be 'Independence' economically. On the E, U, I fear for the knock on effect for public services to get the finances down to a level which would meet the terms of the EU's own Aquis Accord. If over 50% of folk are happy to go with a fair amount of pain before gain, to be able to elect their 'own' govt (as we do at the moment with Holyrood) then again, go for it.
  19. That would be the oil and gas which is planned to be 'phased out', so would be rather more short term collateral.. no? Scotland would indeed have a share of UK assets (around 9% as Zorro suggested), and would also of course take on a percentage of UK debt for a period. Indeed negotiations on assets/debts etc would need to be built into any post-Independence negotiations with rUK, and if you thought Brexit was a tough, torturous, process..you ain't seen nothin yet by comparison...it would take years.
  20. On International markets a lot of countries still choose to hold the pound in reserve which means that it is regarded as 'stable' in terms of trade and unlikely to default. The dollar, euro, and yen also have periods of significant fluctuation but likewise are also held in reserve across the world. Again, how does the new Scottish currency (by the SNP's own estimates) probably 5 to 10 years post-Independence float on International markets as it would need to? What foreign reserves does the Scottish Central Bank need to hold and how much security does it have, and then how does the govt borrow against its new currency in order to fund public services? Or does it need to significantly hike taxes to do so?
  21. Of course, if the net worth of govt assets in terms of land and buildings etc was to be realised it would probably be worth less than 12 trillion, and indeed would also need a 'buyer' and who do you sell off govt land etc to? Fair points. However, as the pound is still regarded as a stable currency, foreign banks and investors are still willing to hold reserves of it, trade in it, and buy up UK govt bonds (indeed around a quarter of govt debt is held by foreign investors). That all means that the UK govt can continue to borrow albeit clearly the debt figure needs to come down eventually. Let's say a 'new' Scottish currency was to be issued by a Scottish National Investmemt Bank next year. How is it valued? Which currency is it pegged against? (as it would have to be in the first instance) Is it the pound? Why would foreign banks/investors choose to hold reserves of it? And if they don't how the Scottish govt borrow? What are its securities? Or are you back to keeping the pound and letting the B of E set borrowing rates and interest rates? If so, isn't really 'Independence' it's just swapping the flag. Or is (eventually/maybe) the Euro, and then financial borrowing is set by Brussels/Germany?
  22. Hmm. UK Public Sector Net Worth, made up of govt owned land, buildings, and debt owed to them etc is around £12 trillion..which continues to keep the UK as the world's 6th largest economy. Up against that, the govt owes around £2 trillion with the Tories being notoriously high borrowers in order to try and reduce taxes. So, really given that most UK govt debt is held by amd covered by the Bank of England it doesn't make high borrowing as much of an issue. Of course the Bank of England can also buy as many govt bonds as it likes to enable the govt to borrow against and always acts as a lender of last resort. Lucky then perhaps that the SNP want to keep the Bank of England post Independence (their proposals,not mine)...Given that the said Bank of England would then have a major say over an Independent Scotlands borrowing capacity and have a major input into interest rates in Scotland as well as England...is that the 'Independence' to (finally) make all your own decisions you really want? I appreciate that at present, the Scottish govt doesn't really have any financial power of it's own, so at least (with thr B of E still controlling interest rates, currency and borrowing) under Independence you can swap one flag for another. Sorry, forgot that around 10 to 15 years, post-Independence you 'might' get to join the Euro (if public services have been slashed enough to meet the 3% debt/acquis target), then the EU Central Bank can call the expending shots.
  23. Which part of 'delusional Yoon who licks the boots of your masters' needs to be addressed? I appreciate that it's cutting edge political analysis, but still. The points on Wales have been 'addressed' in terms of the fact that Wales has an Assembly, not a Parliament, and has less fiscal levers to wok with than Scotland, as well as agreement that the Welsh administration doesn't perform well. None of the points about governance in Scotland have been addressed (other than 'boot licking Yoons f#******** #********* colonised etc, I suppose that counts). Also, the SNP (on a good day at the moment poll around 40%, and 45% at the last GE)...that means around 55-60% polling for Lab, Tories and Lib Dems all of which support the union.
  24. But your reading of The NaTioNalll gives you the 'truth and nothing but the truth' and the wherewithal to denigrate around 60% of the Scottish voting public is beneath your intellectual mastery due to what said Nationally suggests.
  25. But 1 in 4 children in poverty in Scotland, crumbling public services, a stagnation of post school positive destinations and high youth unemployment is all okay, again, because Wales has 'worse' indicators, and the Scottish govt does a magnificent job within the many constraints it has, whereas Wales does a terrible job despite the freeoms it has by comparison.
×
×
  • Create New...