politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why Sturgeon’s SIndy2 isn’t a gamble; it’s a necessity
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why Sturgeon’s SIndy2 isn’t a gamble; it’s a necessity
In addition, I was elected as FM on a clear manifesto commitment re #scotref. The PM is not yet elected by anyone.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
In the words of Echo & The Bunnymen: nothing comes to those who wait.
Maybe I'm cynical about things, but is the Greens' backing really not guaranteed? They want this too, and have little to worry about losing should it blow up in their faces.
Short-term pain is justified by long-term gain. To the extent that short-term pain needs to be minimised, it’s a matter of the tactics and politics necessary to gain the support that will launch independence but otherwise only a secondary consideration.
One thing that annoyed about Sindy and Brexit was the side advocating change refusing to acknowledge any short term pain, even though as you point out its not that it won't happen, but that it is justified.
But scottish threads get my bile up, so good day all.
https://twitter.com/scotgp/status/841266977243029505
I would be HUGELY surprised if there hadn't been consultations with Patrick Harvie beforehand.
Please please Theresa, tell the jumped up little twerp to get back in her box - and put some serious money into campaigning in the Scottish locals on health, education and policing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/14/someones-gone-full-donald-trump-nicola-sturgeon-ruth-davidson/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
1) Nicola Sturgeon had made her argument on the basis of having been elected in the first place; and
2) She had not subsequently been re-elected.
As it is, her point seems entirely reasonable - a much higher proportion of Scots voted for the SNP in 2016 than for the Conservatives in 2015 and no one (not even the Conservative party membership) has yet had the opportunity to vote for any programme put forward by Theresa May.
Constitutional chaos is surely the better option for opportunities & advertising revenue here rather than say the very very boring 2001-2005 period.
He omits to consider Le Pen's promise to rule by plebiscite promises regarding referendums. She wants a referendum on changing the constitution, and she wants to enable a referendum whenever 500,000 people want one. Holding plebiscites is one of her most important policies. If implemented it will change the face of France. Say hello to the reign of the alt-droite.
Democracy in action...
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/841638274665963521
https://twitter.com/gdnpolitics/status/841616165122187266
Anyway I'm giving the Nats the benefit of the doubt regarding the currency but the EU can not, it will not change the deficit rules for a new country. At the very least they will want to see tax rises and/or spending cuts.
My question is, where are these coming from.
If the SNP win the referendum, and Scotland applies for EU membership suddenly everyone will be asking the same question. I'm just getting about 3 years ahead of the curve here.
Scotland is DEFINITELY heading into the Euro if it becomes independent, the Nats just need to be honest about this one.
I'm not sure what's more disturbing, the idea that our government is that stupid or the idea that they think we're that stupid.
Recent Scotland polling suggests there's really no appetite for going through all that again, so the PM should push it as far into the future as possible, preferably until after the 2021 Scottish elections. In the meantime, the opposition parties north of the border need to be relentless in ignoring constitutional questions and hold the Scottish government to account for what they're doing in their areas of power.
But if we're not out the EU by then, tough (For the Tories and the uncertainty narrative). Autumn 2019 looks a good time to me for Indy Ref II.
They would also have "to pursue price stability as the primary objective of monetary policy", which is a bit difficult if you haven't got a central bank and don't issue any currency.
Both Gordon Brown and Theresa May have (so far) never won a General Election.
But what they won't yield on is the 3% deficit issue, or at least a commitment and actions to Scotland getting its house in order on that front. They are welcoming bunch in general the EU, but they just want to avoid another Greece and not put more stress on the ECB as neccesary.
Mrs May is frit, this does not bode well for our Brexit deal.
And public opinion would shift substantially in favour of independence if it became a fact on the ground whereas the current situation is just going to leave the nation divided forever.
So on balance I am for independence, though it is for the Scots to decide - not me.
And we’re really missing MalcG’s carefully thought out contributions.
Tues: Getting rid of nukes is the SNP's raison d'être
Weds: Anti English racism is the SNP's raison d'être
Thurs: Stoking up grievance is the SNP's raison d'être
etc
What a lot of raisons.
But who's going to lend money against the McPoond to finance the public spending deficit, and what happens when almost the entire Scottish financial services sector moves to London or Dublin?
"Opec has raised its 2017 estimates for oil production from outside of the cartel as US shale drillers ramp up activity in response to higher prices, underlining the threat to the group’s attempts to balance the market.
Non-Opec oil supply is now projected to grow by around 400,000 barrels a day this year to average 57.7m b/d, Opec said in said in its monthly market report. That marks a 300,000 b/d increase on its total forecast just one month ago and comes after a near 10 per cent drop in prices last week, as traders fret over shale’s potential to overwhelm the cartel’s own supply cuts."
Now she can't get the major plank of her Budget passed, and part of her country is closer to secession than ever before.
GCC countries are pushing ahead with plan to introduce VAT next year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_Scots
The fact that the recession will actually be the result of (a) the cyclical nature of economies generally, and (b) the UK's particular vulnerability given its quadruple deficits, is by-the-by.
People, as Donald Trump has just proven, love simple narratives.
She's going to face down Sturgeon too, by the sounds of it.
Balls to frit.
Why, only this week I've heard that Article 50 was definitely going to be triggered yesterday or today, it was 50/50 that it would be triggered yesterday or today, that it was never going to be triggered yesterday or today and that it is definitely going to be triggered at the end of the month and not before.
And that's just from British government sources.
Last time it was looked at:
It is difficult to estimate Scottish contributions to the EU budget, but let us see how much it will contribute based on the assumptions made by the pro-independence campaign. Assume that Scotland will keep the rebate (which is unlikely), and that it will contribute the same amount as it did when it was part of the UK (although this is also unlikely). Scotland is expected to pay the EU £3.3bn over seven years from 2014-2020 if it remains in the UK. That’s around £160m per year after the rebate, which, using the 2011 figures, places Scotland 25th in terms of contributions, behind comparatively undeveloped new entrants, such as Romania and Bulgaria (the latter has population comparable to that of Scotland). Thus, if the pro-independence campaigners do not budge, Scotland’s contributions would not be tempting for the EU.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/scotland-and-the-eu-terms-and-conditions/