Leaderboard

Laurence. A bit like CB, I’ve avoided this one because it becomes wearisome to witness the amount of bunkum churned up and presented as fact by both sides. Mostly, it’s just that – bunkum, but occasionally there comes along one dripping in arrogance, half truth, misplaced observation and plain falsehood. It’s usually unionist and your post fits the bill Before anyone gets apoplectic I’ll explain why. That Scotland cannot afford to be independent is simply untrue. Economically, brexit – driven and idealogically born in England - changes everything. The economic cost to the UK of leaving the EU could be as high as a reduction of 10 per cent in average incomes by 2030. If Scotland, by becoming independent, can avoid that fate then there is a clear long term economic gain. Also, if it can remain in the single market, it becomes a gateway to inward investment and immigration that the UK used to be. David Davis for RUK, on the other hand hasn’t even counted the cost (see his answers to Hillary Benn in committee this week) A hard brexit will mean potentially crippling levels of tariff imposed on Scottish goods. The question actually is that can Scotland afford NOT to be independent. NHS Scotland has an annual budget of £12.2 billion per year and as you know is paid for through general taxation (including that levied on it’s 160,00 or so employees) As you know, general taxation is not tied to oil and gas revenue so I can’t really see where the direct correlation arises. Anayway, the oil and gas industry is not funded by UK treasury. Income from it has dropped to £60 million per year from £8.1 billion per year – bad enough in it’s self – but your assertion isn’t true. It’s possible to improve overall economics by growing revenue (see above) and redefining spending priorities such as not continuing to fund part of a £205 billion spend on nuclear submarines. There’s your NHS. OPEC has always controlled oil prices and this will not affect Scotland more than it will any other country. The current crisis has been precipitated by OPEC driving down prices to make (mainly) US fracking unsustainable. Given that Scotlands policy is to be 50% reliant on renewables by 2030 (currently, scottish renewable generation makes up approximately 26.4% of total UK output) If oil prices rise again by 2022 (your figure, not mine) the net revenue rises against a lower cost base. All to the good, improves overall economics. I needn’t point out that none of this is UK Gvernment policy. There are 2.52 million income taxpayers in Scotland (8.5% of UK total) generating £11.4 billion per annum. They can (and do) support the country. Scottish productivity is 4 times that of the UK average. The balance of payments (structural deficit) is challenging but addressing it “as is” implies no change in funding, policy or investment in the case of independence. You can bet your bottom dollar that change would in fact be rapid, progressive and egalitarian in focus. Your next two points regarding trucks at gretna and their contents are demostrably nonsense but they illustrate a point. It’s where the drippy arrogance comes in. Discount whisky, salmon, beef and lamb, chemicals, petroleum products, electronics, renewables and textiles which accounted for £4.3 billion in revenue in 2013. Discount that almost two-thirds of Scotland's total exports fall into five categories: business services, instrument engineering, chemicals, food and beverages, and mechanical engineering. There is expertise in this country. Other Scottish exports include textiles and equipment and technology relating to renewable energies. Discount that top importers of Scottish products include Germany, France, the Netherlands and the United States Timber and Livestock ? Wheesht.. Whilst we are at it, the Greece argument is utter tosh and originally produced as a headline in the Times, nothing more. It was based on data and methodology which was flawed to say the least (it quotes, for instance, the Scottish “addiction” to tax and spend) and has been widely discredited. Greece was an economic basket case and bears no resemblance to the Scottish scenario. There you have it friend. Not a single point you have made stands scrutiny. I appreciate and welcome your right to input and put forward arguments but at least “do the math” before committing – that way you might realise that you will have no bill to pay.

You should buy one. Election success guaranteed.

I agree. It's cringeworthy.

in the interests of fairness and balance ...... the "Alben" strip also comes in red/black.

I think I'm going to keep out of this having been to..... well you can't really say "Damascus" these days... for my holidays, so let me just describe myself as having had a moment of Epiphany! In order to perform an administrative function with an organisation I'm involved with, I've had to join Facebook - with the collateral effect of having become aware of comments on the Facebook pages of the likes of the SNP, Nicola Sturgeon, Humza Yousaf and the National "newspaper". So, having taken a few scans through that lot, all I can say to the people on here is - sorry folks... I have probably been far too scathing of a lot you have said on here about the nationalist question, now I have seen the emanations of some of these other pages! I am actually being quite serious here by saying that. Compared with what I have now seen elsewhere from far more SNP supporters than you would ever find on here, the Nats on CTO present well argued, literate (especially literate!), polite cases with not an expletive, term of abuse or outburst of paranoia in sight. So with the genuine observation that Oddquine is actually a relative moderate, I will bid you all good night again and return to a much happier hunting ground for winding up nationalists!

I'm not going to respond to Oddquine's rant in full. It would take far too long. I'll just respond to the nonsense at the beginning and the nonsense at the end. Oddquine starts with the standard nationalist trick of making her point based on what she would have liked her political opponent to have said rather than on what they actually did say. I'm not going to waste time repeating what I said but suffice it to say that her reply completely fails to address the point I was making. She concludes by refuting my suggestion that the Scottish Government does not even know what currency we would use following independence - but then makes a statement which clearly demonstrates my point! And all the stuff in between equally misses the point. Yes, I understand that the constitutional position of Scotland within the United Kingdom is complex but I fail to see the point of debating that when the relevant issues are far more straightforward. We have a Scottish Government which is refusing to respect the results of two referendums and which lied to its people about its intention to honour the result of the independence referendum. Yet somehow in her lengthy post Oddquine simply ignores this shameful anti-democratic behaviour. Personally I think the behaviour of the Scottish Parliament in 2017 is rather more relevant than that of the English Parliament in 1687.

It's the First Minister who looks as though she is filing for divorce. The Prime Minister is simply moving away from neighbours who have, perhaps, become a bit too clingy and demanding.