British Indy: What Happens Now?

You never seen fin speak before tb?

Everything good in Scotchland.....snp did it, Everything bad in Scotchland, tories at westminster did it grrrrr

That's what makes him so cute

 

see 3451.

 

Your right TB it's not simple, but privatisation didn't roll back any of Beeching's cuts so surely not an influencer on the rapid growth in passenger rail use. I don't think privatised rail services are fantastic, only a hell of a lot better than the old British Rail service, albeit at too high a cost but that's another subject.

 

This ain't going to end well folks. The man Bojo is maniacal.

 

Just for balance you understand as some struggle with it

Google is underreporting spending on UK political adverts, in one case by a factor of a thousand, the company has admitted.

Like many technology companies, Google voluntarily publishes a weekly transparency report, providing updates on how much money has been spent by political parties and other organisations on adverts.

But the reports, which include historical data as well as the latest week’s spending, vary wildly week by week, with no clear reason for the discrepancies.

In the most extreme case, the company’s transparency report published this week included the claim that Labour spent just £50 on adverts in the week beginning 27 October, when the election was called, and nothing at all in the week following. That would mean that, for the week immediately following the dissolution of parliament, Labour ran no adverts on Google Search or YouTube, or on the company’s wider ad network.

In fact, Labour was advertising heavily in that period, spending tens of thousands of pounds on adverts on Google Search results for terms including “Brexit party” and “Brexit”.

The correct figures were disclosed by Google in a previous version of its transparency report, no longer available on its website: the party spent £63,900 in two weeks, at least 1,000 times more than the amount reported by Google.

A similar, though smaller, discrepancy exists in the spend reported for the Conservative party. Originally, the Tory spend was reported as £12,450, but in the latest version of the report that is downgraded to £9,900.

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...its-major-underreporting-of-election-ad-spend

 

I think they are all at it! Online material should have the same rules and regs as print media. If anyone/company, publishes something that is wrong, libelous, etc. There should be a suitably powered, regulatory body to challenge and prosecute as necessary. Instead it's the wild west out there.

 

Scotland is not in a good shape financially. we have homelessness. tho I believe its a lower proportion than rUK.
we have child poverty. tho I believe its a lower proportion than rUK.
we have some of the highest mortality rates in the UK.
we have crime, but it is at a 40year low.
There are plenty of countries out there, with a fraction of our resources, our size, and doing better. there is nobody on here, bar one or two, that compliments the integrity and performance of the UK Gov.
what I tend to do when you guys are having a bitch and a moan about the UK, it is only you lot that start these threads, is point out that there is a Devolved Gov doing better in most, if not all the areas we are responsible for while implementing center left polices including a progressive income tax policy. the only tax raising power wee have, (don't bother me with the minutia noob) and with no borrowing powers.
while the forum massive is telling us what is and is not possible, I am demonstrating what is. which generally leads to cries of "incompetent scroungers". or words to that affect. we hear it all the time and have done for decades. you're an odd bunch and no less contradictory than those you elect. and from what I can make out from yer constant moaning, you despise. give us a break man, take a wee listen to yourselves.
we are incompetent because our services are better funded?
we are scroungers for being affective at arguing our case?
you lot start threads (not us) to tell us how we are too wee and too poor, then I will attempt to demonstrate that we are not.
you lot will start endless threads, bitching how your getting ripped off here there and everywhere, and when we agree but disagree on the solutions, you lot go on the defensive which ultimately leads to pages and pages of insults and noobstats. noobstates many will disagree with on other threads.
so, why do half the country Want indi? because we cant change what you lot don't want to. why do we Need indi? because most countries in the west, our size, with nothing close to what we have are doing considerably better for them selves.
like it or not, for as long a you guys start these threads, i'm gonna point out where I feel its going wrong, and to take a leaf out of noobs book of diplomacy, you cool with that butter cup?

 

Mostly on the money fin questions have been asked on the contradictive claims of the snp.

aye, we are one of the worlds tops economies,
but you have one of the worse debts of any nation in the eu but get more per person than any other nation in the u.k.?
aye, that'll be the tories inwestminster that did it , grrr

 

told yah.
yip, 5th biggest economy. I think we are the only energy rich, education rich, fresh water rich, food rich, export rich tourism rich politically stable (us, not you) countries with rising poverty and food bank usage on the planet. well done, you did good.
we have no debt, we cant borrow, we get allocated a population share of UK debt made by governments we don't elect buying tax policies, wars and missiles we cant afford.

 

oh, and for every time we say Westminster Grr. you lot will have said it 20times.

 

Buttercup !!!!!

Well Sunshine, I seem to have pushed button there.

I have taken it from your

reply that as Scotland had nothing to do with the banking crisis its your opinion that they are not held responsible for making good the failed bank of RBS.

Now whether Scotland is independent or not, Fred Goodwin is very much responsible for destroying RBS. It may be that junk bonds given triple A status originated in America but good ole Fred bought the fuckers without due diligence (like many other banks around the world) and RBS needed bailing out big time.

As it happens Scotland were not independent and so the BoE bailed RBS out (and your calculation of a 9% contribution seems to have been done grudgingly). However, my point is that had Scotland been independent at the time they would have had to bail it out 100% or let it go to the wall (possibly without the customer protections the BoE gives to English banks).

So saying "a banking crisis not of our making" is churlish beyond belief because the bank failed and action was needed. I don't recall anyone any where in the world shouting "but this banking crisis is not of our making" and it all turning out smelling of roses and continuing as if nothing had happened.

Or have I unwittingly stumbled across the planned economic model for Scotland.

TB