IntenseDebate - StropWhistle

4 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Henry Hill: Welsh Tori... · 0 replies · +1 points

And the creation of Police Scotland was supported by the Scottish Conservatives at the time. It was even in their manifesto.

4 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Huw Davies: As 'One Na... · 0 replies · +1 points

So you don't have any evidence to back up your claim that Scotland has a national debt off 7% then?

4 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Huw Davies: As 'One Na... · 1 reply · +1 points

Well it's nice to (finally) meet someone, whom I presume is a unionist, who doesn't think GERS is a 100% accurate report on what the finances of an independent Scotland would like! However even a cursory glance reveals that GERS has little accuracy even so, for example oil revenue is divided up on a "population basis"! Are we supposed to believe that the vast majority of north sea oil is extracted outwith "Scottish waters" even though the majority of the UK's exclusive economic area is in fact Scottish?

But at no point does GERS state that Scotland has a national debt of 7%, so perhaps you could produce some evidence to support your claim?

4 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Huw Davies: As 'One Na... · 0 replies · +1 points

Would that be the same sort of federalism that destroyed the United States of America, the Commonwealth of Australia, Canada, the Swiss Confederation, the Republic of Austria and the Federal Republic of Germany (to name but a few)?

4 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Huw Davies: As 'One Na... · 2 replies · +1 points

How can Scotland have a national debt of 7% when the Scotland Act 2016 specifically limits the Scottish Government from borrowing more than £3bn in total, with no more than £450m being borrowed in any given year?

4 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Vox pub: Don't write t... · 1 reply · +1 points

Nope, we're not about the pseudo-accurate GERS figures which purport to show what the financial position of Scotland is within the United Kingdom, we're talking about your claim that a future independent Scotland would have a deficit/debit greater than that allowed under the EU's Stability and Growth Pact.

The only way GERS could be any kind of prediction as the financial fortunes of a future independent Scotland is if that future independent Scotland makes absolutely no changes to any taxation nor any chances to any form of government expenditure. And since that would require, just a singular example, the USA to roll the Polaris Sales Agreement over to cover Scotland so that it could spend ~1/10th of the amount that the UK does having an independent nuclear deterrent! (And surely we can both agree that it's "extremely unlikely" that the USA would be willing to do that and/or that Scotland would wish it to do so?)

So, I ask again "How you know what level of deficit and/or national debt a country that doesn’t exist right now might have in the future? (Alternatively you can provide your proof of how/why the USA would extend the Polaris Sales Agreement to cover Scotland and why the purpose of independence is to make no changes at all to Scotland!)

4 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Vox pub: Don't write t... · 3 replies · +1 points

I’m curious as to how you know what level of deficit and/or national debt a country that doesn’t exist right now might have in the future?

Do you perhaps also have a profitable sideline in predicting Grand National winners?

4 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Fraser Raleigh: We mus... · 1 reply · +1 points

I'm curious as to how you "know" the size of deficit an independent Scotland will have in the future?

Also, do you have a sideline in predicting things like which horse is going to to win next year's Grand National?

4 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Stephen Laws: Post-ele... · 0 replies · +1 points

" a second Scottish referendum would simply not be appropriate until many years have passed and a new question needs to be answered."

Where "Many years" would mean 7, because that's the figure used for the analogous Border Poll mentioned in the Good Friday Agreement and we wouldn't want to give a message of "Commit 30 years of terrorist attacks and the UK government will give you a better deal!" would we? And surely it would be the precisely the same question that would asked the previous time - if it was plain, simple and easily understood the last time, why would we want a different wording in the future?

4 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Fifteen ways to help S... · 1 reply · +1 points

I think you’ve misunderstood the concept of positive campaigning there.

Attacking the SNP on those grounds won’t help the Union, whether the grounds are true or not. If they’re not true, then your argument would be countered by the actual facts leaving you less likely to be believed in future. If they are true, it’s still not an argument for the Union as all those “bad things” happened whilst Scotland was a member! Indeed, unless one intends to argue that the Scots are incapable of running their own affairs which is itself not a good positive argument for the Union, one could argue it’s arguably an argument in favour of independence - the SNP being unlikely IMHO to remain a potent political force past the end of the first term of independent government.

Instead one should try to phrase your positive arguments in terms of why an independent oil & fish rich country bordering the North Sea should give up it’s sovereignty and become part of the U.K! Because those would be the arguments as to why not to seek independence - though given no-one has deployed such arguments at any time in the last decade, I’m rather led to the conclusion that they don’t exist!

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with StropWhistle

People I'm following

StropWhistle