No one enshrined in legal text, the other isn't as have already said, and showed links.

What is enshrined in legal text? What "other" isn't? I've got no context to work with here.

Nothing about my narrative, but how frustrated you seem says a lot about yours.

I'm not frustrated at all, why would you assume I am? I'm organising my arguments into easily understandable sections and debating the crux of the argument quoted, instead of just battering at my keyboard, punching out pigeon English, and jumping from one topic to another, then back again...

 To me a year or so I will have moved back to the republic, or on to Australia/the EU.

Okay?

The UK is crumbling with or without Scotland.

Agreed. It'll just happen faster without Scotland's money.

Like I said referendum came before the idea of Brexit, and Cameron always thought he would win it.

Okay?

Yes, coz every time English people move into the UK, they build around each other generally, then vote a tory in as I already explained.

Let's look back at what was said:

"The fact is more of us know Salmond and the SNP will be taking most seats, the same rejection of the tories but at not such a high level where the majority of Immigrants into Wales are from England."

Do you really think that is properly explained? Cos even now I'm struggling to understand the point of the original statement.

Which referendum are you talking about now

When? Which argument would you like to discuss?

If Eu, Well, we have been out since transition ended, 5 months ago roughly as health money was not on the Scotland referendum? Scotland applies that themselves.

What? Are you asking if health spending is a devolved issue? If so, yes health spending is devolved, but funding is not - it's derived from the Barnett formula. The more England spends on health, the more Scotland gets in consequentials. The inverse is also true - if England spend less, Scotland gets less.

If EU that vote was 2016, not 2014 where the 350 million was quoted, and we were bound to pay in even up to the transition period as is fair.

I know when the referenda were.

Is your argument that between 2016 and Decemer 31st 2020 I shouldn't have expected any increased health spending? If so, that's a fair point - I concede that I had forgotten to factor in the transition period.

Regardless, the allocated spending over the next 5 year term is projected to increase by less than £40B. If we were to spend an additional £350M per week as we were told we would, that should rise by at least £91B over the five year term.

Some things we have committed to for many more years ahead as those are commitments we promised too, Other financial obligations are tied in the EU for over 20 years more regarding loans which the UK will be returned in time.   So 2 years of track and trace is 40 million roughly, that's 20 billion a year, or roughly 400 million a week for 2 years.   As covid won't just disappear.   We add vaccine money on top is even more.   This is how they will put it, even if as I said I don't agree with it.

Ok, so you've mixed up millions and billions in the middle of that statement, but I get the point you're trying to make.

As I said though - track and trace isn't included in the NHS budget. PPE, however, is - and it's detailed as "covid response" spending. This has been detailed in the 2019-2022 section of the 2021 spending review, and doesn't affect core NHS spending. Vaccine spending - perhaps, but it's not detailed in the spending review, so I would doubt it.

Regardless, this £350million per week "Brexit bonus" is just never mentioned anymore because if it was, it would require investment, so it's just no longer mentioned by the government in any capacity, but again - I see the point you're trying to make. My point was that it's complete fantasy.

Nop track and trace was created by the government and leased out to Serco

Actually, the app was developed by the Pivotal division of American software company VMware, and as I said - is delivered by Secro, Deloitte and Dido Harding.

the same way instrument rental, cleaning, laundry, etc has worked in many health and social care facilities since thatcher decided hospitals should compete against each other for certain services, so why I would have to go to Bristol or Llanelli for specialist Burns treatment.  As tories and then Labours PFI's hit in more, more services became rented out.   Even the same people can be operating on a private patient, the same day in theory due to how hospitals have been built with PFI money.

This is true. Elective procedures are competed for by private practices who charge a premium, but emergency procedures are still delivered by the NHS. What can I say? The government are arseholes and they're trying to privatise the NHS. I said this earlier.

I have shown you quotes, and exactly what the legal text says, you don't have to like, you don't have to agree with it, but is still the same, it is there like it or lump it.

And I've shown you quotes, exactly as the legal text says.

To your quote "deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect", I explained that the result has been respected, because Scotland is not an independent country. As there are no time-frames that you can quote me, I don't see the relevance - the result of the referendum has been respected whether you care to admit it or not.

Is plenty of laws many of us don't agree with, and things people have said, which suddenly don't count when they lose.   But that's the reality.   So when Sturgeon keeps saying, Westminster can't deny us a ref if we win, they actually can and likely will.   Like sturgeon will keep saying she wants Independence, most Tories will continue to say no.

Democracy is a fluid concept. What's democratically decided in one election is not necessarily what's going to be decided in the next election. The behaviour of the winning side ultimately dictates the result of the next, and the behaviour of the 'No' side has turned a lot of voters over. Why is it unreasonable to ask the question again? If the will of the people hasn't changed, then great - the 'No' side will win again, but to refuse to ask the question for fear of the result is undemocratic, simple as that.

When oil goes back hoping no value, Scotland's export industry has been destroyed, if Tory's were to offer a referendum, that is when it would be.   When Scotland needs the rest of the UK most, and can't afford to survive without them.

Do you consider this to be reasonable - refusing to grant a S30 in order to asset strip a country in a "voluntary" union of "equals"? Regardless, Scotland has fresh water, renewables and whiskey. Even if the oil runs out, we have those other assets that won't run out, so are you suggesting we're stuck in this union in perpetuity?

So sturgeon and Salmond went to the same thing whether in law or in speeches as I have shown, whether they meant it or not or how they meant it,   Everyone saw the Scottish referendum as one for the near future,   Sane as Brexit one-off, even if expected to be non-binding.

You've shown what? That Salmond and Sturgeon both said the referendum was a "once in a lifetime opportunity"? I've never denied they did, but like I said - so did Corbyn, but that doesn't mean no general elections will take place. If that was suggested there would be anarchy, right? So why is IndyRef2 any different?

In regard to the powers, you keep saying promised in the vow, the start of them were going through parliament within a year of the referendum the Scotland act of 2016 being part of these powers around vat, income tax, air passenger duty, welfare.   The problem with the promises was they were vague and no timeline attached.  So is Scotland in the same position as with the Scotland act of 2012, no. 

So EVEL can get pushed through in under a year, but agreeing legislation to grant further levers and powers for Scotland takes more than 7 years? I'm sure nobody believes we're that naive up here.

Was the smith commission there to make the fine print of it, yes.  Is it perfect, no, as still limits to the powers especially around new benefits?   Were some things amended to try and meet more of the needs quicker, yes?   Did the deputy first minister at the time, a member of SNP agree on the terms which Scotland ended up with, yes? for him to complain straight after they don't do what he wanted, much like Boris with Brexit.

Again - nobody is complaining about the status quo, because it is what was agreed to prior to the first referendum, what we're saying is that due to the change in the circumstances regarding Brexit, there is a valid reason to ask the question again. I don't know what's difficult to understand about that.

Is simple you compared it to Corbyn. which I disagreed with,  then you say you don't know the comparison. when is the first point, and first reply for me, is not hard to deduce, when i am answering in the rows of what you write.


Maybe will put it simpler in a way you can understand, if communities are English-centric, with lots of English people, they will vote tory in more likelihood.   It happens a lot in Wales.

In regard to Scotlands money.  Scotlands main problem in giving to the UK is they want no part of interest repayments on the national debt but want to take into account what they would have oil wise, without the UK, Fact is Scotlands poorly paid, constantly in deficit, where any extra tax is straight back into the public services.     They struggle to keep the experimental data going, then many disagree with GERS calculations as a yoony trick.


When you run one point into another as you did with referendum and health, is easy to not understand what your talking about regarding which referendum

No. I never asked if health was devolved, it was part of the which referendum you're talking about, is why was attached to the referendum question...   It also related to the period covered as explained for where the money would be applied.   I also said is what the government would say is the 350 million a week or a portion of it, or how all the government would say would cover more than health.   Is why i put it as what the government would say.

Like you quoted about me, is a massive difference between "once in a lifetime, one says this is once in a lifetime to transform our country." and the situation it is applied to.   Scotland Knew was a referendum, was one-off, nothing in Corbyn's says, anything about never having an election again?   I don't see it say do away with fixed-term parliament acts? and we will vote once and that's it?  No, he knew what another tory government would do and he thought he could reverse some of the damage even if some people worried he would do more in regards to long-term debt, which tories have increased so drastically.

Yeah, democracy may be fluid, but I don't cry, give me another election, I never got the result I wanted?   you just try harder to get the person you want in power the next election when the time comes around for it.

Whiskey exports down, fishing down, but as already said at stages Scotland will add more to Westminster, at stages Westminster will have put more to Scotland. 

Scotland Act 2016 as you were told gave Scotland the powers the SNP agreed, of course, more powers potentially come with time, outside the previous agreements, As shown, the SNP at the time saw the promises as met with the agreement made. or why make the agreement?  that was 5 years ago.   

So, how's Brexit going? What happened with the Northern Ireland border fiasco? I've heard Boris isn't well liked but how's he doing on it? Anything of note going on? 

The more barriers you put up to trade, the less they will continue investing in your country.  Exports down 43$, imports 28%, and companies still unsure of the rules and struggling with sometimes outdated export codes.   Northern Ireland protocol; stays a mess,  and they keep allegedly talking about it but seems a basic impossibility to change things.

 
Ass for Boris he gains contempt for everything from the handling of covid, Brexit, but refuses to go,   Chuck his lofe life on top and is like a bad soap opera.

That trade figure is with the EU,  But basically, both sides are suffering for no real reason apart from Boris wanting a deal that he never understood the consequences of. 

Is simple you compared it to Corbyn. which I disagreed with,  then you say you don't know the comparison. when is the first point, and first reply for me, is not hard to deduce, when i am answering in the rows of what you write.

But the way you use words like "it's" and "is" interchangeably makes it very difficult to follow your train of thought. I'm having to translate what I assume is a dialect I'm unfamiliar with into an argument which I can then debate. I'm essentially working both sides of the argument.

Maybe will put it simpler in a way you can understand, if communities are English-centric, with lots of English people, they will vote tory in more likelihood.   It happens a lot in Wales.

Yeah, that's what I thought you had meant. Not sure why it's relevant, but I'm sure you're right about English people in Wales voting Conservative. I'm sure the same thing happens in the Scottish borders, and I'm sure there are a lot of Rangers supporters who are in favour of the union.

In regard to Scotlands money.  Scotlands main problem in giving to the UK is they want no part of interest repayments on the national debt but want to take into account what they would have oil wise, without the UK, Fact is Scotlands poorly paid, constantly in deficit, where any extra tax is straight back into the public services.     They struggle to keep the experimental data going, then many disagree with GERS calculations as a yoony trick.

Borrowing is a reserved power, and it's a legal requirement for Scotland to balance it's books, so we can't possibly create a deficit.

Our deficit comes from money that England borrows on our behalf for UK projects. Scottish deficit, according to GERS firgures is £15.1B, English deficit is £57b. Scotland has 5.5million people, England has 56million people, so despite having 10 times the population of Scotland, England has less than 4 times the debt accrued by the UK government. Doesn't seem fair does it?

Also, the counter argument to the "Scottish debt" is that we are entitled to a share of all of the assets the UK possesses. All the defence assets, all the foreign embassy assets, government buildings... Scotland own a share of it all. Would that be deducted from this debt that's been accrued on our behalf, or would we just get a share of the UK's fleet of ships, jets, foreign property - even the crown jewels?

To answer your other point - yes, GERS is inaccurate, because it's based on estimated figures, and assumes that Scotland would continue to pay for things like Trident and HS2 in an independent Scotland, which we wouldn't. The removal of Trident is one of the reasons we want independence.

When you run one point into another as you did with referendum and health, is easy to not understand what your talking about regarding which referendum

Well, the 350million NHS bus promise was only made in one referendum. Regardless, the point I was making is that Boris made a statement in a referendum drive that is demonstrably fallacious. Nobody bats an eyelid at that, yet when the SNP make a political flourish, they're held to it for 40 years.

Like you quoted about me, is a massive difference between "once in a lifetime, one says this is once in a lifetime to transform our country." and the situation it is applied to.   Scotland Knew was a referendum, was one-off, nothing in Corbyn's says, anything about never having an election again?   I don't see it say do away with fixed-term parliament acts? and we will vote once and that's it?  No, he knew what another tory government would do and he thought he could reverse some of the damage even if some people worried he would do more in regards to long-term debt, which tories have increased so drastically.

And again, I'll tell you that you're applying different standards to Corbyn and Sturgeon/Salmond. The words used were near identical. Repeatedly insisting that it's not the same doesn't change that fact.

Yeah, democracy may be fluid, but I don't cry, give me another election, I never got the result I wanted?   you just try harder to get the person you want in power the next election when the time comes around for it.

Scotland hasn't returned a Conservative majority in an election since 1956, which is why we're asking for a section 30, so we can - in your words "try harder to get the person you want in power".

Whiskey exports down, fishing down, but as already said at stages Scotland will add more to Westminster, at stages Westminster will have put more to Scotland.

Whisky revenue currently accounts for 1.4% of all UK good exports, so it's not exactly a small revenue stream. Tax on Whisky in the UK currently stands at 70%, meaning around £3 in every £4 spent on Whisky in the UK goes to the HM Treasury in excise and VAT. That's 5.5billion per year to the UK treasury instead of the Scottish balance sheet. Those funds would go a long way in an independent Scotland if they were retained in Scotland.

Scotland Act 2016 as you were told gave Scotland the powers the SNP agreed, of course, more powers potentially come with time, outside the previous agreements, As shown, the SNP at the time saw the promises as met with the agreement made. or why make the agreement?  that was 5 years ago.    

The Smith commission agreed the issues which should be devolved. The commission consisted of 4 seperatists (2 SNP, 2 Green) and 6 unionists (2 Conservative, 2 Labour, 2 Lib Dem), so of course the powers devolved were narrow in scope - the branch offices predictably did the bidding of the UK government.