To wonder why people keep voting SNP?

Seriously?

What evidence?

But purely renewable energy isn’t a reliable source, hence why all other nations that rely heavily on renewables have a back up of nuclear.

Err every single reputable economist predicting an absolute screaming shit show not enough for you?

No way!

It’s almost as if that was exactly the point I was making in the post you’re replying to.

Always amazes me how close unionists get to understanding the argument for independence, yet never quite manage to grasp it.

I’ll give you a wee hand. Have a think about how Ireland and Luxembourg became destinations of choice for multinationals (Hint: it has something to do with deliberately designed tax and regulatory regimes that used sovereignty as leverage, not a weakness).

But of course, us Scots are far to stupid and far to small to compete with the likes of mighty Luxembourg.

The reason we dont have much money is our payments towards national debt, which was exclusively run up by British governments.

We will be in an huge amount of debt in the future if we remain part of the UK. They have plans for nuclear energy which so far total 45 billion in infrastructure spending, for which Scotland is liable for a share. This is despite producing a renewable energy surplus of a third.

45 billion is a million a day for over 120 years. No wonder they push Better Together.

The SNPs own growth commission paper.

What evidence?

What evidence?

How’s that going? The SNP government seem to have concentrated on giving cash handouts to the poor since they got into power, and this as a strategy seems to be failing. The attainment gap is widening. Children living in poverty has reduced because that’s automatically what happens when you give more cash to their parents (the measure of poverty being related to how much income the household has) and yes these children’s lives seem no better.

The SNP seems to be doing a really bad job of getting these people ‘living in poverty’ into well paying jobs, jobs that gives them enough to live off. We seem to me spending endless money on cash handouts while doing very little to motivate these people to improve their lives.

Governmemts are also in charge of raising money to spend. The taxes in this country for the better off are sky high, and yet the SNP keep spending without thinking of how to grow the economy in a meaningful and lasting way.

I can’t see a way out of this if we continue just giving money to people in poverty. Those not on the receiving end of any money are getting frustrated that all public money is being funnelled away from public services that benefit everyone to benefits that benefit the few.

I don’t think it can be taken as a fact that another vote on independence would be in favour
There was a clear majority against the last time,and it was clear then ,that what people say in opinion polls differs from what they say in the cold hard light of the polling booth
Financially we would definitely be worse off for decades,the evidence on that is clear ,and I definitely don’t want that for my DC

No way!

It’s almost as if that was exactly the point I was making in the post you’re replying to.

Always amazes me how close unionists get to understanding the argument for independence, yet never quite manage to grasp it.

I’ll give you a wee hand. Have a think about how Ireland and Luxembourg became destinations of choice for multinationals (Hint: it has something to do with deliberately designed tax and regulatory regimes that used sovereignty as leverage, not a weakness).

But of course, us Scots are far to stupid and far to small to compete with the likes of mighty Luxembourg.

I don’t know if you realise but corporation tax is very much dependent on where a company is headquartered. It’s why Google pays most of its corp tax in Ireland and Amazon in Luxembourg. Do you seriously think any company would choose to be headquartered in an Indy Scotland where there is zero regulation, or history of regulation?

You do understand that all the SNP are have done when they say they have ‘lifted x amount of children out of poverty’ is that they have handed their parent more cash. Have they improved that child’s life, or chances of having a successful future away from a cycle of poverty and benefit reliance? The every widening attainment gap suggests not.

I know it’s hard work and takes effort, but sure start delivered benefits to the country in terms of better lives for kids that were worth 5 x the money spent. Ensuring the child benefits from the money directly. In Scotland kids still seem to be living rubbish lives, it’s just their parents have more benefits money. Handing parents cash doesn’t seem to be the more efficient way of improving kids lives and yet we are cutting all other public service budgets in order to continue to facilitate it. How long is this experiment going to be given to run?

@Lillitut why do you think lifting children out of poverty isn't a successful strategy?
Prior to the UK government's most recent moves to tackle child poverty, a projection showed child poverty in England increasing to 32%, and falling in Scotland to 23%.

Having nearly a third of children grow up in poverty will decimate the future workforce, who will already be paying for larger generations retirement. That is why the UK government are making an effort to change this now, before its too late.

Tackling child poverty is vital for future survival of your society, but you won't see the benefits for many years. Sadly, you also won't see the consequences of inaction until deprived children become adults who don't contribute, because they have slim chance of a good job.

You realise that any government is not responsible for providing everything for every citizen? They are responsible for making decisions about how to best use the resources available to them and the SNP have decided to go down the road of universality for a lot of these things rather a redistributive approach which would target those most in need.

There was an independence referendum and most people voted 'no', hence why it failed....where do you get the ' most people want independence' from.
Do we just keep voting until the 'yes' voters get the result they want.

No one has been denied, a vote was held, but it didn't go the way some wanted so they spat the dummy out.

There was an independence referendum and most people voted 'no', hence why it failed....where do you get the ' most people want independence' from.
Do we just keep voting until the 'yes' voters get the result they want.

No one has been denied, a vote was held, but it didn't go the way some wanted so they spat the dummy out.

You don't live in Scotland but don't understand why people would vote SNP?

The majority of Scots want independence. An aggregate of 2025 polls shows an overall independence majority, but neither the last Tory government or this Labour one will allow another referendum, because they would lose.

It is a violation of democracy to not be permitted an independence vote. Every other country subject to colonialism has a right to do so. NI have a right to do so enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement.

We cannot have equal rights in the UK parliament as we are too small to form a majority, so must always accept a government elected by another country. That's to say nothing of EVEL, which bans Scottish MP's from some parliamentary votes, on the premise they affect only England, something no other MP's are restricted by.
So until we have a right to an opinion, people will keep voting SNP. The only way to make them less popular as a party would be if they achieved their objective of an independent Scotland.

At the moment we will be voting SNP as a majority at both the Scottish Parliament and UK Parliament elections, getting SNP in Scotland but next election Reform in the UK- and the Reform government we didn't vote for will hold power over the government we did choose.

What did you mean when you said: "They also take more tax off the better off to pay for it all."? I took it that you meant that higher rate tax payers deserve benefits like free travel and free prescriptions too because they contribute more in tax. The challenge is that by spending that money on providing those benefits for all it means that there is less money available to tackle poverty. Apologies if that's not what you meant.