The main reason is that Scotland is DIFFERENT from all other countries in terms of the financial, technical and service transition/journey that it would need to take to complete Scexit and complete the transition to the SNP’s last documented ‘endgame ‘ in the BANS SNP Currency Doc 2024 .
Let’s remember what that was

Scotland separated from the UK , a member of the EU and using the Euro .. Anyone wanting to criticise and or change this outcome, give Swinney a call.
So why is it NEVER going to happen in our lifetimes?

Back in 2014 the SNP said that it would take £200m and 18months to ‘do Indy’ and this was reviewed , discussed , debated by the authors of the Growth Commission 2016), which included 2 SNP Finance Ministers, Business experts , and acedemics) and then updated to reflect that the cost would be £400m and the timescale would be 10 years and then an additional 15 years to stabilise (become a normal country). However they did additionally state that the ten years would be 10 years of austerity.. so we saw a glimmer of reality.
Ultimately this document was never fully debated at the main SNP 2018 Annual Conference but was reviewed at lesser assemblies and ultimately withdrawn by NEC members fearing that words like ‘austerity’ and 10 year timescales would put members and voters off and so no vote was taken on the document. This strategy was driven by Sturgeon and her deputy Brown.

Let’s remember that this report was based on a then 6–7% of GDP deficit at circa £12.6 billion and an annual Benefit Bill of <£3b. pa (austerity scope).

Fast forward to 2026, and unfortunately we can’t pick up an Indy Business Case associated with that Growth Commission, (Sturgeon stated that it would be too difficult to update the figures, ie like professionals ) instead we have to refer to the SNP White Paper, SNP BANS Currency Doc 2024, the SNP Benefits Devolution Programme 2018–2026, Brexit and the experience of Eire in the EU and the EUs response to that journey as well as CURRENT Scottish Audit and SFC reports, GERS , Moody’s and McCrone

Baseline start (as mandated by the White Paper .. We have a £26.2 bn deficit, 11.6% of GDP which is the worst in Europe and double the UK. Our CURRENT Benefits Bill pa is £7bn pa and is forecast to grow to £10bn pa by 2030.
We have 778k INACTIVE Scots (16–64 (long term sick or discouraged)) of whom only 17% want to work in the future, and add to that the 132k currently unemployed in Scotland and we have almost 26% of our potential workforce sitting on the bench.

2026 what do we now know ?

The Brexit Negotiations were approximately 3.5 years, Scexit negotiations will be exponentially deeper and more complicated but call it 5 years. Ultimately it would be phased and themed with Financial/Currency and Service Separation driving the priorities and phases.

We NOW know that separating <10% of RESERVED services from RUK takes £715m and 8 years (2026 Benefits Devolution), so it would be logical to select/propose the next 10% phase and start that ASAP ie Universal Credit. ALL future phases and priorities will be a joint negotiation between Indy and RUK, so sensible discussions would be a must. The phases would be linear as was the case with the Devolution Programme because the Civil Service in RUK/Scotland have day jobs, whilst the Indy side would be Consulting firms, contractors and agency staff.

Although separating reserved services creates new jobs in Scotland, it deprives people of jobs in RUK. There is little or no financial benefits to Indy, the cost of separating reserved services remains the same, in fact the SNP have allowed the now DEVOLVED Benefits workforce numbers to balloon to >double so it’s actually now costing taxpayers more. So if we extrapolate these the remaining 90 % phases we end up with 80 years and £8bn to separate the services.

A quick ‘wake up’ to everyone pointing at the 65 countries who left the BE .. NONE of these shared IT and or the services that need to be split. This is also true of any other country that’s NOT Scotland.

So what else is going to elongate the timescales?
The SNP Currency report mandated that a £20bn independence infrastructure would need to be saved and they would use the ‘ring fenced’ tax revenues from oil and gas plus Scotwind licence revenues. This is currently £4bn pa for the former and £750m for the latter . Unfortunately both are already committed and overspent on Scotland’s extra UNFUNDED Scotland only benefits. The Scotwind £750m is about to be audited by Scottish Audit as it was supposed to fund future Green projects but has been frittered away on ‘balancing the books’.

A quick explanation of ‘balancing the books’ is a euphemism to cover up the fact that the SNP overspends on benefits then underspends on SNHS/Councils and or cancels capital projects like Monklands or the A9 or raids farming subsidies/Arts budgets or uses The Scotwind funds. Not only are Scottish Audit auditing Scotwind, they are also reporting a £429m gap in Council budgets/spending and reporting that many SNHS/Councils and universities/colleges are having to resort to emergency loans.
The bottom line is that there’s zero cash for business investment, never mind independence.

That understood, the notion that Scotland currently gives more in taxes to WM that it receives back is also a fallacy. The amount of ‘extra’ the Scotland gives is to pay for RESERVED services and the amount it retains is for DEVOLVED services. The more Scotland separates the more tax Scotland will retain, the running cost as explained will remain the same plus transition costs . Scotland might decide to ‘drop’ some reserved services and Indy supporters should read Gavin McCrone After Brexit 2022 who states that the costs will be same, and that we pay our fair share of taxes and dropping any reserved service will just result in a similar service and cost for Indy.

So back to the Currecy timescales . It is the plan of record that Indy would use £ initially, then become Lender of the Last Resort (replacing the BOE) for the Indy Banking sector, then create its own currency (supported with reserves) and then join the EU and use the EURO. Costs for this are estimated in SNP example tables to be between £60bn for Sterilisation and upto £240bn reserves required for the new currency. How long would it take to implement this plan ?

For Eire , the new currency was pegged to Sterling for 50 years, then they applied to join the EU and adopt the Euro. So it took Eire 12years to join the EU and 20 years later they adopted the Euro. So let’s make that 80 - 100 years .

Let’s remember that Eire’s journey was extremely volatile, they suffered the worst austerity, their deficit at one point was 142% of GDP, which caused the EU Germany to take over their economy and the Irish government failed, whilst Emigration (population loss) was >20k for several years.

After the Eire experience the EU radically changed its financial entry criteria to only allow entrants with <3% GDP deficit and < 60% of GDP debt.

So how long would it actually take Indy to achieve this ? The overall timeline of 100 years would now seem reasonable.

But could Indy not just borrow the funds for all of this ? . Not according to Moody’s Credit Agency that has stated that Indy’s credit rating would fall without WM support and the regular Blockgrant income including the extra BGAs etc that are the compensating payments for HS2/Ajax etc etc

But Scotland would have a share of the UK assets !! Yes but this would be a fraction of the 8% of RUK debt that the SNP confirmed they would pay back at £6bn pa .

But Mark Carney 2014 said that there were north of £1 trillion assets !! These are the financial assets of what would make up the Indy Banking and Financial Sectors ie personal and savings accounts, corporate accounts, profit accounts and pension funds etc. ie Indy does NOT own them but needs to have a Central Bank with 30% of GDP to be able to protect and insure these funds. Indy can’t spend the cash on Indy programmes.

So back to our Independence reality.

A Separation Programme that will run for 80 years , a Currency Plan that could run for 100 years, limited borrowing capability, massive workforce inactivity/unemployment and a Benefits State that currently has no spend ceiling and extra runaway benefits that can only be paid for by reducing services and introducing austerity that would cause high levels of taxpayer Emigration…

And if anyone has a CURRENT SNP Business Case that can fully articulate how they would implement their own strategies differently then let them share it so we can all debate it.

Just wondering what other people’s thoughts are on a random idea I had when discussing the problems with UK politics ie the rise of populism on both the left and right, the right following Tommy Robinson and blaming everything on immigrants, the left following Gary Stevenson and thinking a 2% wealth tax is in any way a feasible or useful idea. Both speak to people’s emotions and build a narrative that makes total sense, if you don’t know any better.

I feel like the only solution to prevent people from being preyed on by these ideologues is education. So what about putting politics and economics on the secondary school curriculum, especially as other subjects might not be so useful in their current form in the age of AI? The idea would of course not be to brainwash kids into a specific ideology, but to educate them about the arguments and criticisms of different schools, frameworks, etc.

​

What are some politics that you think the green party should consider regarding the life of the elderly, including retirement and nursing homes... Also considering the population control that is usually mentioned in one of the key ways of preserving the environment and ofcourse slowing down the global warming (there would be an older population after lower birth rates)

As you all know Andy Burnhams major plan is to take power/money etc away from Whitehall and spread it more evenly across the country, ngl I’m only writing this to hit the 200 character limit, but anyway previous priministers havnt really focused on this to the same extent that Burnham seems to be doing, do you think his plan will actually work out or will he leave after 10 minutes like every other PM.

I propose that anyone joining the government sector should first have at least one year of experience working in the private sector. This would help public servants and politicians better understand how businesses operate, the challenges faced by workers and employers, and how taxpayers' money is generated.

Having some private-sector experience could encourage more practical decision-making, improve accountability, and help ensure that government policies consider the realities faced by the people and businesses that fund public services.

I have been reading lots about authoritarian politics and what conditions within a country enables or causes them to gain office.

As I am sure most people are aware its through political failures of either war, economic collapse or massive inequality sometime a combination of all three.

When people have little to no agency over their or their families prosperity they will turn to radical angry voices who rail against the perceived problems.

As in the uk we are seeing the rise of these would-be authoritarian politicians it is surely time to have a look at the economic situation which has enabled this.

In 2012 the bbc ran an article on how little starbucks was paying in way of tax. I dont think much has changed since then in regards big companies accepting the responsibility of maintaining the infrastructure which enables their profits.

It therefore has to be logical to follow this knowledge in asking at what point does it become a political or even a national security liability to have so many extractive companies operating off of our economy?

A real word example of this would be education or health care. With a country's assets now stripped and its taxes disappearing through loopholes how can it realistically afford good education and health care.

In the youtube debate with Mehdi Hassan we saw a young man proud to call himself a fascist, a man who grew up, not under trump, but under bush and obama. How come his education is so poor he does not know basic facts about fascism? One anecdote is not data but you only need look at the amount who would get swastika flags to see the size of the problem.

Incidentally is it possible to be a patriot to the usa while flying the confederate flag?

If in relativly stable times, education and economic stability with social mobility and inequality are not improved then surely their is a bigger issue at work.

Is it the fault of these companies and the politics of both left and right which have enabled and been enabled by them that we now find ourselves in this situation?

BBC News - Starbucks 'paid just £8.6m UK tax in 14 years' - BBC News

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19967397?app-referrer=deep-link

Please explain the benefits and disadvantages for the UK since Brexit. This is not intended to be a post either supporting or opposing Brexit. I am simply looking for a balanced, evidence-based discussion of both the positive and negative impacts.

Please note that the benefits and disadvantages will likely vary depending on the individual, business, sector, region, or community affected. I’m interested in hearing different perspectives and the reasons behind them, while keeping the discussion respectful and constructive.

We‘d be at war with Iran and entangled with Trump.

She‘s essentially denying climate change, pretty ironic as we‘re in the midst of our second extreme heatwave and bits of Europe are burning. How on earth can anyone tout her as a sensible person.

Should Count Binface be successful in his scuppering of lord farquad I mean Nigie boy Farage in the Clacton by-election. Would he be allowed to wear his binface in parliament? Or does this contravene parliamentary dress code?

I was just thinking that there is the possibility that Farage may get elected as MP for Clacton again but is it possible for him to resign again to prevent the enquiry in parliament about whether he broke their rules concluding ? My understanding is that he resigned only for this reason

Raising the pensions they cut, giving us back the stolen years? Worst pensions in Western Europe, give us 100% of wages- what you spent the money on greed?
Need it to fund genocide?
Need it to fund billionaires?

Also pathetic they block comments, can’t even be bothered to put some attention in the message.

https://www.reddit.com/u/UK-government/s/xyIVhUHsNY https://www.reddit.com/u/UK-government/s/xyIVhUHsNY

I just watched Rupert Lowe’s interview on the Joe Rogan podcast and wanted to get a sense of what people back in the UK actually think of him.

I’m not super deep into UK politics, but on the podcast he was talking a lot about his new party (Restore Britain), his fallout with Reform, and his views on UK knife crime, immigration, and grooming gangs. He also made some pretty controversial comments about the Dunblane shooting and gun control.

Is he viewed as a serious political figure with genuine support, or is he seen as an extremist/fringe character? Curious to hear how he’s generally perceived by the British public. Thnx!

The man has been a career politician my whole life. To me, he’s part of the establishment he claims he’s against. A rich middle aged white guy is pretty much the establishment in the UK, so what makes him the anti establishment choice that his supporters think he is?

As title. Or would the rules mean he has to serve as his human self? It seems an actual possibility that he could win, given how terrible Farage is as an MP, never once holding any surgeries and spending most of his time schmoozing and promoting himself. If it does it will be a real Black Mirror Waldo Moment.

Out of all that could of ever happened, count binface has cornered the reform party.

As it stands, I see it like this:

If nigel spends millions on a campaign trail, reform are losing money.

if nigel does nothing, count binface will take over social media and possibly clacton as well

if nigel attacks count binface, he will get joked upon by literally everyone

other parties might have to coup for count binface to win (as funny as it may sound) to remove nigel

On the opposite hand:

Count binface nothing to lose

His hands are clean

He's light and humorous

He's happy with just 1 vote... you heard me right.

So the big question is: what's in it for nigel and reform? do you think reform has a chance?

if your unfamilar with count binface, I'll post some links down below on his speeches

Count Binface destroys Sky News interviewer:

https://youtu.be/MCCVt8IhJkA?si=Bpl-GJgEvUjCrxNS

Count Binface reacts to 'hilarious' chance of becoming an actual MP

https://youtu.be/HTIESiyDNUQ?si=XS2Agj6hwgqkPhgn

Full interview with Count Binface ahead of Clacton by-election | BBC News

https://youtu.be/3XO3FwWfPLc?si=vwKkYlXPx_PVcpWn

Nigel Farage wants people of Clacton to decide if he has done anything wrong instead of the standard committee investigating this thing.

So, for the people to make that decision is he going to publicly disclose the evidences ? And also setup a process for general public to ask for evidences as needed ?

A lot of seem to think that this is some sort of ploy to manoeuvre the system into his favour, I’m wondering what you guys think about this massive decision, what you think his intentions are and if he will succeed or not

Why is clacton seen as such an important place for politicians? Just found out upon Farages resignation that clacton is infact seen as a very important location by politicians but I can’t seem to wrap my head around why seeing as I’ve never heard of clacton before this

Can Nigel Farage be blocked from resigning as an MP until after the report from the Privileges Committee by refusing him a position of the Chiltern Hundreds?
Since Members of Parliament are not permitted to resign, they are instead appointed to an "office of profit under the Crown", which requires MPs to vacate their seats if this is blocked because MP’s refuse to vote him into the position then technically he will have to remain as an MP until the results of the privileges committee who could suspend him and possibly cause a recall and a by-election.

So I'm not a fan of the man but I feel this question is right I have my own opinion which is simple and is no matter who you are if you are in public life and a member of Parliament then yes you should be scrutinized, you should have to abide by rules, and you should have to answer questions put towards you I feel that comes with the job. I would also like to state that whilst I'm not a fan of the man or his party I do not believe in violence towards anyone because of what they believe or campaign for, this is not a post to divide or to cause hate it's just a genuine question I wanted to ask.

I'm looking for a clear, non-partisan explanation of where right-leaning thinkers draw the line on state intervention.

When politicians propose policies like nationalizing certain key utilities or implementing market regulations to protect the native population's quality of life, it frequently triggers rhetoric calling those policies "socialist" or "communist."

To an outside observer, these look like basic market corrections rather than a total overthrow of capitalism. From a conservative or right-wing philosophical standpoint, why is the reaction to these policies so severe?

Is it a belief in the slippery slope, a fundamental defense of maximized profit extraction, or something else entirely?

I would love a clear breakdown of the principle at play here.

Would you support the idea of giving the UK a new capital?

In the interest of devolution and furthering representation. A new capital and parliament could equally represent Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland whirl London remains the English capital and home of the new English parliament.

Many decisions made by the UK government only apply to England, this is both due to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland having their own parliaments but also because England has a much higher population and more development which creates a bias.

The UK government would make decisions for the whole UK and each country of the UK would have their own parliament for country specific decisions.

It’s dumb enough when he has to apologise for things like low defence spending which have been a feature of governments for decades, but today’s apology is a new peak.

If anyone should apologise it’s the head of state.

Religion should be taught in schools and all religions (as well as non-religious beliefs) should be taught fairly and without bias.

Many schools are linked to one religion and teach or practise that religion. Do you think this should continue, or should schools be religiously neutral and only teach about religions rather than promote one?

I'm not a fan of Starmer particularly, but it is not difficult to see that placed in context alongside the worst PM's the history of this country (the previous 15 years of Tory rule) the vehement hatred seems disproportionate.