Snp First-Ever Majority

[manshimajin]

Some very interesting comments. IMO 'big issues' very often come down in the real world to the hip pocket nerve if they get as far as a vote. If the Scottish electorate were to be faced with the prospect of significantly higher taxes then probably they would vote no (though in a national referendum on the Union the non-Scottish electorate might vote yes as higher Scottish taxes might mean lower English and Welsh taxes).

 

In relation to the UK National Debt, that you quoted Barrie, wouldn't the Scots already have this level of indebtedness as part of the UK so that it would not be a major issue - just a transfer of accounting responsibilities? The oil revenue, or what will be left of it by the time this could happen, would potentially be a major issue but presumably one that would be used for some quid pro quo negotiations.

[Barrie Stevens]

I'm quite sure that most Scottish nationalists do want full independence, just as some British nationalists wish Westminster, with its one Scottish Tory MP, had never agreed to devolution. However, the non SNP card carrying Scottish electorate probably voted SNP because they won't vote Tory and they know the threat of independence is the best ploy they have for preventing Cameron repeating what Thatcher did to Scotland. I don't think the SNP will win a referendum on independence any time soon, but I do think it will come eventually.

 

The unification of Germany was good because that is what the people wanted, but putting the union of Czechoslovakia before The Czech Republic and Slovakia would have been wrong, and trying to maintain the union of Yugoslavia in the 90s was horrific, as was trying to maintain the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Nationalism is dangerous, but it is not the preserve of small nations. The history of Europe suggests to me that it is the nationalism of the biggest nations that has created the biggest problems. Nevertheless, we are talking about England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales - in which case I think we are talking about squabbles over shared embassy bills not a new Middle East. Of course the relationship between England and Ireland is still dangerously contentious (in pockets), but that is a legacy of putting the union first. It is British nationalism that gives me the shivers, and putting the union ahead of mutual respect makes you a British nationalist, and that's a quite a few degrees to the right of a democratic Scottish nationalist like Salmond.

 

As for the viability of an independent Scotland (pop.5,220,000), well both sides can draw analogies. Pongo chooses Iceland (pop. 320,000), a Scottish nationalist might cite Norway (pop. 5,000,000), or Denmark (pop.5,560,000) or Finland (5,375,000). I think the Republic of Ireland (pop.4,475,000) would be the fairest analogy - and, basket-case as the RoI is, the Scots will be comparing how the Irish are able to react to their circumstances compared to how Thatcher's government dealt with them in the 80s.

 

I think an independent Scotland would be good for the Scottish, and very good for the English, Welsh, Irish and Manx. Here's why:

 

1) There are too many politicians in the UK - taxpayers are paying for local councils, devolved parliaments, a national legislature and a European parliament.

2) Competition in good governance.

 

The downside might be a loss of international clout, but on recent evidence I don't see that the UK has much of an independent voice anyway.

 

Once again it has to be said that Alex Salmond's version of Independence is best read "Independence". They very much want their cake and eat it too...They do not so far envisage a clean break in the style of "ex-Colonies" whereas if you read the writings of constitutional academics and Proffs on the matter it is clear that Independence is not viable if prosperity and security is to be maintained.

 

For a start, there is the cost of buying out the UK in respect of public input by the Union and also taking over a proportionate share of the National Debt which to date equates to £56,000 per head of population in Scotland.

 

I am in danger of repeating myself as above in the early part of this thread.

 

As regards Ireland and its struggles in the context of preserving the Union....those were different times with different attitudes when the Lords of the Land literally had a greater grip on events than today.

 

Even so, just before the 1916 rising many Irish people were in favour of Home Rule within the Union. (which is not the same as Independence being the Isle of Man's situation albeit outside of the Union)

 

During the Queen's state visit to Ireland it was diplomatically glossed over that the huge numbers of Irish who died in WW1 fighting for the Union did so at a time when Home Rule was well on the way. Indeed, Britain stated that it would be granted after the War was over. This was acceptabel to most people at the time.

 

Only the hard line Republicans were dismayed and chose to stir things up through the Dublin Post Office seige in the face of public apathy and acceptance of what they saw as a faux independence (Which in effect they got as it was a long time before the Free State had a completely different constitutional status outside of both the UK and Dominion status).

 

Many Irish were dismayed by the 1916 rising and the participants were spat upon as they were marched through the streets.

 

Also, little understanding is expressed as to Britain's position fighting a World War with all these German armed rebels in its back yard. What with emergency powers needed in wartime how else could the military have reacted at that time?

 

Where they went wrong was arbitrarily shooting some of the men from the General Post Office seige in 1916 (And the Royal Navy shelling Dublin did not help!)...This caused many to doubt the promise of Home Rule post-war! The Republicans gained support.

 

Many of the actions taking place in Ireland horrified those in power in London and indeed the man who organised the execution of the Easter Rising participants was later declared to be a bit mad and unstable and shipped off to British Columbia.

 

The British problem with Ireland after 1916 was not so much letting go of power but to whom should the power be given? Those who fought for it and often terrorised others or those one could negotiate with. In the end the Military gave the UK a chance by imprisoning huge numbers of activists on the understanding that it would buy about six weeks of quality talking time.

 

The Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 was the product and N. Ireland a result.

 

And how independent is Ireland to this day? The way I see it it resembles the relationship between the USA and Canada with the UK playing the part of the United States!

 

The Queen's visit in my eyes rather confirmed this! (As they say in Canada. "Ours is a sovereign nation. Bows to no foreigner's will. But when they cough in Washington. We spit on Parliament Hill")

 

If Scotland does get Independence or Home Rule status (which it effectively is moving towards) or becomes the Scottish Free State, then I predict a division just like Ireland .....only this time people will vote with their feet and move to England taking their UK passports with them!

 

During the Queen's recent visit it was stated that the Irish have no need to curtsey/bow other than out of courtesy as they are not "subjects"...Well, I think these days neither are we. More like UK and EU Citizens as are the Manx born British.

 

Indeed, the only British subjects left are Irish! A number of people born between two dates (I forget what they are) have the right to keep their British Subject status either active or dormant until they die ie a sort of dual nationality. Not to be confused with the Irish Diaspora whereby people of close Irish descent overseas can claim an irish Passport inscribed "Citizen of Ireland".

 

Irish British Subject status must have a connection with the creation of the Free State and the declaration of a Republic in 1948 (And which was not strictly law until the UK passed the 1949 Ireland Act thus making it strictly Kosher!)

 

Incidentally, since 1949 at least no Irish person, ship, or aircraft can be categorised as "Alien" when within the UK.

 

When the last British-Irish subject dies then the term British Subject itself will die. Currently, no UK and Isle of Man born people are strictly speaking "British Subjects"...strange as it may seem! Just a number of old Irish people!(This is on official UK Govt websites regarding immigration etc)

 

This may seem drifting off topic save that a poster above implied preserving the Union as being the root cause of Brirish brutality in Ireland whereas I think you will find the whole thing was rather more akin to Northern Ireland's troubles only greater with the opposition more effective. ie who do we hand over to and under what terms?

 

It also indicates that an independent Scotland will not be a clean cut affair, the more so as the ties are now much greater with the EU an added complication.

[Barrie Stevens]

Some very interesting comments. IMO 'big issues' very often come down in the real world to the hip pocket nerve if they get as far as a vote. If the Scottish electorate were to be faced with the prospect of significantly higher taxes then probably they would vote no (though in a national referendum on the Union the non-Scottish electorate might vote yes as higher Scottish taxes might mean lower English and Welsh taxes).

 

In relation to the UK National Debt, that you quoted Barrie, wouldn't the Scots already have this level of indebtedness as part of the UK so that it would not be a major issue - just a transfer of accounting responsibilities? The oil revenue, or what will be left of it by the time this could happen, would potentially be a major issue but presumably one that would be used for some quid pro quo negotiations.

 

No confusion at all!

 

If you are part of the UK then you benefit from the National Debt and all that has been done and acquired with it.

 

This is the debt of the UK Government and not confined to some sort of loan or state borrowings.

 

At its most basic it is the difference between what Government spends and commits to spend and what it has coming in as revenue with the overall debt usually laid on the backs of succeeding generations of taxpapers.

 

(I personally paid for World War Two National Debt as I was on a 50% tax rate during the 1970s!)

 

Naturally, Scotland cannot expect to be independent, break away and keep all that the National debt has done or was planned to do in Scotland. This would be a vast subsidy from the UK tax-payer.

 

Thus an independent Scotland would have to buy its share of the National Debt less a formula for Scottish tax paper input plus as I understand it, a large payment for Union infrastructure input paid for or being paid for by UK taxpayers.

 

This is not the same as taking over a loan and assuming the repayments as appears, I say appears, to be your understanding.

 

I don't make it up. I watch, listen, observe and learn.

[Barrie Stevens]

Some very interesting comments. IMO 'big issues' very often come down in the real world to the hip pocket nerve if they get as far as a vote. If the Scottish electorate were to be faced with the prospect of significantly higher taxes then probably they would vote no (though in a national referendum on the Union the non-Scottish electorate might vote yes as higher Scottish taxes might mean lower English and Welsh taxes).

 

In relation to the UK National Debt, that you quoted Barrie, wouldn't the Scots already have this level of indebtedness as part of the UK so that it would not be a major issue - just a transfer of accounting responsibilities? The oil revenue, or what will be left of it by the time this could happen, would potentially be a major issue but presumably one that would be used for some quid pro quo negotiations.

 

No confusion at all!

 

If you are part of the UK then you benefit from the National Debt and all that has been done and acquired with it.

 

This is the debt of the UK Government and not confined to some sort of loan or state borrowings.

 

At its most basic it is the difference between what Government spends and commits to spend and what it has coming in as revenue with the overall debt usually laid on the backs of succeeding generations of taxpapers.

 

(I personally paid for World War Two National Debt as I was on a 50% tax rate during the 1970s!)

 

Naturally, Scotland cannot expect to be independent, break away and keep all that the National debt has done or was planned to do in Scotland. This would be a vast subsidy from the UK tax-payer.

 

Thus an independent Scotland would have to buy its share of the National Debt less a formula for Scottish tax paper input plus as I understand it, a large payment for Union infrastructure input paid for or being paid for by UK taxpayers.

 

This is not the same as taking over a loan and assuming the repayments as appears, I say appears, to be your understanding.

 

I don't make it up. I watch, listen, observe and learn.

 

 

ERROR "Taxpayer input"

[Barrie Stevens]

I'm quite sure that most Scottish nationalists do want full independence, just as some British nationalists wish Westminster, with its one Scottish Tory MP, had never agreed to devolution. However, the non SNP card carrying Scottish electorate probably voted SNP because they won't vote Tory and they know the threat of independence is the best ploy they have for preventing Cameron repeating what Thatcher did to Scotland. I don't think the SNP will win a referendum on independence any time soon, but I do think it will come eventually.

 

The unification of Germany was good because that is what the people wanted, but putting the union of Czechoslovakia before The Czech Republic and Slovakia would have been wrong, and trying to maintain the union of Yugoslavia in the 90s was horrific, as was trying to maintain the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Nationalism is dangerous, but it is not the preserve of small nations. The history of Europe suggests to me that it is the nationalism of the biggest nations that has created the biggest problems. Nevertheless, we are talking about England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales - in which case I think we are talking about squabbles over shared embassy bills not a new Middle East. Of course the relationship between England and Ireland is still dangerously contentious (in pockets), but that is a legacy of putting the union first. It is British nationalism that gives me the shivers, and putting the union ahead of mutual respect makes you a British nationalist, and that's a quite a few degrees to the right of a democratic Scottish nationalist like Salmond.

 

As for the viability of an independent Scotland (pop.5,220,000), well both sides can draw analogies. Pongo chooses Iceland (pop. 320,000), a Scottish nationalist might cite Norway (pop. 5,000,000), or Denmark (pop.5,560,000) or Finland (5,375,000). I think the Republic of Ireland (pop.4,475,000) would be the fairest analogy - and, basket-case as the RoI is, the Scots will be comparing how the Irish are able to react to their circumstances compared to how Thatcher's government dealt with them in the 80s.

 

I think an independent Scotland would be good for the Scottish, and very good for the English, Welsh, Irish and Manx. Here's why:

 

1) There are too many politicians in the UK - taxpayers are paying for local councils, devolved parliaments, a national legislature and a European parliament.

2) Competition in good governance.

 

The downside might be a loss of international clout, but on recent evidence I don't see that the UK has much of an independent voice anyway.

 

Once again it has to be said that Alex Salmond's version of Independence is best read "Independence". They very much want their cake and eat it too...They do not so far envisage a clean break in the style of "ex-Colonies" whereas if you read the writings of constitutional academics and Proffs on the matter it is clear that Independence is not viable if prosperity and security is to be maintained.

 

For a start, there is the cost of buying out the UK in respect of public input by the Union and also taking over a proportionate share of the National Debt which to date equates to £56,000 per head of population in Scotland.

 

I am in danger of repeating myself as above in the early part of this thread.

 

As regards Ireland and its struggles in the context of preserving the Union....those were different times with different attitudes when the Lords of the Land literally had a greater grip on events than today.

 

Even so, just before the 1916 rising many Irish people were in favour of Home Rule within the Union. (which is not the same as Independence being the Isle of Man's situation albeit outside of the Union)

 

During the Queen's state visit to Ireland it was diplomatically glossed over that the huge numbers of Irish who died in WW1 fighting for the Union did so at a time when Home Rule was well on the way. Indeed, Britain stated that it would be granted after the War was over. This was acceptabel to most people at the time.

 

Only the hard line Republicans were dismayed and chose to stir things up through the Dublin Post Office seige in the face of public apathy and acceptance of what they saw as a faux independence (Which in effect they got as it was a long time before the Free State had a completely different constitutional status outside of both the UK and Dominion status).

 

Many Irish were dismayed by the 1916 rising and the participants were spat upon as they were marched through the streets.

 

Also, little understanding is expressed as to Britain's position fighting a World War with all these German armed rebels in its back yard. What with emergency powers needed in wartime how else could the military have reacted at that time?

 

Where they went wrong was arbitrarily shooting some of the men from the General Post Office seige in 1916 (And the Royal Navy shelling Dublin did not help!)...This caused many to doubt the promise of Home Rule post-war! The Republicans gained support.

 

Many of the actions taking place in Ireland horrified those in power in London and indeed the man who organised the execution of the Easter Rising participants was later declared to be a bit mad and unstable and shipped off to British Columbia.

 

The British problem with Ireland after 1916 was not so much letting go of power but to whom should the power be given? Those who fought for it and often terrorised others or those one could negotiate with. In the end the Military gave the UK a chance by imprisoning huge numbers of activists on the understanding that it would buy about six weeks of quality talking time.

 

The Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 was the product and N. Ireland a result.

 

And how independent is Ireland to this day? The way I see it it resembles the relationship between the USA and Canada with the UK playing the part of the United States!

 

The Queen's visit in my eyes rather confirmed this! (As they say in Canada. "Ours is a sovereign nation. Bows to no foreigner's will. But when they cough in Washington. We spit on Parliament Hill")

 

If Scotland does get Independence or Home Rule status (which it effectively is moving towards) or becomes the Scottish Free State, then I predict a division just like Ireland .....only this time people will vote with their feet and move to England taking their UK passports with them!

 

During the Queen's recent visit it was stated that the Irish have no need to curtsey/bow other than out of courtesy as they are not "subjects"...Well, I think these days neither are we. More like UK and EU Citizens as are the Manx born British.

 

Indeed, the only British subjects left are Irish! A number of people born between two dates (I forget what they are) have the right to keep their British Subject status either active or dormant until they die ie a sort of dual nationality. Not to be confused with the Irish Diaspora whereby people of close Irish descent overseas can claim an irish Passport inscribed "Citizen of Ireland".

 

Irish British Subject status must have a connection with the creation of the Free State and the declaration of a Republic in 1948 (And which was not strictly law until the UK passed the 1949 Ireland Act thus making it strictly Kosher!)

 

Incidentally, since 1949 at least no Irish person, ship, or aircraft can be categorised as "Alien" when within the UK.

 

When the last British-Irish subject dies then the term British Subject itself will die. Currently, no UK and Isle of Man born people are strictly speaking "British Subjects"...strange as it may seem! Just a number of old Irish people!(This is on official UK Govt websites regarding immigration etc)

 

This may seem drifting off topic save that a poster above implied preserving the Union as being the root cause of Brirish brutality in Ireland whereas I think you will find the whole thing was rather more akin to Northern Ireland's troubles only greater with the opposition more effective. ie who do we hand over to and under what terms?

 

It also indicates that an independent Scotland will not be a clean cut affair, the more so as the ties are now much greater with the EU an added complication.

 

ERROR "Acceptable"!!!

[manshimajin]

Barrie thanks for your comments. Clearly a complex issue.

 

What was perhaps confusing me was that I assumed that the Scots, through the taxation system, were currently paying an appropriately proportionate contribution towards the total UK National Debt and that this would therefore remain at a similar contribution level post independence (if it happened). If the Scottish taxpayer liability increased after independence does this imply that the current contribution level is not proportionate and that other taxpayers outside of Scotland are subsidising the Scots? Or is it that because the National Debt is an accumulating debt that fundamentally never gets repaid that it would only be on independence that the Scots would be asked for a lump sum repayment for their portion? I could imagine some interesting negotiations around this point not only on the quantum but also on the method and timescale of payment.

 

I would stick with my core thought that in the end these matters are decided more by hip pocket nerves than high politics - if it looks as if it is going to be financially unattractive the voters won't support independence and the politicians won'y risk putting the question.

[SJR]

"Commentators are now saying that an independent Scotland would have to pay its share of the UK Government Debt of £1 trillion.

 

This would mean Scotland having to find £280 billion or £56,000 for each Scot who chose to stay north of the border rather than move to England." Barry

 

Barry I try really hard not to read your bullshit but Scotland has 8% of UK population and if we accept UK Debt of £1 trillion then the true figures are 80 billion and £15400 per person.I appreciate your prowess with a duster but when it comes to maths "you really must do better !"

[Barrie Stevens]

It is a good result because it will enable the question of independence for the Scots to be done with - the SNP will have their referendum and independence will be rejected (the Scots will prefer to continue taking English Gold rather than revert to subsistence). The irrelevance of independence can then be forgotten about.

 

"A relationship of independence" is how Alex Salmond described his aims on BBC Radio 4's "Today" programme this morning. He was certainly signalling that the desire for Independence is giving way to "independence"...In fact just as I have mentioned in this thread.

 

The way he speaks one can see that his idea is to achieve a Home Rule status and relationship with the UK akin to the Isle of Man's faux independence.

 

As I said, a "Scottish Free State"....except that he wants to have the right to set more taxes and get some oil money as well...and keep the Queen...and the British armed forces ...Sterling and at other times the Barnett Formula by way of transition!

 

He sees this as part of a measure whereby England too has Home Rule and its own Government within the Union of the UK and as Scotland gets the oil revenues the Barnett Formula can slowly be dispensed with.

 

The Island was never part of the Union and so it can be easily dispensed with by the powers that be in London who would probably be glad to see it go cast adrift in an open boat etc.(They seem to be doing their best VAT wise!)

 

But breaking up the Union for the sake of Scotland as some sort of self-governing reservation along the lines of the Lacota Sioux nation, yet enjoying at the same time the benefits of the UK like nothing had ever changed, is a non-starter.

 

Perhaps Alex Salmond and others now realise that an independent Scotland would first have to shoulder a portion of the UK National Debt and effectively buy its way out?

 

Also, how many realise that the constituent parts of the Union of the UK are underpinned in the last resort by UK Sovereign Risk? Well we saw that in the way the banks were bailed out and from which the Isle of Man likewise drew benefit.

 

Likewise the Isle of Man is ultimately underpinned by UK Sovereign Risk. Would the UK's break up not only threaten the international financial viability of the collective UK but likewise put the Island's status in the shadows also?

 

In the meantime, Alex Salmond seems to sense that the true cost of Independence if put to the people now would produce a "No" vote and his is angling for a gradual approach whereby financial powers are assumed piecemeal .....so that in five years time the feel-good factor may have produced a less hesitant vote for Independence rather than "independence"..

[fatshaft]

All areas of the UK except London are net takers from the system. Only London pays more in than it takes out. Manchester just about breaks even.

 

Scotland will break away, as will Wales eventually, and NI will eventually become part of ROI. The EU will disolve, as all unions eventually do.

 

Scotland can easily stand on it's own 2 feet, but it will have to make significant and unpopular changes. This will work against the SNP and may cause further changes on teh political front. However, all I can say is good luck to them.

Couldn't be more wrong. London gets more per head from the public purse than any other area of the UK

[fatshaft]

An independent Scotland - I don't think so.Any Scot with a brain jumped ship and emigrated years ago leaving the likes of Alex Salmond to claim two wages as a member of the Scottish and British Parliaments.

Salmond is not an MP, only a MSP.

 

 

 

Corruption - A fully independent Scotland would make The Republic Of Ireland look like a model country !!

What are you basing this nonsense on?

[Barrie Stevens]

All areas of the UK except London are net takers from the system. Only London pays more in than it takes out. Manchester just about breaks even.

 

Scotland will break away, as will Wales eventually, and NI will eventually become part of ROI. The EU will disolve, as all unions eventually do.

 

Scotland can easily stand on it's own 2 feet, but it will have to make significant and unpopular changes. This will work against the SNP and may cause further changes on teh political front. However, all I can say is good luck to them.

Couldn't be more wrong. London gets more per head from the public purse than any other area of the UK

 

Proof please! Have you asked how much London as one of the world's most productive capitals actually produces?

[Barrie Stevens]

"Commentators are now saying that an independent Scotland would have to pay its share of the UK Government Debt of £1 trillion.

 

This would mean Scotland having to find £280 billion or £56,000 for each Scot who chose to stay north of the border rather than move to England." Barry

 

Barry I try really hard not to read your bullshit but Scotland has 8% of UK population and if we accept UK Debt of £1 trillion then the true figures are 80 billion and £15400 per person.I appreciate your prowess with a duster but when it comes to maths "you really must do better !"

 

Not my numbers old chappington! I do not make it up you know. Go figure! The subject matter is how much would Scotland need to buy out the farm?. I listen, learn, observe..and if you think it is that bad and so wrong then you come right on here now and give me an article of 500 words with your side of it!...!What do you think of Scotland breaking away?...

[SJR]

An independent Scotland - I don't think so.Any Scot with a brain jumped ship and emigrated years ago leaving the likes of Alex Salmond to claim two wages as a member of the Scottish and British Parliaments.

Salmond is not an MP, only a MSP.

 

 

 

Corruption - A fully independent Scotland would make The Republic Of Ireland look like a model country !!

What are you basing this nonsense on?

Alexander Elliot Anderson Salmond (probably claimed extra expenses for having a long name) was an MP from 1987-2010.He was first elected to the Scottish Parliament in 1999.He is most famous for not realising that he was being paid by both !!

The Republic Of Ireland is by general consent a "basket case economy" Famous for producing corrupt politicians it now faces years of recession.

[SJR]

"Commentators are now saying that an independent Scotland would have to pay its share of the UK Government Debt of £1 trillion.

 

This would mean Scotland having to find £280 billion or £56,000 for each Scot who chose to stay north of the border rather than move to England." Barry

 

Barry I try really hard not to read your bullshit but Scotland has 8% of UK population and if we accept UK Debt of £1 trillion then the true figures are 80 billion and £15400 per person.I appreciate your prowess with a duster but when it comes to maths "you really must do better !"

 

Not my numbers old chappington! I do not make it up you know. Go figure! The subject matter is how much would Scotland need to buy out the farm?. I listen, learn, observe..and if you think it is that bad and so wrong then you come right on here now and give me an article of 500 words with your side of it!...!What do you think of Scotland breaking away?...

Barry me old office cleaner (God I wish that Government had kept those drawers locked) I am old school and why sprout 500 words when a few will do !! As regards the Sweaties, they would be mad to break away and the Grandmaster (Salmond) at the trough knows that.Seems that they just want to keep their subsidy and every now and again they will swing their Claymores and shout "North Sea Oil !!"

[SJR]

All areas of the UK except London are net takers from the system. Only London pays more in than it takes out. Manchester just about breaks even.

 

Scotland will break away, as will Wales eventually, and NI will eventually become part of ROI. The EU will disolve, as all unions eventually do.

 

Scotland can easily stand on it's own 2 feet, but it will have to make significant and unpopular changes. This will work against the SNP and may cause further changes on teh political front. However, all I can say is good luck to them.

Couldn't be more wrong. London gets more per head from the public purse than any other area of the UK

Fatshaft I can only agree with Barry (!) London and the South-East subsidise the rest of the UK. To think that Wales and Scotland could exist on their own is fanciful to say the least.