Scottish Referendum - Part Deux

wallace_and_gromit

blim wrote:

And it was inclusive on the basis that if you lived in Scotland, you got a vote in the referendum. Contrast that with the EU referendum, where the same EU nationals whose rights have been sold down the river by Tory MPs, were denied a vote.

To be fair, eligibility to vote in the referendum was the same as in a general election, which isn't an unreasonable place to start. Cameron wanted to win the referendum, so it's reasonable to assume that not allowing EU citizens to vote was a "c*ck-up" rather than a "conspiracy" as their votes could easily have swung the vote to remain. (Ditto 16/17 year olds.)

First.Aspect

apreading wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Defending Brexit whilst also defending the Union is very difficult to do, because the logic that works for one by it's nature works against the other.

Not at all.

Whether or not Scotland is better as part of the UK or independant is an entirely different assessment to whether or not the UK is better as part of the EU or not.

If you purely think from non-factual, emotional only perspective then maybe, just maybe your sentence works. But there is alot more to the properly informed decision than that - there are a whole host of political and economic arguements and those arguements are hugely different for indyref compared to brexit.

Besides, the argument that Scotland shold be independant if they have a different view on one single or even several subjects to the rest of the UK is the same as the argument that Edinburgh and Glasgow should be independant of each other based on how little they usually agree with each other. Lets make every constituency an independant fiefdom while we are at it, shall we?

I am not against the vote - scotland had the vote and decided. And as far as I can tell there would be less support and less reason for independance now from the Scottish people's perspective because their main source of income to maybe balance the books (oil) has died and doesnt look like coming back any time soon.

Yeah, I agree. Sorry Rick but that's just nonsense.

neiltb

So Scotland's problem is a collapse in the oil price? When there's none left do we shutter the shop? Before oil was discovered we had industry, why can this not happen again? We could sell Europe or the UK water, renewable power, whisky, rent out nuclear submarine berths.

Perhaps, if forced to diversify, the people might succeed.

To suggest Scotland is a one trick pony is insulting but not surprising.

surrey_commuter

First Aspect wrote:

apreading wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Defending Brexit whilst also defending the Union is very difficult to do, because the logic that works for one by it's nature works against the other.

Not at all.

Whether or not Scotland is better as part of the UK or independant is an entirely different assessment to whether or not the UK is better as part of the EU or not.

If you purely think from non-factual, emotional only perspective then maybe, just maybe your sentence works. But there is alot more to the properly informed decision than that - there are a whole host of political and economic arguements and those arguements are hugely different for indyref compared to brexit.

Besides, the argument that Scotland shold be independant if they have a different view on one single or even several subjects to the rest of the UK is the same as the argument that Edinburgh and Glasgow should be independant of each other based on how little they usually agree with each other. Lets make every constituency an independant fiefdom while we are at it, shall we?

I am not against the vote - scotland had the vote and decided. And as far as I can tell there would be less support and less reason for independance now from the Scottish people's perspective because their main source of income to maybe balance the books (oil) has died and doesnt look like coming back any time soon.

Yeah, I agree. Sorry Rick but that's just nonsense.

You can not see the contradiction is TM telling the Scots that they would be mad to leave an economic union which dominates there current trading relationship? How about the perils of a hard border? Politics is not a game (yes you Boris)? real problems will be created which are not easily solved?

Just check out the Mailonline they have all this contradictory rubbish in adjacent articles

bompington

neiltb wrote:

So Scotland's problem is a collapse in the oil price? When there's none left do we shutter the shop? Before oil was discovered we had industry, why can this not happen again? We could sell Europe or the UK water, renewable power, whisky, rent out nuclear submarine berths.

Perhaps, if forced to diversify, the people might succeed.

To suggest Scotland is a one trick pony is insulting but not surprising.

If we could only find a way to monetise chips on shoulders...

mr_goo

mamba80 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Scottish independence can't come quick enough in my opinion.
I want the population to know what it feels like to pay for prescriptions and eye tests. But most of all what it's like to be saddled with a student debt of £50k plus before you've even started out on your working life.
Bl00dy disgrace.

A remarkably bitter and twisted post - would you care to elaborate?

Student debt and the stupidly high fees are all to do with gov spending priorities and zero to do with the Scot's

Its fair enough your angry at this but you said recently your more of a socialist? yet you wish this on your fellow man? so still a tory at heart :roll:

If we live in a 'United Kingdom' then surely every system within it should be equal for all its citizens. But it isn't.

rick_chasey

First Aspect wrote:

apreading wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Defending Brexit whilst also defending the Union is very difficult to do, because the logic that works for one by it's nature works against the other.

Not at all.

Whether or not Scotland is better as part of the UK or independant is an entirely different assessment to whether or not the UK is better as part of the EU or not.

If you purely think from non-factual, emotional only perspective then maybe, just maybe your sentence works. But there is alot more to the properly informed decision than that - there are a whole host of political and economic arguements and those arguements are hugely different for indyref compared to brexit.

Besides, the argument that Scotland shold be independant if they have a different view on one single or even several subjects to the rest of the UK is the same as the argument that Edinburgh and Glasgow should be independant of each other based on how little they usually agree with each other. Lets make every constituency an independant fiefdom while we are at it, shall we?

I am not against the vote - scotland had the vote and decided. And as far as I can tell there would be less support and less reason for independance now from the Scottish people's perspective because their main source of income to maybe balance the books (oil) has died and doesnt look like coming back any time soon.

Yeah, I agree. Sorry Rick but that's just nonsense.

OK, give me the 5 main arguments against Scottish independence and I'll find you the equivalent opposite argument used during Brexit.

Jez mon

Ultimately I think it's going to be hard for TM to avoid admitting that the brexit vote delt her and the UK a bit of a crap hand. Scotland leaving the rest of the UK won't solve that though.

neiltb

bompington wrote:

neiltb wrote:

So Scotland's problem is a collapse in the oil price? When there's none left do we shutter the shop? Before oil was discovered we had industry, why can this not happen again? We could sell Europe or the UK water, renewable power, whisky, rent out nuclear submarine berths.

Perhaps, if forced to diversify, the people might succeed.

To suggest Scotland is a one trick pony is insulting but not surprising.

If we could only find a way to monetise chips on shoulders...

I take mine with everything (that's salt, vinegar and sauce).

I point out some resources other than oil Scotland can offer and you throw a schoolyard insult? touche, your esteemed excellence, touche.

milton50

If I was Scottish then back in 2014 I would have voted for independence, and I was surprised when they didn't.

However, the case for independence this time round is much weaker I would suggest. For one, applying to join the EU means accepting the Euro, fairly strict fiscal rules and will take years to complete (even if the EU fast track the application as a kind of two-fingers up to the UK). In fact there is a train of thought that Spain would veto the accession. So for some considerable time Scotland would be out of the UK and out of the EU which seems to be the worst of both worlds.

Sturgeon is a genius at creating grievances with 'Westminster' though and when you think about it, this was the best option open to her. It is questionable whether there will be a majority in Holyrood for independence after the next election and by naming a date which she knows May might not accept, it allows her to point to another example of Westminster dictating to Scotland. We'll see if it works.

apreading

Rick Chasey wrote:

OK, give me the 5 main arguments against Scottish independence and I'll find you the equivalent opposite argument used during Brexit.

Uninformed and specious arguments not based on the actual political or economic facts, maybe. But the terms and effects of the union between scotland and the rest of the UK are entirely separate to the terms of the union between the UK and the EU.

And you could say exactly the same in the opposing direction - by your 'logic' Scotland could not possibly campaign for independance from one union at the same time as campaigning to remain/rejoin another. If you can only see the two things in the same way then Scotland should be leaving both unions behind and truly going on their own.

And at the same time, any constituencies in Scotland that vote to remain in the UK should not be forced to leave even if Scotland as a whole votes to do so - because that is Nicola Sturgeon's argument about brexit.

Frank the tank

I feel the Scots are perfectly entitled to a second referendum prior to Brexit. Then that decision should stand.

cycleclinic

Personally I am dismayed we are on this merrygo round again. I wonder if the government will wake up now and stop being so arrogant and complacent and recognise that something is deeply wrong with the way we govern ourselves. If there is going to yet another referendum, give the scots a proper choice independance or a reformed UK where all 4 nations have equal status like a federation or we will have the SNP asking the question over and over again until they get the right answer.

The brexit crowd keep on saying the british people decided on the 23rd June to leave the EU. Now those same folk have to decide to allow or prevent an independance referdum. If they do then referendum decisions can be reversed which will be dangerous. Maybe they should allow it so then there can be further EU referendums until the right answer is got. Then again maybe not.

This whole thing is a daft idea. try reforming the UK first properly rather wrecking everyones home. A proper attempt a constitutional reform has not be made or even suggested. Piecemeal devolution does not count it is a pathetic sop. parliments are not of equal status.

rjsterry

apreading wrote:

If you purely think from non-factual, emotional only perspective then maybe, just maybe your sentence works.

Recent history would suggest that that is exactly how a large section of the population make their decisions. Captured nicely in that "we've had enough of experts" quote.

verylonglegs

rjsterry wrote:

apreading wrote:

If you purely think from non-factual, emotional only perspective then maybe, just maybe your sentence works.

Recent history would suggest that that is exactly how a large section of the population make their decisions. Captured nicely in that "we've had enough of experts" quote.

Indeed, unless all the flag waving idiots of the last 18 months were figments of my imagination.

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

It amazes me how many people in England give a monkeys whether Scotland leaves or not.

I don't think many.people in England do give a monkeys. The most common view I've come across is along the lines of 'If you want to **** off and pay your own way, do it: if you want to stay and take our subsidies, do it. Either way, just STFU and stop whining (although that last part is mainly aimed at people with fish-related surnames).

First.Aspect

Rick Chasey wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

apreading wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Defending Brexit whilst also defending the Union is very difficult to do, because the logic that works for one by it's nature works against the other.

Not at all.

Whether or not Scotland is better as part of the UK or independant is an entirely different assessment to whether or not the UK is better as part of the EU or not.

If you purely think from non-factual, emotional only perspective then maybe, just maybe your sentence works. But there is alot more to the properly informed decision than that - there are a whole host of political and economic arguements and those arguements are hugely different for indyref compared to brexit.

Besides, the argument that Scotland shold be independant if they have a different view on one single or even several subjects to the rest of the UK is the same as the argument that Edinburgh and Glasgow should be independant of each other based on how little they usually agree with each other. Lets make every constituency an independant fiefdom while we are at it, shall we?

I am not against the vote - scotland had the vote and decided. And as far as I can tell there would be less support and less reason for independance now from the Scottish people's perspective because their main source of income to maybe balance the books (oil) has died and doesnt look like coming back any time soon.

Yeah, I agree. Sorry Rick but that's just nonsense.

OK, give me the 5 main arguments against Scottish independence and I'll find you the equivalent opposite argument used during Brexit.

No plans on currency (other than "we are sure rUK won't mind sharing).
We only are part of a state, so no plans on armed forces and many aspects of central government (other than "we are sure rUK won't mind sharing").
Oil revenues exaggerated by about 900%
Separation from(then) about 80% of our import/export market (now only about 65% yay)
Unserviceable national debt share vs. lowest possible credit rating by reneging on it.

So, fairly different from Brexit I would say.

cycleclinic

And that is the whole problem with england. Political apathy. As a country we are not even patriotic anymore. England and probably wales does not care about the U.K's integrity. Can you imagine the americans being so ambivalent to towards an independence movement in Texas or california?

There was once a time people in the U.K felt proud to be british and we made sure the world knew it (and the scots were a big part of that too). today we don't seem to care and have no national ambition or sense of belonging to a family of nations.

If scotland does go though then it should have its own currency, it own armed forces e.t.c i.e be a proper country and no sharing. there should even be a proper boarder and customs which would be a right pain but that is what proper countries have unless we agree to a single market post independence. That is not punishment but what proper countries do.

Sounds like scotland wants all the benefits of independence and none of it's short comings. I wonder where sturgeon learnt that. Maybe She and May are more alike than they would ever admit. I prefered alex salmond at least he kept his word. notice how the talk of a second ref started as soon as salmond stepped down.

rick_chasey

apreading wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

OK, give me the 5 main arguments against Scottish independence and I'll find you the equivalent opposite argument used during Brexit.

Uninformed and specious arguments not based on the actual political or economic facts, maybe. But the terms and effects of the union between scotland and the rest of the UK are entirely separate to the terms of the union between the UK and the EU.

And you could say exactly the same in the opposing direction - by your 'logic' Scotland could not possibly campaign for independance from one union at the same time as campaigning to remain/rejoin another. If you can only see the two things in the same way then Scotland should be leaving both unions behind and truly going on their own.

And at the same time, any constituencies in Scotland that vote to remain in the UK should not be forced to leave even if Scotland as a whole votes to do so - because that is Nicola Sturgeon's argument about brexit.

You haven't read what I wrote properly then.

The bind is the arguments May uses for Brexit are the opposite of the arguments she will use to keep the union together.

You've disputed that by basically saying "Scotland is not Britain, the U.K. is not the EU" which, in fairness, I assumed was taken as read.

To illustrate the No.10 statement was exactly the argument Cameron used on the campaign to keep the Uk in the EU.

ballysmate

Salmond kept his word? Remember the SNP white paper produced last time which was pure fiction?
How about the non existent legal advice he claimed to have sought?

Pross

I think the big issue if the Scots do get another referendum the pro independence campaign will give the impression Scotland would take over the prime position the UK had rather than coming in at the level of the recently joined east European nations. Would there even be a guarantee the EU would allow them to join?

Also, the last referendum was quoted as a once in a lifetime chance of independence by the SNP and now they are demanding a second in 5 years. Why does Sturgeon seem to think being a Scottish MP gives her the right to demand a referendum that affects the whole UK?

ballysmate

Pross wrote:

I think the big issue if the Scots do get another referendum the pro independence campaign will give the impression Scotland would take over the prime position the UK had rather than coming in at the level of the recently joined east European nations. Would there even be a guarantee the EU would allow them to join?

Also, the last referendum was quoted as a once in a lifetime chance of independence by the SNP and now they are demanding a second in 5 years. Why does Sturgeon seem to think being a Scottish MP gives her the right to demand a referendum that affects the whole UK?

Nothing has changed EU wise for the Seps since 2014

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... f-eu-queue

They will have to apply as a new member.

ballysmate

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

It amazes me how many people in England give a monkeys whether Scotland leaves or not.

I don't think many.people in England do give a monkeys. The most common view I've come across is along the lines of 'If you want to **** off and pay your own way, do it: if you want to stay and take our subsidies, do it. Either way, just STFU and stop whining (although that last part is mainly aimed at people with fish-related surnames).

Yes you would think that they would have the good grace not to whine, having suckled at Westminster's t1t to the tune of £1400 for every man woman and child.

Stevo_666

First Aspect wrote:

No plans on currency (other than "we are sure rUK won't mind sharing).
We only are part of a state, so no plans on armed forces and many aspects of central government (other than "we are sure rUK won't mind sharing").
Oil revenues exaggerated by about 900%
Separation from(then) about 80% of our import/export market (now only about 65% yay)
Unserviceable national debt share vs. lowest possible credit rating by reneging on it.

So, fairly different from Brexit I would say.

This. Very much.

To put it bluntly, Scotland is not viable as an independent nation. No currency of their own and pretty much unable to fund themselves from the get go.

I think most Scots are intelligent enough to realise this. That said, TM should at the very leasttell Sturgeon to take a hike until after Brexit is sorted. And given that the 2014 Indyref was presented as a once in a lifetime opportunity for Scottish independence, it would be quite fitting if she waited considerably longer.

ballysmate

I think the question should be worded differently from the previous vote.
"Should Scotland remain part of the UK?" would mean that all the dopey tw@ts that brought 'YES' merchandise last time would be utterly confused with what to do with it.
As regards the ones with 'YES' tattoos...

Garry H

Stevo 666 wrote:

To put it bluntly, Scotland is not viable as an independent nation. No currency of their own and pretty much unable to fund themselves from the get go.

I think most Scots are intelligent enough to realise this. That said, TM should at the very leasttell Sturgeon to take a hike until after Brexit is sorted. And given that the 2014 Indyref was presented as a once in a lifetime opportunity for Scottish independence, it would be quite fitting if she waited considerably longer.

This, in a nutshell. Would also lead to a 'brain drain' , beginning with me

bompington

neiltb wrote:

bompington wrote:

neiltb wrote:

So Scotland's problem is a collapse in the oil price? When there's none left do we shutter the shop? Before oil was discovered we had industry, why can this not happen again? We could sell Europe or the UK water, renewable power, whisky, rent out nuclear submarine berths.

Perhaps, if forced to diversify, the people might succeed.

To suggest Scotland is a one trick pony is insulting but not surprising.

If we could only find a way to monetise chips on shoulders...

I take mine with everything (that's salt, vinegar and sauce).

I point out some resources other than oil Scotland can offer and you throw a schoolyard insult? touche, your esteemed excellence, touche.

Then let me use longer words to say the same thing.
The expression "chip on the shoulder" means feeling angry and insulted when no-one has insulted you: it's not a playground insult, just an observation.
Your post gave the strong impression that your chief problem with the economic arguments against independence was that you felt insulted. But whether or not it's insulting to anyone is irrelevant: it's merely pointing out that spending 10% more than you're earning does not make a sustainable nation.
This is exactly the grievance mentality that the Nats are so expert in playing on to gain support. It's not a pretty stereotype and it doesn't bear much resemblance to most Scottish people I know, but it clearly works for them...

surrey_commuter

Now suggestions she will go for EFTA - smart move

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Now suggestions she will go for EFTA - smart move

Exactly.

It's all a ruse to put May in a bind.

milton50

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Now suggestions she will go for EFTA - smart move

Exactly.

It's all a ruse to put May in a bind.

Yes. That's the only option open to her, hoping that May's response will incite more "50-50 Scots" to vote for independence.