Scottish Referendum - Part Deux

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Sturgeon put back in her box by TM:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39293513

Quite right, there are more important things to focus on just now.

If only they were...

What's she going to do about it? Stamp her feet and scweam maybe.

Sturgeon? Yes.
May? She should be doing something. 9 months and? Nothing.

May has done the only thing she needed to - tell Sturgeon she can't have another referendum for now.

My point was that she should be doing more than focusing.
Time will become an issue that won't be overcome.

That's assuming we care whether Scotland eventually leaves. I'm not that fussed either way.

ballysmate

Surrey Commuter wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

How about buying pints in a round. A couple of your mates earn less so you pick up an extra round now and then. As you get older you grow apart and one of the poorer guys moves away. Yes he is not there to buy any rounds but he was drinking more than he was buying so you are better off.

But you've got one less friend.

he was getting a bit tiresome. Initially the constant moaning about the pub was part of his charm but in the end it had worn a bit thin and his constant threats to go to another pub unless we stumped up some bar snacks meant we really did not care.

Was he a member of a gardening club?

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

That's assuming we care whether Scotland eventually leaves. I'm not that fussed either way.

Again. Neither is she. But what has she been doing on the Brexit front for the past 9 months?
I suggest that she moves on from focussing and deal with what she sees.

pblakeney

Full on irony alert.

"Mrs May said it would "not be fair" to expect the Scottish people to decide when they did not know what the future partnership with the UK would be or "what an independent Scotland would look like"."

surrey_commuter

Ballysmate wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

How about buying pints in a round. A couple of your mates earn less so you pick up an extra round now and then. As you get older you grow apart and one of the poorer guys moves away. Yes he is not there to buy any rounds but he was drinking more than he was buying so you are better off.

But you've got one less friend.

he was getting a bit tiresome. Initially the constant moaning about the pub was part of his charm but in the end it had worn a bit thin and his constant threats to go to another pub unless we stumped up some bar snacks meant we really did not care.

Was he a member of a gardening club?

He is hoping to join as a hybrid member

rick_chasey

PBlakeney wrote:

Full on irony alert.

"Mrs May said it would "not be fair" to expect the Scottish people to decide when they did not know what the future partnership with the UK would be or "what an independent Scotland would look like"."

See!

wallace_and_gromit

PBlakeney wrote:

Full on irony alert.

"Mrs May said it would "not be fair" to expect the Scottish people to decide when they did not know what the future partnership with the UK would be or "what an independent Scotland would look like"."

She right here. The fact that the last Scottish referendum and the EU referendum were undertaken with no-one really have a "Scooby" as to what was being voted for doesn't change this.

pblakeney

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Full on irony alert.

"Mrs May said it would "not be fair" to expect the Scottish people to decide when they did not know what the future partnership with the UK would be or "what an independent Scotland would look like"."

She right here. The fact that the last Scottish referendum and the EU referendum were undertaken with no-one really have a "Scooby" as to what was being voted for doesn't change this.

I agree. It is the blind hypocrisy that I find ridiculous.
But not surprising.

wallace_and_gromit

PBlakeney wrote:

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Full on irony alert.

"Mrs May said it would "not be fair" to expect the Scottish people to decide when they did not know what the future partnership with the UK would be or "what an independent Scotland would look like"."

She right here. The fact that the last Scottish referendum and the EU referendum were undertaken with no-one really have a "Scooby" as to what was being voted for doesn't change this.

I agree. It is the blind hypocrisy that I find ridiculous.
But not surprising.

I don't think she's being particularly hypocritical as she had relatively little say in the way either of the two previous referenda were run, as she wasn't in Cameron's "inner circle". To my knowledge, she's never commented on how either of these two previous votes took place and is simply playing the cards that she inherited from Cameron. It would be hypocritical is she was saying that the EU referendum was run in ideal circumstances and then proposing something different for the next Scottish jobbie.

And it's never too late to start doing things properly!

surrey_commuter

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Full on irony alert.

"Mrs May said it would "not be fair" to expect the Scottish people to decide when they did not know what the future partnership with the UK would be or "what an independent Scotland would look like"."

She right here. The fact that the last Scottish referendum and the EU referendum were undertaken with no-one really have a "Scooby" as to what was being voted for doesn't change this.

I agree. It is the blind hypocrisy that I find ridiculous.
But not surprising.

I don't think she's being particularly hypocritical as she had relatively little say in the way either of the two previous referenda were run, as she wasn't in Cameron's "inner circle". To my knowledge, she's never commented on how either of these two previous votes took place and is simply playing the cards that she inherited from Cameron. It would be hypocritical is she was saying that the EU referendum was run in ideal circumstances and then proposing something different for the next Scottish jobbie.

And it's never too late to start doing things properly!

It is hypocrisy. If she truly believed that she would annul the result of the EU Referendum and only re-run it when the UK people knew what the future partnership with the EU would be, or what an independent UK would look like.

rick_chasey

kingstongraham

Surrey Commuter wrote:

It is hypocrisy. If she truly believed that she would annul the result of the EU Referendum and only re-run it when the UK people knew what the future partnership with the EU would be, or what an independent UK would look like.

She isn't proposing to re-run either referendum based on what the final situation looks like.

surrey_commuter

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

It is hypocrisy. If she truly believed that she would annul the result of the EU Referendum and only re-run it when the UK people knew what the future partnership with the EU would be, or what an independent UK would look like.

She isn't proposing to re-run either referendum based on what the final situation looks like.

who is she?

but yeah neither are saying that.

I am just taking TM's statements and swapping Scotland/UK for UK/EU

kingstongraham

Surrey Commuter wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

It is hypocrisy. If she truly believed that she would annul the result of the EU Referendum and only re-run it when the UK people knew what the future partnership with the EU would be, or what an independent UK would look like.

She isn't proposing to re-run either referendum based on what the final situation looks like.

who is she?

but yeah neither are saying that.

I am just taking TM's statements and swapping Scotland/UK for UK/EU

And ignoring the results of both the referendums that have already happened.

surrey_commuter

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

It is hypocrisy. If she truly believed that she would annul the result of the EU Referendum and only re-run it when the UK people knew what the future partnership with the EU would be, or what an independent UK would look like.

She isn't proposing to re-run either referendum based on what the final situation looks like.

who is she?

but yeah neither are saying that.

I am just taking TM's statements and swapping Scotland/UK for UK/EU

And ignoring the results of both the referendums that have already happened.

again I am not sure in your statement who is ignoring both referenda.

To clarify I am discussing with W&G whether it is hypocritical of TM to say
"Mrs May said it would "not be fair" to expect the Scottish people to decide when they did not know what the future partnership with the UK would be or "what an independent Scotland would look like"."

rjsterry

And I think W&G has it on this one. She (TM) didn't initiate or have any real control over the previous referenda. She's inherited a situation where enacting the result of the EU referendum was effectively (if not technically) a given, albeit with a question over the manner in which it is enacted. That horse has already bolted. That is not the situation with the proposed Scottish referendum. The horse is still in the stable and Sturgeon is asking to leave the latch off.

Jez mon

But anyone suggesting that the EU referendum was a mess is called a remoaner and regarded as someone who can't accept the result.

The horse is still in the stable, we are still a member of the EU, we are still a member of the single market and the customs union. TM could legitimately remain in either the SM or customs union, but she has decided to pursue the "hardest" brexit possible.

We could even tie up the horse and give MPs a "meaningful" say over the final deal, but that would be seen as weakening our negotiating position, so we have decided not to bother doing that.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

And I think W&G has it on this one. She (TM) didn't initiate or have any real control over the previous referenda. She's inherited a situation where enacting the result of the EU referendum was effectively (if not technically) a given, albeit with a question over the manner in which it is enacted. That horse has already bolted. That is not the situation with the proposed Scottish referendum. The horse is still in the stable and Sturgeon is asking to leave the latch off.

I am not arguing for a re-run or that TM's argument is wrong. I am saying it is hypocritical to say no to a referendum because the Scots will not know what they are voting for.

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

It is hypocrisy. If she truly believed that she would annul the result of the EU Referendum and only re-run it when the UK people knew what the future partnership with the EU would be, or what an independent UK would look like.

The logic doesn't quite work here.

If we only had a referendum on leaving the EU if we knew what things would eventually look like after we left then it would never happen - as logically we would need to go through the leaving/negotiation process to get to the point where we do know.

Whereas in just over 2 years the Scots will know what the post Brexit situation looks like and can make a judgment based on that. They will also already have some reasonable certainty that Scotland will be in financial s**t if they leave the union. So Sturgeon can wait. Life's tough sometimes.

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

It is hypocrisy. If she truly believed that she would annul the result of the EU Referendum and only re-run it when the UK people knew what the future partnership with the EU would be, or what an independent UK would look like.

The logic doesn't quite work here.

If we only had a referendum on leaving the EU if we knew what things would eventually look like after we left then it would never happen - as logically we would need to go through the leaving/negotiation process to get to the point where we do know.

Whereas in just over 2 years the Scots will know what the post Brexit situation looks like and can make a judgment based on that. They will also already have some reasonable certainty that Scotland will be in financial s**t if they leave the union. So Sturgeon can wait. Life's tough sometimes.

Mrs May said it would "not be fair" to expect the Scottish people to decide when they did not know what the future partnership with the UK would be or "what an independent Scotland would look like"."

how is that not hypocritical?

kingstongraham

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

It is hypocrisy. If she truly believed that she would annul the result of the EU Referendum and only re-run it when the UK people knew what the future partnership with the EU would be, or what an independent UK would look like.

The logic doesn't quite work here.

If we only had a referendum on leaving the EU if we knew what things would eventually look like after we left then it would never happen - as logically we would need to go through the leaving/negotiation process to get to the point where we do know.

Whereas in just over 2 years the Scots will know what the post Brexit situation looks like and can make a judgment based on that. They will also already have some reasonable certainty that Scotland will be in financial s**t if they leave the union. So Sturgeon can wait. Life's tough sometimes.

Mrs May said it would "not be fair" to expect the Scottish people to decide when they did not know what the future partnership with the UK would be or "what an independent Scotland would look like"."

how is that not hypocritical?

Set against what other statement?

diy

Sturgeon seems to be under the illusion that if Scotland leaves the UK, they can somehow remain part of the EU. Spain will block them joining the EU or having any kind of special status due to their own problems. There is also a clear position that that Scotland leaving the UK cannot remain in the EU.

So the Scottish referendum cannot change the outcome of Scotlands membership or special arrangement with the EU.

I personally get a bit fed up with jimmy krankie demanding special this and special that for <10% of the UK population.

On the subject of TMs pursuit of hard brexit. This is a negotiation tactic. Anyone with any experience of negotiation can see this. Its a classic flaming Lamborghini

surrey_commuter

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

It is hypocrisy. If she truly believed that she would annul the result of the EU Referendum and only re-run it when the UK people knew what the future partnership with the EU would be, or what an independent UK would look like.

The logic doesn't quite work here.

If we only had a referendum on leaving the EU if we knew what things would eventually look like after we left then it would never happen - as logically we would need to go through the leaving/negotiation process to get to the point where we do know.

Whereas in just over 2 years the Scots will know what the post Brexit situation looks like and can make a judgment based on that. They will also already have some reasonable certainty that Scotland will be in financial s**t if they leave the union. So Sturgeon can wait. Life's tough sometimes.

Mrs May said it would "not be fair" to expect the Scottish people to decide when they did not know what the future partnership with the UK would be or "what an independent Scotland would look like"."

how is that not hypocritical?

Set against what other statement?

her belief that the EU referendum was a good idea and the result should be implemented despite the electorate not knowing what the alternative looked like

rick_chasey

diy wrote:

Sturgeon seems to be under the illusion that if Scotland leaves the UK, they can somehow remain part of the EU. Spain will block them joining the EU or having any kind of special status due to their own problems. There is also a clear position that that Scotland leaving the UK cannot remain in the EU.

So the Scottish referendum cannot change the outcome of Scotlands membership or special arrangement with the EU.

I personally get a bit fed up with jimmy krankie demanding special this and special that for <10% of the UK population.

She's under no illusion.

It's politics.

surrey_commuter

diy wrote:

Sturgeon seems to be under the illusion that if Scotland leaves the UK, they can somehow remain part of the EU. Spain will block them joining the EU or having any kind of special status due to their own problems. There is also a clear position that that Scotland leaving the UK cannot remain in the EU.

So the Scottish referendum cannot change the outcome of Scotlands membership or special arrangement with the EU.

I personally get a bit fed up with jimmy krankie demanding special this and special that for <10% of the UK population.

On the subject of TMs pursuit of hard brexit. This is a negotiation tactic. Anyone with any experience of negotiation can see this. Its a classic flaming Lamborghini

if she is using rejection of ECJ and FoM as a reversible negotiation tactic then she has balls of steel and I would be very surprised if she kept her job. Her new slogan could be "Brexit doesn't mean Brexit"

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

It is hypocrisy. If she truly believed that she would annul the result of the EU Referendum and only re-run it when the UK people knew what the future partnership with the EU would be, or what an independent UK would look like.

The logic doesn't quite work here.

If we only had a referendum on leaving the EU if we knew what things would eventually look like after we left then it would never happen - as logically we would need to go through the leaving/negotiation process to get to the point where we do know.

Whereas in just over 2 years the Scots will know what the post Brexit situation looks like and can make a judgment based on that. They will also already have some reasonable certainty that Scotland will be in financial s**t if they leave the union. So Sturgeon can wait. Life's tough sometimes.

Mrs May said it would "not be fair" to expect the Scottish people to decide when they did not know what the future partnership with the UK would be or "what an independent Scotland would look like"."

how is that not hypocritical?

Set against what other statement?

her belief that the EU referendum was a good idea and the result should be implemented despite the electorate not knowing what the alternative looked like

Those aren't her statements. Regardless of her beliefs, Parliament voted for the referendum so it was going to happen. On the second point, her hands were tied by the previous PM. If she had even hinted that she would go against the ref result, she'd have been lynched by her own party and goodness knows what the reaction outside Parliament would have been.

diy

Surrey Commuter wrote:

if she is using rejection of ECJ and FoM as a reversible negotiation tactic then she has balls of steel and I would be very surprised if she kept her job. Her new slogan could be "Brexit doesn't mean Brexit"

Other way around...

EU so you want to be part of the customs union, free trade and EEA? Its a very special thing and comes at a very high price (the Lambo) - here is what we want in return.
TM - nah not really bothered to be fair, we assume you still want to sell your BMWs and champagne to us?

Flaming lambo - de-value the thing that the other side thinks has most value in the negotiation.

surrey_commuter

diy wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

if she is using rejection of ECJ and FoM as a reversible negotiation tactic then she has balls of steel and I would be very surprised if she kept her job. Her new slogan could be "Brexit doesn't mean Brexit"

Other way around...

EU so you want to be part of the customs union, free trade and EEA? Its a very special thing and comes at a very high price (the Lambo) - here is what we want in return.
TM - nah not really bothered to be fair, we assume you still want to sell your BMWs and champagne to us?

Flaming lambo - de-value the thing that the other side thinks has most value in the negotiation.

then why would you take it off the table in advance? surely you would leave it there and then trade it off for something you do want?

diy

Because the person who puts it on the table clearly wants it on the table. It sets out the real fact that trading between the UK and EU is a mutual benefit, not something the UK desperately wants to cling to and pay a high price for.

While we export more to the EU than they export to us, when you look at the core block the need for free trade is very much in the interests of spain, france, italy, germany etc

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

It is hypocrisy. If she truly believed that she would annul the result of the EU Referendum and only re-run it when the UK people knew what the future partnership with the EU would be, or what an independent UK would look like.

The logic doesn't quite work here.

If we only had a referendum on leaving the EU if we knew what things would eventually look like after we left then it would never happen - as logically we would need to go through the leaving/negotiation process to get to the point where we do know.

Whereas in just over 2 years the Scots will know what the post Brexit situation looks like and can make a judgment based on that. They will also already have some reasonable certainty that Scotland will be in financial s**t if they leave the union. So Sturgeon can wait. Life's tough sometimes.

Mrs May said it would "not be fair" to expect the Scottish people to decide when they did not know what the future partnership with the UK would be or "what an independent Scotland would look like"."

how is that not hypocritical?

Future partnership between EU and UK is what I think she was referring to - i.e. wait until after Brexit. We already know an independent Scotland is up s**t creek without a paddle as I mentioned above.