Scottish Referendum - Part Deux

surrey_commuter

diy wrote:

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

are you saying that TM wants to be part of the customs union, free trade and EEA?

wallace_and_gromit

Surrey Commuter wrote:

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?

Because she never said that holding the EU referendum with no knowledge of what was actually being voted for was a bad idea. For a statement to be hypocritical, it has to contradict a previous statement.

She's going ahead with Brexit because that's what people voted for. And she'd going for her version of Brexit because she's the leader of the governing party and that's what the governing party does. If things look like they're going t*ts up during negotiations and there are enough Tory rebels then Parliament simply proposes a motion of no confidence and she'll get turfed out.

slowbike

Can we not just do away with the scottish parliament - and the welsh one too ...

what a waste of money - no matter where it comes from ...

this from the times in 2010

Scottish Parliament costs taxpayers £72 million per year
The figure includes £23 million spent employing more than 500 staff at an average of £45,500 each, about 60 per cent more than the average Scottish salary. The sum does not include catering workers and those employed directly by MSPs.

A further £19 million was spent on administration and general running costs, with huge sums allocated for furniture, taxis for MSPs and computer equipment.

The public purse was also charged for providing Holyrood staff with help to stop smoking, Gaelic classes and agency workers on short-term contracts to aid them with their duties.

There was public uproar after the £414 million Scottish Parliament building was completed 10 times over budget and three years late.

But the Tories, who uncovered the figures, said Holyrood should scale back its running costs as families across the country struggle to make ends meet

And it's gone up since then ...

103 million budgeted this year. Ok, out of a total spend of 31billion it's less than 1% - but 100 million could go a long way - - it's 30% of the Culture Tourism and External Affairs or 25% of the Economy Jobs and Fairwork budgets - or another £20 in the pocket for every citizen of Scotland ...

surrey_commuter

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

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?

Because she never said that holding the EU referendum with no knowledge of what was actually being voted for was a bad idea. For a statement to be hypocritical, it has to contradict a previous statement.

She's going ahead with Brexit because that's what people voted for. And she'd going for her version of Brexit because she's the leader of the governing party and that's what the governing party does. If things look like they're going t*ts up during negotiations and there are enough Tory rebels then Parliament simply proposes a motion of no confidence and she'll get turfed out.

that is exactly the point

diy

Surrey Commuter wrote:

diy wrote:

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

are you saying that TM wants to be part of the customs union, free trade and EEA?

In all but name - yes.

I actually think we wont get any sort of deal. The process is too complex, the ratification by all impossible. I think a stance of leaving and saying you tell us how you want things to change is likely to be the outcome. It means we can quickly get on with securing the benefits (global trade etc) and leave the EU to argue among itself how it will punish the UK without actually doing so to a point where the core block's trade is damaged.

kingstongraham

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

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?

Because she never said that holding the EU referendum with no knowledge of what was actually being voted for was a bad idea. For a statement to be hypocritical, it has to contradict a previous statement.

She's going ahead with Brexit because that's what people voted for. And she'd going for her version of Brexit because she's the leader of the governing party and that's what the governing party does. If things look like they're going t*ts up during negotiations and there are enough Tory rebels then Parliament simply proposes a motion of no confidence and she'll get turfed out.

that is exactly the point

Quite. Did she say the opposite?

surrey_commuter

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

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?

Because she never said that holding the EU referendum with no knowledge of what was actually being voted for was a bad idea. For a statement to be hypocritical, it has to contradict a previous statement.

She's going ahead with Brexit because that's what people voted for. And she'd going for her version of Brexit because she's the leader of the governing party and that's what the governing party does. If things look like they're going t*ts up during negotiations and there are enough Tory rebels then Parliament simply proposes a motion of no confidence and she'll get turfed out.

that is exactly the point

Quite. Did she say the opposite?

maybe I am missing something but when it comes to the Brexit referendum she is perfectly happy for people not to have known what they were voting for. Whereas the Scots can not have an independence referendum because they do not know what they are voting for.

hypocritical - characterized by behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel

bompington

Politician in hypocrisy shock.

Can we stop going round and round on this one now please?

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

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.

That is precisely where the hypocrisy comes in. She demands that Scotland (logically) go through the process first, but her party didn't think it was necessary for the Brexit vote which has similar unknowns and consequences.
"On 7 Sep 2015:
Theresa May voted for a referendum to be held on if the UK should remain a member of the EU."

apreading

Surrey Commuter wrote:

maybe I am missing something but when it comes to the Brexit referendum she is perfectly happy for people not to have known what they were voting for. Whereas the Scots can not have an independence referendum because they do not know what they are voting for.

hypocritical - characterized by behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel

What you are missing is that the EU refused to let us have a brexit referendum where we knew what we were voting for, because they would not negotiate, and still wont negotiate what brexit looks like until we trigger article 50. They also arent clear about future direction of the EU in terms of European army and whether UK would one day have to take the Euro. Britain had no choice but to have a vote without knowing what the two outcomes were.

The other thing you are missing is that TM didnt run the referendum - she inherited the mandate to enact the verdict. And even if she chose to rerun the refendum now, we still wouldnt know the outcomes because the EU negotiation cannot be done in advance.

It was the EU stopping us from knowing what we were voting for in advance of the Brexit referendum and they would stop us knowing if we reran it now.

In the case of Scotland, we DO have the ability to know the two outcomes once Brexit negotiations have taken place. We will be able to clearly lay out what Scotland staying in the UK would be like. SNP will be able to tell everyone what an independant Scotland would be like - whose currency, will they rejoin EU etc.

So why not understand the options first? The only reason is if one party (SNP) thinks it serves agenda better to have an uninformed vote...

pblakeney

apreading wrote:

In the case of Scotland, we DO have the ability to know the two outcomes once Brexit negotiations have taken place. We will be able to clearly lay out what Scotland staying in the UK would be like. SNP will be able to tell everyone what an independant Scotland would be like - whose currency, will they rejoin EU etc.

May I suggest that you re-read the Indyref1 thread. None of the above was the case. Not with any precision anyway, lots of hollow threats and promises.

apreading

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

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.

That is precisely where the hypocrisy comes in. She demands that Scotland (logically) go through the process first, but her party didn't think it was necessary for the Brexit vote which has similar unknowns and consequences.
"On 7 Sep 2015:
Theresa May voted for a referendum to be held on if the UK should remain a member of the EU."

No - she isnt saying that Scotland needs to go through the process first. She is saying that negotiations should take place on what the consequences should be before it is put to the vote, not that the result of those negotiations has to be enacted.

Why not see what the UK looks like post Brexit and also see what SNP is able to offer as an alternative - this is not hypocrisy, its common sense (so it will almost certainly never happen!).

apreading

PBlakeney wrote:

apreading wrote:

In the case of Scotland, we DO have the ability to know the two outcomes once Brexit negotiations have taken place. We will be able to clearly lay out what Scotland staying in the UK would be like. SNP will be able to tell everyone what an independant Scotland would be like - whose currency, will they rejoin EU etc.

May I suggest that you re-read the Indyref1 thread. None of the above was the case. Not with any precision anyway, lots of hollow threats and promises.

Yes - so why not run indyref2 better, having learned from that?

You clearly say that indyref1 was badly run - so surely you dont want to run indyref2 in the same way?

pblakeney

apreading wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

apreading wrote:

In the case of Scotland, we DO have the ability to know the two outcomes once Brexit negotiations have taken place. We will be able to clearly lay out what Scotland staying in the UK would be like. SNP will be able to tell everyone what an independant Scotland would be like - whose currency, will they rejoin EU etc.

May I suggest that you re-read the Indyref1 thread. None of the above was the case. Not with any precision anyway, lots of hollow threats and promises.

Yes - so why not run indyref2 better, having learned from that?

You clearly say that indyref1 was badly run - so surely you dont want to run indyref2 in the same way?

Indyref1 - Clusterfuck. Brexit - Clusterfuck. Indyref 2 - Clusterfuck.
There are my two opinions and one inevitable prediction.

apreading

PBlakeney wrote:

apreading wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

apreading wrote:

In the case of Scotland, we DO have the ability to know the two outcomes once Brexit negotiations have taken place. We will be able to clearly lay out what Scotland staying in the UK would be like. SNP will be able to tell everyone what an independant Scotland would be like - whose currency, will they rejoin EU etc.

May I suggest that you re-read the Indyref1 thread. None of the above was the case. Not with any precision anyway, lots of hollow threats and promises.

Yes - so why not run indyref2 better, having learned from that?

You clearly say that indyref1 was badly run - so surely you dont want to run indyref2 in the same way?

Indyref1 - Clusterfuck. Brexit - Clusterfuck. Indyref 2 - Clusterfuck.
There are my two opinions and one inevitable prediction.

Sadly, I suspect you are right.

wallace_and_gromit

Surrey Commuter wrote:

maybe I am missing something but when it comes to the Brexit referendum she is perfectly happy for people not to have known what they were voting for.

What you're missing is any evidence that she is happy with the shambles of the Brexit referendum (as opposed to the specific outcome which saw her become PM with no credible domestic opposition). As a Cabinet minister she had two choices - agree with Cameron or resign. And politicians don't really do resigning these days. She may well curse Cameron every night for the shambles he created and pray to multiple deities for clarity as to what the will of the people is in detail. Conversely, she might be ecstatic. We don't know.

Either way, her position re Scotland is eminently sensible from a planning viewpoint. Whether it's good politics is another matter.

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

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.

That is precisely where the hypocrisy comes in. She demands that Scotland (logically) go through the process first, but her party didn't think it was necessary for the Brexit vote which has similar unknowns and consequences.
"On 7 Sep 2015:
Theresa May voted for a referendum to be held on if the UK should remain a member of the EU."

I was questioning SC's logic. Go argue the point with someone who cares about political hypocrisy.

bobmcstuff

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

maybe I am missing something but when it comes to the Brexit referendum she is perfectly happy for people not to have known what they were voting for.

What you're missing is any evidence that she is happy with the shambles of the Brexit referendum (as opposed to the specific outcome which saw her become PM with no credible domestic opposition). As a Cabinet minister she had two choices - agree with Cameron or resign. And politicians don't really do resigning these days. She may well curse Cameron every night for the shambles he created and pray to multiple deities for clarity as to what the will of the people is in detail. Conversely, she might be ecstatic. We don't know.

Either way, her position re Scotland is eminently sensible from a planning viewpoint. Whether it's good politics is another matter.

I don't think it's good politics as it'll just annoy people. One of the biggest soap box issues for Scottish nationalists is how they get dictated to by Westminster - this kind of thing plays straight into that!

May has repeatedly said she wants a "Brexit that works for everyone in Britain" or whatever the precise wording is but I don't think there's much sign of her making any concessions to what the Scots want - this is mostly because what the SNP say they want is totally incompatible with what May seems to think Brexit must be, but the end result is more of the same - the Scots feeling like Westminster is dictating to them.

Regards Scotland's economic position, I think it's pretty clear they'd be worse off, but as Brexit showed us, logical economic arguments don't necessarily hold much weight when there's other things like "sovereignty" and the idea that you're being oppressed by some remote bureaucracy (however true that actually is). Politics in Scotland is a few strides to the left of where it is in England and you can't blame the Scots (who voted over 60:40 to stay in the EU) for feeling like they don't have all that much in common with England.

FWIW I voted to stay in the UK in the last independence referendum, I won't get to vote this time as I don't live in Scotland any more, but if I did I'd vote to leave.

RallyBiker

Slowbike wrote:

Can we not just do away with the scottish parliament - and the welsh one too ...

what a waste of money - no matter where it comes from ...

this from the times in 2010

Scottish Parliament costs taxpayers £72 million per year
The figure includes £23 million spent employing more than 500 staff at an average of £45,500 each, about 60 per cent more than the average Scottish salary. The sum does not include catering workers and those employed directly by MSPs.

A further £19 million was spent on administration and general running costs, with huge sums allocated for furniture, taxis for MSPs and computer equipment.

The public purse was also charged for providing Holyrood staff with help to stop smoking, Gaelic classes and agency workers on short-term contracts to aid them with their duties.

There was public uproar after the £414 million Scottish Parliament building was completed 10 times over budget and three years late.

But the Tories, who uncovered the figures, said Holyrood should scale back its running costs as families across the country struggle to make ends meet

And it's gone up since then ...

103 million budgeted this year. Ok, out of a total spend of 31billion it's less than 1% - but 100 million could go a long way - - it's 30% of the Culture Tourism and External Affairs or 25% of the Economy Jobs and Fairwork budgets - or another £20 in the pocket for every citizen of Scotland ...

Hear,hear. Total waste of money. Get rid of the whole lot I say and run everything from Westminster!

pblakeney

RallyBiker wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Can we not just do away with the scottish parliament - and the welsh one too ...

what a waste of money - no matter where it comes from ...

this from the times in 2010

Scottish Parliament costs taxpayers £72 million per year
The figure includes £23 million spent employing more than 500 staff at an average of £45,500 each, about 60 per cent more than the average Scottish salary. The sum does not include catering workers and those employed directly by MSPs.

A further £19 million was spent on administration and general running costs, with huge sums allocated for furniture, taxis for MSPs and computer equipment.

The public purse was also charged for providing Holyrood staff with help to stop smoking, Gaelic classes and agency workers on short-term contracts to aid them with their duties.

There was public uproar after the £414 million Scottish Parliament building was completed 10 times over budget and three years late.

But the Tories, who uncovered the figures, said Holyrood should scale back its running costs as families across the country struggle to make ends meet

And it's gone up since then ...

103 million budgeted this year. Ok, out of a total spend of 31billion it's less than 1% - but 100 million could go a long way - - it's 30% of the Culture Tourism and External Affairs or 25% of the Economy Jobs and Fairwork budgets - or another £20 in the pocket for every citizen of Scotland ...

Hear,hear. Total waste of money. Get rid of the whole lot I say and run everything from Westminster!

How much does Westminster cost?
Do away with that too.

BelgianBeerGeek

Top speech from NS this am.

Pross

There should a second referendum but we should all get a vote as the result affects the Union. It would be interesting to see whether people wanted to keep them (I'm aware you could argue the same EU members having a say in the Brexit referendum).

mamba80

Southern Ireland does ok, with a smaller population and no oil, Scotland could extract a decent amount from UK for keeping Rosyth and Faslane - (there is no where suitable or any where the English would want Trident) plus fishing, forestry Banking and tourism.. why not?

never understood this so called Union.

pblakeney

mamba80 wrote:

Southern Ireland does ok, with a smaller population and no oil, Scotland could extract a decent amount from UK for keeping Rosyth and Faslane - (there is no where suitable or any where the English would want Trident) plus fishing, forestry Banking and tourism.. why not?

never understood this so called Union.

Three reason for the Union? Oil, Faslane & Rosyth. (Although I don't think Rosyth is much of a base these days).
There must be some reason for subsidising them other than just cos.

mamba80

PBlakeney wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Southern Ireland does ok, with a smaller population and no oil, Scotland could extract a decent amount from UK for keeping Rosyth and Faslane - (there is no where suitable or any where the English would want Trident) plus fishing, forestry Banking and tourism.. why not?

never understood this so called Union.

Three reason for the Union? Oil, Faslane & Rosyth. (Although I don't think Rosyth is much of a base these days).
There must be some reason for subsidising them other than just cos.

lol for the english, no doubt! its no wonder a certain sector of Scotland wants independence, i think they d do ok, esp if they could get some sort of EU access, not a given.

bompington

mamba80 wrote:

Southern Ireland does ok, with a smaller population and no oil, Scotland could extract a decent amount from UK for keeping Rosyth and Faslane - (there is no where suitable or any where the English would want Trident) plus fishing, forestry Banking and tourism.. why not?

never understood this so called Union.

Ireland got a very good deal out of EU money, played the ancestral card very well in America and hacked corperation taxes down a long way to get a lot of inward investment. Scotland could do the latter two but the first mover advantage went west a long time ago.
Scotland could, I think, do well as an independent nation - perhaps it might help to get rid of the culture of dependency that has taken root. I would guess that Ireland has the advantage of having you fight up from poverty, whereas Scotland should have to give up a comfortable existence and then go through the liberty phase before there's any chance of doing better.

As for your comments about now little the "so-called union" means to you, I'm kind of intrigued that 300 years of being one nation with massive shared culture and interests means less to you than a hacked-together mess like the EU which you seem so keen on.
Despite how much people seem to have invested in the differences, the reality is that things are not very different across the border. Even the social attitudes opinion polls show that people have remarkably similar views on things, despite the Nats' determination to make out that Scots are a different species.
I'm just wondering - how many countries are there that have kept the exact same borders for the last 300 years? How many that have kept the same language, the same law systems? What is it exactly that makes it a "so-called" union, and what would have to change for it to be a real one?
The Union may have been against the wishes of the majority of Scots at the time - most of them weren't asked, of course - and of course it's unequal: but don't forget that in 1700 more than half of Scotland was effectively occupied by wild tribes, and the country had bankrupted itself spectacularly in ill-chosen colonial schemes. For most of that time, the union has been the preferred option of the vast majority of Scots, and the whole country has benefited enormously - as has the whole of the UK.

Some things about the way things are now are actually better, some things that aren't idyllic are still beneficial, and I'm getting a little hacked off at the misanthropic grumpiness that seems to have infected every political sphere lately.

mamba80

bompington wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Southern Ireland does ok, with a smaller population and no oil, Scotland could extract a decent amount from UK for keeping Rosyth and Faslane - (there is no where suitable or any where the English would want Trident) plus fishing, forestry Banking and tourism.. why not?

never understood this so called Union.

Ireland got a very good deal out of EU money, played the ancestral card very well in America and hacked corperation taxes down a long way to get a lot of inward investment. Scotland could do the latter two but the first mover advantage went west a long time ago.
Scotland could, I think, do well as an independent nation - perhaps it might help to get rid of the culture of dependency that has taken root. I would guess that Ireland has the advantage of having you fight up from poverty, whereas Scotland should have to give up a comfortable existence and then go through the liberty phase before there's any chance of doing better.

As for your comments about now little the "so-called union" means to you, I'm kind of intrigued that 300 years of being one nation with massive shared culture and interests means less to you than a hacked-together mess like the EU which you seem so keen on.
Despite how much people seem to have invested in the differences, the reality is that things are not very different across the border. Even the social attitudes opinion polls show that people have remarkably similar views on things, despite the Nats' determination to make out that Scots are a different species.
I'm just wondering - how many countries are there that have kept the exact same borders for the last 300 years? How many that have kept the same language, the same law systems? What is it exactly that makes it a "so-called" union, and what would have to change for it to be a real one?
The Union may have been against the wishes of the majority of Scots at the time - most of them weren't asked, of course - and of course it's unequal: but don't forget that in 1700 more than half of Scotland was effectively occupied by wild tribes, and the country had bankrupted itself spectacularly in ill-chosen colonial schemes. For most of that time, the union has been the preferred option of the vast majority of Scots, and the whole country has benefited enormously - as has the whole of the UK.

Some things about the way things are now are actually better, some things that aren't idyllic are still beneficial, and I'm getting a little hacked off at the misanthropic grumpiness that seems to have infected every political sphere lately.

i would say considering the amount of blood and treasure we ve invested in Europe over the last 100 or so years, the European bond is deeper and far more important to us, add in the trade and reliance we ve have to each other, then yes the Union is pretty pointless, we may well find that the US defence we ve relied on since the 2nd WW is about to go, we are facing climate change, leaving the worlds largest trading block to throw in with a lunatic in america???? so yes i value the European relationship a whole lot more than one with Scotland.
we ve a shared culture and law with Gib or the Falklands, i m not sure that is important?.

what on earth does it matter about how long a border has been there? or what Scotland consisted of in 1700? is there even a border? last time i was up there, there wasnt.

it would be a real union if they didnt feel the need to have their own parliament and governance, to me, the UK has used Scotland, eg oil and naval bases.

i did nt say things are different in Scotland and i dont believe Scotland will ever get independence BUT if they did, then they d do well, thats all,

In context, i really dont understand your last paragraph.

Stevo_666

bompington wrote:

As for your comments about now little the "so-called union" means to you, I'm kind of intrigued that 300 years of being one nation with massive shared culture and interests means less to you than a hacked-together mess like the EU which you seem so keen on.

Well said. The union has certainly stood the test of time - something that the EU may not manage to do.

ballysmate

i would say considering the amount of blood and treasure we ve invested in Europe over the last 100 or so years, the European bond is deeper and far more important to us, add in the trade and reliance we ve have to each other, then yes the Union is pretty pointless, we may well find that the US defence we ve relied on since the 2nd WW is about to go, we are facing climate change, leaving the worlds largest trading block to throw in with a lunatic in america???? so yes i value the European relationship a whole lot more than one with Scotland.

Mamba, you've posted some bollox in your time on here and this is right up ther with the best.
That treasure and particularly blood that we have invested includes Scottish blood or are you speaking as a Little Englander that you seem to so despise.
To dismiss Scottish sacrifice on the continent in such a manner is nothing short of offensive.

bompington

mamba80 wrote:

In context, i really dont understand your last paragraph.

Or any of it, evidently.