Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 7
Discussion
OpulentBob said:
csd19 said:
Ahh but how many billions will we be further into the s
t by that point?
It doesn't matter, because her argument will be that England/Westminster/the home counties pay for Scottish independence and any financial impacts that result. t by that point? johnxjsc1985 said:
When will Sturgeon report on her visit to Brussels.
Both Spain and France seem dead against any discussion on this matter.
If she is so concerned and so keen to remain in Europe the option to call for another Referendum is her only option.
I feel sorry for the people of Scotland they must be sick of all of this.
We are, or at least some of us are.Never mind, we have nothing better to do than to revisit each and every referendum,on each and every issue until the "correct" result is finally obtained.Both Spain and France seem dead against any discussion on this matter.
If she is so concerned and so keen to remain in Europe the option to call for another Referendum is her only option.
I feel sorry for the people of Scotland they must be sick of all of this.
I,ve got the result I personally wanted on both of the most recent, so I've no issues with either outcome.I thought that was democracy and why I had been asked in the first place ?
Apparently not .....
Reading the comments in Ian Martin's piece in the Spectator on Sturgeon's Brussels adventures http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/nicola-sturgeon...
One point that leapt out but is worth considering is the ability of the UK to kill independence stone dead forever by passing most of the constrained competences currently with the EU directly back to Scotland under the devolution settlement. Consider;
◾ agriculture and fisheries
◾ environment
◾ consumer protection
◾ transport
◾ energy
◾ common safety concerns in public health matters, limited to the aspects defined in the TFEU
◾ research, technological development and space
◾ development cooperation and humanitarian aid
All currently a shared EU competence. By essentially derogating them back to Scotland (and for that matter the other Home Countries) it would
1) create a properly devolved settlement
2) almost be impossible for Scotland to be presented with the EU option as feasible without having *less* sovereignty than they currently have within the UK.
One point that leapt out but is worth considering is the ability of the UK to kill independence stone dead forever by passing most of the constrained competences currently with the EU directly back to Scotland under the devolution settlement. Consider;
◾ agriculture and fisheries
◾ environment
◾ consumer protection
◾ transport
◾ energy
◾ common safety concerns in public health matters, limited to the aspects defined in the TFEU
◾ research, technological development and space
◾ development cooperation and humanitarian aid
All currently a shared EU competence. By essentially derogating them back to Scotland (and for that matter the other Home Countries) it would
1) create a properly devolved settlement
2) almost be impossible for Scotland to be presented with the EU option as feasible without having *less* sovereignty than they currently have within the UK.
So what about this idea England and Wales secceed from the UK?
Seems like everyone gets what they want. Scotland, NI and Gib stay in. England and Wales get time to negotiate a soft exit on their terms rather than having the EU ram opportunistic nastiness down their throat in the wake of an article 50 invocation.
Could probably even arrange it in such a way to give Eng / Wales a way back in if it goes Pete Tong, like a handy insurance policy or something
Seems like everyone gets what they want. Scotland, NI and Gib stay in. England and Wales get time to negotiate a soft exit on their terms rather than having the EU ram opportunistic nastiness down their throat in the wake of an article 50 invocation.
Could probably even arrange it in such a way to give Eng / Wales a way back in if it goes Pete Tong, like a handy insurance policy or something
Ridgemont said:
Reading the comments in Ian Martin's piece in the Spectator on Sturgeon's Brussels adventures http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/nicola-sturgeon...
One point that leapt out but is worth considering is the ability of the UK to kill independence stone dead forever by passing most of the constrained competences currently with the EU directly back to Scotland under the devolution settlement. Consider;
? agriculture and fisheries
? environment
? consumer protection
? transport
? energy
? common safety concerns in public health matters, limited to the aspects defined in the TFEU
? research, technological development and space
? development cooperation and humanitarian aid
All currently a shared EU competence. By essentially derogating them back to Scotland (and for that matter the other Home Countries) it would
1) create a properly devolved settlement
2) almost be impossible for Scotland to be presented with the EU option as feasible without having *less* sovereignty than they currently have within the UK.
I'd be more than happy with that outcome. But there would have to be a thin rule book back to UK govt. One point that leapt out but is worth considering is the ability of the UK to kill independence stone dead forever by passing most of the constrained competences currently with the EU directly back to Scotland under the devolution settlement. Consider;
? agriculture and fisheries
? environment
? consumer protection
? transport
? energy
? common safety concerns in public health matters, limited to the aspects defined in the TFEU
? research, technological development and space
? development cooperation and humanitarian aid
All currently a shared EU competence. By essentially derogating them back to Scotland (and for that matter the other Home Countries) it would
1) create a properly devolved settlement
2) almost be impossible for Scotland to be presented with the EU option as feasible without having *less* sovereignty than they currently have within the UK.
Ridgemont said:
Reading the comments in Ian Martin's piece in the Spectator on Sturgeon's Brussels adventures http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/nicola-sturgeon...
One point that leapt out but is worth considering is the ability of the UK to kill independence stone dead forever by passing most of the constrained competences currently with the EU directly back to Scotland under the devolution settlement. Consider;
? agriculture and fisheries
? environment
? consumer protection
? transport
? energy
? common safety concerns in public health matters, limited to the aspects defined in the TFEU
? research, technological development and space
? development cooperation and humanitarian aid
All currently a shared EU competence. By essentially derogating them back to Scotland (and for that matter the other Home Countries) it would
1) create a properly devolved settlement
2) almost be impossible for Scotland to be presented with the EU option as feasible without having *less* sovereignty than they currently have within the UK.
the only issue with that is they would actually have to do some real work in the scottish parliament . this would leave them less time to bOne point that leapt out but is worth considering is the ability of the UK to kill independence stone dead forever by passing most of the constrained competences currently with the EU directly back to Scotland under the devolution settlement. Consider;
? agriculture and fisheries
? environment
? consumer protection
? transport
? energy
? common safety concerns in public health matters, limited to the aspects defined in the TFEU
? research, technological development and space
? development cooperation and humanitarian aid
All currently a shared EU competence. By essentially derogating them back to Scotland (and for that matter the other Home Countries) it would
1) create a properly devolved settlement
2) almost be impossible for Scotland to be presented with the EU option as feasible without having *less* sovereignty than they currently have within the UK.
h about oppression under the tories and other nonsense. i am not sure giving marine scotland complete control of scottish fisheries matters is a good idea either. their incompetence knows no bounds. the flip side is the more militant members of the scottish fishing community would find it much easier to deal with them knowing they now had sole responsibility and were unable to divert blame for their own screw ups toward the eu.wc98 said:
the only issue with that is they would actually have to do some real work in the scottish parliament . this would leave them less time to bh about oppression under the tories and other nonsense. i am not sure giving marine scotland complete control of scottish fisheries matters is a good idea either. their incompetence knows no bounds. the flip side is the more militant members of the scottish fishing community would find it much easier to deal with them knowing they now had sole responsibility and were unable to divert blame for their own screw ups toward the eu.
I think that was the most convoluted 'yes, good idea' I've ever read.h about oppression under the tories and other nonsense. i am not sure giving marine scotland complete control of scottish fisheries matters is a good idea either. their incompetence knows no bounds. the flip side is the more militant members of the scottish fishing community would find it much easier to deal with them knowing they now had sole responsibility and were unable to divert blame for their own screw ups toward the eu.Edinburger said:
Isn't that exactly what has been discussed?"the simplest and most obvious way would be to be an independent state and transition in and stay in the EU"."
Edinburger says,
And no, I'm not joking.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun...
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/london-wan...
http://europe.newsweek.com/how-scotland-and-n-irel...None of which btw make any mention of any of these talks which are supposedly in place. They are simply opinion articles.
Lots of mentions of the SNP mandate for holding another referendum. They can hold as many referenda as they like on the subject but only one of them is binding on the UK Government and that happened in 2014.
Lots of pseudo-legal arguments about mechanisms for various parts of the UK to join/remain in the EU, all overlooking the fact that they are all still part of the UK, not independent entities.
Edinburger said:
Don't believe everything you read in the press...
Followed up with...Edinburger said:
Big Rod said:
There's a simple solution...
...Have England, (possibly excluding London), and Ireland to go independent which would mean they would be leaving the UK and leave Scotland, Wales and London in the UK so Scotland wouldn't be bounced out of the EU.
Just thinking out loud.
Well, apparently talks are in place between the leaders of Scotland, Northern Ireland, London and Gibraltar about creating a separate state which remains part of the EU....Have England, (possibly excluding London), and Ireland to go independent which would mean they would be leaving the UK and leave Scotland, Wales and London in the UK so Scotland wouldn't be bounced out of the EU.
Just thinking out loud.
And no, I'm not joking.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun...
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/london-wan...
http://europe.newsweek.com/how-scotland-and-n-irel...
Lots of mentions of the SNP mandate for holding another referendum. They can hold as many referenda as they like on the subject but only one of them is binding on the UK Government and that happened in 2014.
Lots of pseudo-legal arguments about mechanisms for various parts of the UK to join/remain in the EU, all overlooking the fact that they are all still part of the UK, not independent entities.
DocJock said:
Lots of pseudo-legal arguments about mechanisms for various parts of the UK to join/remain in the EU, all overlooking the fact that they are all still part of the UK, not independent entities.
Which brings us back to England and Wales should secceed from the UK and that way everyone gets what they purportedly want.ShaunTheSheep said:
DocJock said:
Lots of pseudo-legal arguments about mechanisms for various parts of the UK to join/remain in the EU, all overlooking the fact that they are all still part of the UK, not independent entities.
Which brings us back to England and Wales should secceed from the UK and that way everyone gets what they purportedly want.DocJock said:
Edinburger says,
And no, I'm not joking.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun...
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/london-wan...
http://europe.newsweek.com/how-scotland-and-n-irel...None of which btw make any mention of any of these talks which are supposedly in place. They are simply opinion articles.
Lots of mentions of the SNP mandate for holding another referendum. They can hold as many referenda as they like on the subject but only one of them is binding on the UK Government and that happened in 2014.
Lots of pseudo-legal arguments about mechanisms for various parts of the UK to join/remain in the EU, all overlooking the fact that they are all still part of the UK, not independent entities.
Sturgeon was heard politely at the EU but effectively sent away with a flea in her ear, told it's internal UK politics and EU won't/cannot make special arrangements for Scotland etc.Edinburger said:
Don't believe everything you read in the press...
Followed up with...Edinburger said:
Big Rod said:
There's a simple solution...
...Have England, (possibly excluding London), and Ireland to go independent which would mean they would be leaving the UK and leave Scotland, Wales and London in the UK so Scotland wouldn't be bounced out of the EU.
Just thinking out loud.
Well, apparently talks are in place between the leaders of Scotland, Northern Ireland, London and Gibraltar about creating a separate state which remains part of the EU....Have England, (possibly excluding London), and Ireland to go independent which would mean they would be leaving the UK and leave Scotland, Wales and London in the UK so Scotland wouldn't be bounced out of the EU.
Just thinking out loud.
And no, I'm not joking.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun...
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/london-wan...
http://europe.newsweek.com/how-scotland-and-n-irel...
Lots of mentions of the SNP mandate for holding another referendum. They can hold as many referenda as they like on the subject but only one of them is binding on the UK Government and that happened in 2014.
Lots of pseudo-legal arguments about mechanisms for various parts of the UK to join/remain in the EU, all overlooking the fact that they are all still part of the UK, not independent entities.
And numerous individual country leaders, France, Spain, have said it ain't going to happen in the last day or so.
ShaunTheSheep said:
DocJock said:
Lots of pseudo-legal arguments about mechanisms for various parts of the UK to join/remain in the EU, all overlooking the fact that they are all still part of the UK, not independent entities.
Which brings us back to England and Wales should secceed from the UK and that way everyone gets what they purportedly want.DocJock said:
But Scotland voted to remain part of the UK.
They also voted for the UK to remain in the EU. There was no vote on Scotland's membership of the EU because it is not a member state.
Scotland voted to remain in the UK whilst knowing there was going to be a referendum and they might be forced out the EU.They also voted for the UK to remain in the EU. There was no vote on Scotland's membership of the EU because it is not a member state.
There is no reason for a second referendum.
I don't know if it's been mentioned here before but, surely, all this tension, nervousness, anxiety and overall desperation about the UK leaving the EU would have been the same, if not 10 times magnified if Scotland had chosen to leave the UK in 2014.
The SNP and in particular Alex Salmond had no real plan about how it was going to work or any insight into the real details of independence, I always thought it funny you'd wouldn't go and buy a car or a house without knowing what you're actually getting but "leaving the UK to go it alone?" Yea sure! Granted, a lot would be 'unknown' until it actually happened but arguing about the use of the pound and the many oil reserves were just silly - at best.
And yet we have Nicola Sturgeon banging on about how unprepared the leave (EU) side were and are that its actually happened. What, like you were so prepared about independence?! I think once the champagne had gone flat and the 'Yes' balloons had died a death after a Yes vote the SNP and Scotland would be in this deep, deep (..deep) worry much more than (supposedly) we are now for simply 'leaving the EU'.
Strictly speaking the SNP, whilst popular as a party, have now 'lost' two (that's two, or 2, or deux) referendums and calling for another one is, plainly, undemocratic - despite that word being the word-of-the-month for Sturgeon, only she brandishes it like someone who doesn't really know the meaning of the word.
The SNP and in particular Alex Salmond had no real plan about how it was going to work or any insight into the real details of independence, I always thought it funny you'd wouldn't go and buy a car or a house without knowing what you're actually getting but "leaving the UK to go it alone?" Yea sure! Granted, a lot would be 'unknown' until it actually happened but arguing about the use of the pound and the many oil reserves were just silly - at best.
And yet we have Nicola Sturgeon banging on about how unprepared the leave (EU) side were and are that its actually happened. What, like you were so prepared about independence?! I think once the champagne had gone flat and the 'Yes' balloons had died a death after a Yes vote the SNP and Scotland would be in this deep, deep (..deep) worry much more than (supposedly) we are now for simply 'leaving the EU'.
Strictly speaking the SNP, whilst popular as a party, have now 'lost' two (that's two, or 2, or deux) referendums and calling for another one is, plainly, undemocratic - despite that word being the word-of-the-month for Sturgeon, only she brandishes it like someone who doesn't really know the meaning of the word.
Edinburger said:
I'm not saying I want that to happen or that I think it will happen - I'm saying it's on the table.
Can we stop using this phrase? It means absolutely nothing in this context. Sturgeon's table is covered in the political equivalent of junk mail, it doesn't mean it's being considered by anyone who matters.It's an utterly ridiculous idea to have four bits all separate from each other, bordered by other countries to come together as a single entity, purely for the purpose of staying in a s
t club we voted out of (and we did vote out of it, the answer Sturgeon's giving is an answer to a question unasked, i.e. if out of the UK do Scots want in the EU).I've always argued for less government, in every sense. I think this farce demonstrates quite clearly why less is more. She needs to wind her scrawny neck in, stfu and do something quiet and unobtrusive in Bute House. Preferably until she is deposed, retires or ceases to be.
Blair and Dewar have a lot to answer for. This whole devolution thing should have been killed at the outset.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff