The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)
Discussion
fluffnik said:
No-one is suggesting a referendum in 2017, autumn 2018 is the preferred time...
For you, maybe.fluffnik said:
Survation said:
Who do you think should have the right to decide if there should be a referendum in Scotland that would allow the people of Scotland to choose between Brexit and independence? Should it be...
The Scottish Parliament : 61%
The Westminster Parliament : 39%
The Scottish Parliament : 61%
The Westminster Parliament : 39%
fluffnik said:
...and a majority would be upset if Westminster tried to block it.
Irrelevant!Survation said:
Do you think the Westminster Parliament should have the right to block a plan for a referendum in Scotland, even if it is agreed on and voted for by the Scottish Parliament?
Yes 42%
No 58%
Yes 42%
No 58%
fluffnik said:
A lot of us in Scotland care more for being in the EU than the UK, and will not sit quietly in our box whilst a government with less than 15% popular support sells us down the river.
A lot of us will be taking the EU side, loudly...
Great - be as loud as you like - it doesn't change the facts!A lot of us will be taking the EU side, loudly...
Scotland can't survive outside of the UK, and the sensible majority understand that.
fluffnik said:
A lot of us in Scotland care more for being in the EU than the UK, and will not sit quietly in our box whilst a government with less than 15% popular support sells us down the river.
A lot of us will be taking the EU side, loudly...
Best thing you can do is campaign for the English electorate to have a vote in the Scots referendum .... then you will get your desired outcome by a landslide.... well out of the UK anyway but not sure they will let you into the EU.A lot of us will be taking the EU side, loudly...
Using the Poll company you were so keen to quote above, we also find the following:
Survation said:
The polling, of 1,019 Scottish adults aged 16+, showed 43% of Scots would vote Yes and 48% would vote No if the second referendum was held tomorrow, with the remaining 9% saying that they were undecided.
alfie2244 said:
Best thing you can do is campaign for the English electorate to have a vote in the Scots referendum .... then you will get your desired outcome by a landslide.... well out of the UK anyway but not sure they will let you into the EU.
Exactly, last thing they need is another country taking out more than they put in!sidicks said:
Using the Poll company you were so keen to quote above, we also find the following:
Which is why late 2018 is the preferred time. Survation said:
The polling, of 1,019 Scottish adults aged 16+, showed 43% of Scots would vote Yes and 48% would vote No if the second referendum was held tomorrow, with the remaining 9% saying that they were undecided.
sidicks said:
Using the Poll company you were so keen to quote above, we also find the following:
These massive constitutional changes shouldn't ever pass with a 51% majority.Survation said:
The polling, of 1,019 Scottish adults aged 16+, showed 43% of Scots would vote Yes and 48% would vote No if the second referendum was held tomorrow, with the remaining 9% saying that they were undecided.
Most countries require supermajorities of up to 70% for major constitutional change. That's why the Brexit is so acrimonious, the "settled will of the people", is only a tiny majority (of voters) and not enough, in my view for a success.
It's simply unrealistic to expect everyone to support Brexit with such a small majority victory, and I say that as a brexiter myself.
If Scotland or Gibraltar or Wales or whoever had an independence referendum and left the UK with 51% pre Brexit, I'm sure most posters would be saying it was unfair to move forward with such a small mandate for such a huge change.
Of course the problem was that Cameron (and May) thought they had it in the bag and only had the Brexit vote to shut up back benchers and UKIP. They certainly didn't think they wouldn't win.
Cameron called the SNPs bluff and gave them a referendum before they really wanted it. May ought to be very careful indeed about another Scottish referendum.
El stovey said:
These massive constitutional changes shouldn't ever pass with a 51% majority.
Most countries require supermajorities of up to 70% for major constitutional change. That's why the Brexit is so acrimonious, the "settled will of the people", is only a tiny majority (of voters) and not enough, in my view for a success.
It's simply unrealistic to expect everyone to support Brexit with such a small majority victory, and I say that as a brexiter myself.
The trouble there is that no one complained before the vote that a simple 50%+ wasn't acceptable and it needed a supermajority. I have some sympathy for the argument but like oh so many similar arguments from the "remainers" you just can't change the rules afterwards because your side lost.Most countries require supermajorities of up to 70% for major constitutional change. That's why the Brexit is so acrimonious, the "settled will of the people", is only a tiny majority (of voters) and not enough, in my view for a success.
It's simply unrealistic to expect everyone to support Brexit with such a small majority victory, and I say that as a brexiter myself.
Fastdruid said:
The trouble there is that no one complained before the vote that a simple 50%+ wasn't acceptable and it needed a supermajority. I have some sympathy for the argument but like oh so many similar arguments from the "remainers" you just can't change the rules afterwards because your side lost.
Farage mentioned it once or twice, when he was expecting to narrowly lose.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendu...
Trabi601 said:
Fastdruid said:
The trouble there is that no one complained before the vote that a simple 50%+ wasn't acceptable and it needed a supermajority. I have some sympathy for the argument but like oh so many similar arguments from the "remainers" you just can't change the rules afterwards because your side lost.
Farage mentioned it once or twice, when he was expecting to narrowly lose.Trabi601 said:
Farage mentioned it once or twice, when he was expecting to narrowly lose.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendu...
Which part of that supports your claim that he wanted a 'super majority'?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendu...
Surely all he was saying was that a close decision would warrant reconsideration at some further stage and he would campaign on that basis? That seems entirely reasonable, particularly given the expected direction of travel of the EU.
sidicks said:
Trabi601 said:
Farage mentioned it once or twice, when he was expecting to narrowly lose.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendu...
Which part of that supports your claim that he wanted a 'super majority'?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendu...
Surely all he was saying was that a close decision would warrant reconsideration at some further stage and he would campaign on that basis?
If the result had been 52/48 remain, we'd never have heard the end of it from Farage and the Kippers. He's essentially claimed that he wouldn't have been happy with anything less than a 66.6/33.3 remain - and that any less of a majority result would be 'unfinished business'.
El stovey said:
These massive constitutional changes shouldn't ever pass with a 51% majority.
Most countries require supermajorities of up to 70% for major constitutional change. That's why the Brexit is so acrimonious, the "settled will of the people", is only a tiny majority (of voters) and not enough, in my view for a success.
It's simply unrealistic to expect everyone to support Brexit with such a small majority victory, and I say that as a brexiter myself.
If Scotland or Gibraltar or Wales or whoever had an independence referendum and left the UK with 51% pre Brexit, I'm sure most posters would be saying it was unfair to move forward with such a small mandate for such a huge change.
Of course the problem was that Cameron (and May) thought they had it in the bag and only had the Brexit vote to shut up back benchers and UKIP. They certainly didn't think they wouldn't win.
Cameron called the SNPs bluff and gave them a referendum before they really wanted it. May ought to be very careful indeed about another Scottish referendum.
I'm not convinced the situations are comparable.Most countries require supermajorities of up to 70% for major constitutional change. That's why the Brexit is so acrimonious, the "settled will of the people", is only a tiny majority (of voters) and not enough, in my view for a success.
It's simply unrealistic to expect everyone to support Brexit with such a small majority victory, and I say that as a brexiter myself.
If Scotland or Gibraltar or Wales or whoever had an independence referendum and left the UK with 51% pre Brexit, I'm sure most posters would be saying it was unfair to move forward with such a small mandate for such a huge change.
Of course the problem was that Cameron (and May) thought they had it in the bag and only had the Brexit vote to shut up back benchers and UKIP. They certainly didn't think they wouldn't win.
Cameron called the SNPs bluff and gave them a referendum before they really wanted it. May ought to be very careful indeed about another Scottish referendum.
We have only been in the EU for 44yrs. Moreover I'm not convinced a super-majority was ever used to take us into it. I'd agree with the argument that as a trading bloc it wasn't essential that it was. However no super-majority was ever gained for any subsequent treaty change that gave up aspects of sovereignty. None. Indeed the only time that has ever properly been tested, we voted to leave.
The UK has been in existence for several hundred years, evolved through numerous wars and ultimately joint sovereignty sealed it.
I'd argue that the UK (including Scotland) has engaged in a number of fairly costly wars to prevent "joint sovereignty" on a European basis.
The SNP's desire to be independent is evident, but the desire of the majority of Scots to be so is manifestly not. And I'm very far from convinced it ever will be (and really hope the majority of Scots keep kicking the SNP in realisation of the shambles that they are and the damage they are doing to Scotland).
The whole notion of "independence" for a nation in Scotland's position is a risible pipe dream and it seems the SNP understands that - they want out of the UK so that they can be part of the EU. And that qualifies as independence. It'd be funny if they weren't serious.
If the Scots do vote to leave the UK in 2020 (as I suspect that's when any vote might happen) they will certainly get independence as there is no way the EU will let them join in any meaningful timeframe.
Trabi601 said:
Did you not read the bit about a 2/3-1/3 result?
I missed that bit.
Trabi601 said:
If the result had been 52/48 remain, we'd never have heard the end of it from Farage and the Kippers. He's essentially claimed that he wouldn't have been happy with anything less than a 66.6/33.3 remain - and that any less of a majority result would be 'unfinished business'.
Quite right too - do you think the Brexit vote means that we could never consider having a future referendum to re-join the (reformed 
) EU?Murph7355 said:
The SNP's desire to be independent is evident, but the desire of the majority of Scots to be so is manifestly not. And I'm very far from convinced it ever will be (and really hope the majority of Scots keep kicking the SNP in realisation of the shambles that they are and the damage they are doing to Scotland).
And therein lies the difference between Scotland and Catalonia. In the last twenty years Catalonia has, through careful economic stewardship and sensible investment, become the wealthiest region of Spain - with a broad based economy across agriculture, manufacturing, services, culture and tourism. It's a net donor to the Spanish exchequer. In the last twenty years Scotland has pissed billions up the wall on vanity projects while failing to do anything that would broaden the economic base beyond a dwindling oil sector and casino banking. It still receives billions in funding from Westminster.
If the SNP really, really want Scotland to become a modern and wealthy country they should use the substantial powers they already have to change Scotland for the better, because Catalonia has shown that it's possible for an autonomous region to do it.
They've also shown the SNP the correct way round to do things - get the place ready for independence and then ask for it, and then people won't think you're mental.
sidicks said:
Quite right too - do you think the Brexit vote means that we could never consider having a future referendum to re-join the (reformed ) EU?
The problem with that being that the conditions for new entries are significantly different to the conditions under which we currently operate - not least being that we'd have to give up Sterling.) EU?Trabi601 said:
sidicks said:
Quite right too - do you think the Brexit vote means that we could never consider having a future referendum to re-join the (reformed ) EU?
The problem with that being that the conditions for new entries are significantly different to the conditions under which we currently operate - not least being that we'd have to give up Sterling.) EU?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff