Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 7
Discussion
Moonhawk said:
SilverSixer said:
Be that as it may I'm just pointing out that the result can be used to argue a mandate from the people of Scotland, instructing its government to do what it can to remain in/rejoin the EU. I wasn't arguing the point you make.
Clearly there would be problems in doing so, although probably not insurmountable, as is the case with the UK exit from the EU - there are obstacle to overcome, negotiations to be had. Same applies. Nothing is concrete.
Yes supporters in the 2014 referendum were quite happy for Scotland to leave the EU as a consequence of their drive for independence - why the sudden desperation to remain in the EU?Clearly there would be problems in doing so, although probably not insurmountable, as is the case with the UK exit from the EU - there are obstacle to overcome, negotiations to be had. Same applies. Nothing is concrete.
SilverSixer said:
Be that as it may I'm just pointing out that the result can be used to argue a mandate from the people of Scotland, instructing its government to do what it can to remain in/rejoin the EU. I wasn't arguing the point you make.
It could, but a mandate to remain/join the EU as part of the UK or as an independent country is very different as the circumstances may have massively changed.If the UK does end up with any sort of "hard" Brexit then an independent Scotland may well not want to join the EU as they would be making trade easier with 20% of their trading partners but possibly making it more difficult with the 80%.
Choosing between tariff free access and freedom of movement with the EU or England/Scotland/NI is a very different question to the one asked on June 23.
So the government is to build 8 Navy boats on the Clyde. Good news for Scotland you might think, but no!
Some no-mark SNP MP thinks not having a defined start date is harming workers security.
The same SNP who don't have ANY concrete plans for ANY of Scotland's future?
The same SNP who if they got independence would cause the UK to send this order to an English yard?
The same SNP who would abolish Trident and put thousands of Faslane/Clyde workers on the dole?
Surely not?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west...
Some no-mark SNP MP thinks not having a defined start date is harming workers security.
The same SNP who don't have ANY concrete plans for ANY of Scotland's future?
The same SNP who if they got independence would cause the UK to send this order to an English yard?
The same SNP who would abolish Trident and put thousands of Faslane/Clyde workers on the dole?
Surely not?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west...
SilverSixer said:
andy_s said:
SilverSixer said:
What if the EU decided it would accept Scotland (and Northern Ireland) as the UK, remaining in the EU as the UK successor state, and England/Wales was seen as the new independent nation outside? They're leaving anyway, right? Scot/NI can join the Euro, England/Wales can keep their Pound.
I think that's what's called thinking outside the box. It would solve many, many questions (none of which I particularly wanted asked but hey, the genie is out of the bottle and we are where we are).
(NOTE: I'm not saying it's going to happen, it's just an interesting thought and would seem a logical approach, however unlikely it may be.)
Because Scotland isn't the UK, who is the member.I think that's what's called thinking outside the box. It would solve many, many questions (none of which I particularly wanted asked but hey, the genie is out of the bottle and we are where we are).
(NOTE: I'm not saying it's going to happen, it's just an interesting thought and would seem a logical approach, however unlikely it may be.)
rUK detach Scotland, rUK is still UK.
Scotland detach from rUK, Scotland is not UK.
DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.
Because Wastemonster; evil yoon fascists eat babies and want to build toxic waste-spewing power stations that burn kittens and the souls of the working narod. Scotland is powered by sustainably mined fairtrade pixie dust.hidetheelephants said:
Nanook said:
I've asked many times before, and never seen an actual answer, but why do you yessers want independence?
Answers on a postcard please. Just one good reason will do.
Because Wastemonster; evil yoon fascists eat babies and want to build toxic waste-spewing power stations that burn kittens and the souls of the working narod. Scotland is powered by sustainably mined fairtrade pixie dust.Answers on a postcard please. Just one good reason will do.
But still worthy of
blinkythefish said:
SilverSixer said:
andy_s said:
SilverSixer said:
What if the EU decided it would accept Scotland (and Northern Ireland) as the UK, remaining in the EU as the UK successor state, and England/Wales was seen as the new independent nation outside? They're leaving anyway, right? Scot/NI can join the Euro, England/Wales can keep their Pound.
I think that's what's called thinking outside the box. It would solve many, many questions (none of which I particularly wanted asked but hey, the genie is out of the bottle and we are where we are).
(NOTE: I'm not saying it's going to happen, it's just an interesting thought and would seem a logical approach, however unlikely it may be.)
Because Scotland isn't the UK, who is the member.I think that's what's called thinking outside the box. It would solve many, many questions (none of which I particularly wanted asked but hey, the genie is out of the bottle and we are where we are).
(NOTE: I'm not saying it's going to happen, it's just an interesting thought and would seem a logical approach, however unlikely it may be.)
rUK detach Scotland, rUK is still UK.
Scotland detach from rUK, Scotland is not UK.
1. The child trend, the parent state being the seat of the former capital/most populous (in this case rUK) retains all treaties, debts & off country assets of the new child state. The child state (in this case Scotland) is considered a brand new nation with no debt obligations, no treaties other than those negotiated during the split & without overseas assets (embassies, overseas military bases etc)
2. The split trend, where both states split on equal terms, in this instance debts, overseas assets, military assets/persons are split evenly based on either land mass, economic contribution or populous (in this case you could expect a 8-9% asset inheiritence to Scotland), however in this trend all treaties and debts (as % of economic share) are shared between both entities.
The issue with the Scottish indy ref is both sides where campaigning to have their cake and eat it persay. The Better Together campaign was based on Scotland losing treaties but retaining debt obligations. The Yes campaign was based on Scotland retaining treaties but being able to negotiate away debt which it believed was unfairly pressed upon it (i.e loans taken out in the past when Scottish GDP contributions outweighed rUK)
SilverSixer said:
What is unarguable though, is that circumstances have materially changed since June 23rd.
Not really; what is unarguable is that the Scots were well aware that there was an upcoming referendum on the UKs membership of the EU. It was no secret. They went in with the very real possibility of brexit happening.Given that this was a once in a generation referendum and this "material change" was on the table pre-referendum I really don't think they have any mandate for another referendum. At all.
caelite said:
Actually this depends on how the UK breaks up. From previous parting of nations 2 trends of statehood have occured:
1. The child trend, the parent state being the seat of the former capital/most populous (in this case rUK) retains all treaties, debts & off country assets of the new child state. The child state (in this case Scotland) is considered a brand new nation with no debt obligations, no treaties other than those negotiated during the split & without overseas assets (embassies, overseas military bases etc)
2. The split trend, where both states split on equal terms, in this instance debts, overseas assets, military assets/persons are split evenly based on either land mass, economic contribution or populous (in this case you could expect a 8-9% asset inheiritence to Scotland), however in this trend all treaties and debts (as % of economic share) are shared between both entities.
The issue with the Scottish indy ref is both sides where campaigning to have their cake and eat it persay. The Better Together campaign was based on Scotland losing treaties but retaining debt obligations. The Yes campaign was based on Scotland retaining treaties but being able to negotiate away debt which it believed was unfairly pressed upon it (i.e loans taken out in the past when Scottish GDP contributions outweighed rUK)
They had better get a shift on then because that's going down the swanny in rather a hurry at the moment.1. The child trend, the parent state being the seat of the former capital/most populous (in this case rUK) retains all treaties, debts & off country assets of the new child state. The child state (in this case Scotland) is considered a brand new nation with no debt obligations, no treaties other than those negotiated during the split & without overseas assets (embassies, overseas military bases etc)
2. The split trend, where both states split on equal terms, in this instance debts, overseas assets, military assets/persons are split evenly based on either land mass, economic contribution or populous (in this case you could expect a 8-9% asset inheiritence to Scotland), however in this trend all treaties and debts (as % of economic share) are shared between both entities.
The issue with the Scottish indy ref is both sides where campaigning to have their cake and eat it persay. The Better Together campaign was based on Scotland losing treaties but retaining debt obligations. The Yes campaign was based on Scotland retaining treaties but being able to negotiate away debt which it believed was unfairly pressed upon it (i.e loans taken out in the past when Scottish GDP contributions outweighed rUK)
Jam tomorrow.
Edited by FN2TypeR on Wednesday 19th October 10:52
Greedydog said:
And my point was that it was nothing of the sort. I know many people who voted 'no' to BREXIT but want no part of independence,
Conversely, 1/3 of pro-independence voters wanted Brexit. As I said before, Sturgeon is selling indyref 2 as 'vote for something you don't want in order to get something you do want'.SBDJ said:
Not really; what is unarguable is that the Scots were well aware that there was an upcoming referendum on the UKs membership of the EU. It was no secret. They went in with the very real possibility of brexit happening.
Given that this was a once in a generation referendum and this "material change" was on the table pre-referendum I really don't think they have any mandate for another referendum. At all.
The tories were the only party talking about a Brexit referendum and in 2014 (and beyond) even they didn't expect to win the outright majority required, because Labour and the Lib Dems had said they would block it, so we were NOT well aare of an upcoming referendum, and it was - at best -a very slim possibility.Given that this was a once in a generation referendum and this "material change" was on the table pre-referendum I really don't think they have any mandate for another referendum. At all.
Tosay that this material change was on the table is really stretching things a bit far and if you want to search you can find the video of Ruth Davidson in the Scottish Leaders Debate admitting she didn't believe her party could win the GE.
GoneAnon said:
SBDJ said:
Not really; what is unarguable is that the Scots were well aware that there was an upcoming referendum on the UKs membership of the EU. It was no secret. They went in with the very real possibility of brexit happening.
Given that this was a once in a generation referendum and this "material change" was on the table pre-referendum I really don't think they have any mandate for another referendum. At all.
The tories were the only party talking about a Brexit referendum and in 2014 (and beyond) even they didn't expect to win the outright majority required, because Labour and the Lib Dems had said they would block it, so we were NOT well aare of an upcoming referendum, and it was - at best -a very slim possibility.Given that this was a once in a generation referendum and this "material change" was on the table pre-referendum I really don't think they have any mandate for another referendum. At all.
Tosay that this material change was on the table is really stretching things a bit far and if you want to search you can find the video of Ruth Davidson in the Scottish Leaders Debate admitting she didn't believe her party could win the GE.
caelite said:
blinkythefish said:
SilverSixer said:
andy_s said:
SilverSixer said:
What if the EU decided it would accept Scotland (and Northern Ireland) as the UK, remaining in the EU as the UK successor state, and England/Wales was seen as the new independent nation outside? They're leaving anyway, right? Scot/NI can join the Euro, England/Wales can keep their Pound.
I think that's what's called thinking outside the box. It would solve many, many questions (none of which I particularly wanted asked but hey, the genie is out of the bottle and we are where we are).
(NOTE: I'm not saying it's going to happen, it's just an interesting thought and would seem a logical approach, however unlikely it may be.)
Because Scotland isn't the UK, who is the member.I think that's what's called thinking outside the box. It would solve many, many questions (none of which I particularly wanted asked but hey, the genie is out of the bottle and we are where we are).
(NOTE: I'm not saying it's going to happen, it's just an interesting thought and would seem a logical approach, however unlikely it may be.)
rUK detach Scotland, rUK is still UK.
Scotland detach from rUK, Scotland is not UK.
1. The child trend, the parent state being the seat of the former capital/most populous (in this case rUK) retains all treaties, debts & off country assets of the new child state. The child state (in this case Scotland) is considered a brand new nation with no debt obligations, no treaties other than those negotiated during the split & without overseas assets (embassies, overseas military bases etc)
2. The split trend, where both states split on equal terms, in this instance debts, overseas assets, military assets/persons are split evenly based on either land mass, economic contribution or populous (in this case you could expect a 8-9% asset inheiritence to Scotland), however in this trend all treaties and debts (as % of economic share) are shared between both entities.
The issue with the Scottish indy ref is both sides where campaigning to have their cake and eat it persay. The Better Together campaign was based on Scotland losing treaties but retaining debt obligations. The Yes campaign was based on Scotland retaining treaties but being able to negotiate away debt which it believed was unfairly pressed upon it (i.e loans taken out in the past when Scottish GDP contributions outweighed rUK)
It's a complex mess of opinions and desires. Add constant political flux to the mix and the questions are always going to be valid.
GoneAnon said:
Tosay that this material change was on the table is really stretching things a bit far and if you want to search you can find the video of Ruth Davidson in the Scottish Leaders Debate admitting she didn't believe her party could win the GE.
But to predicate the mandate of another referendum on certain 'material change' is a nonsense, unless you are Alex Salmond and believe that everything is a gamble. Nothing is static in politics, and Nicola Sturgeon's revisionist rhetoric only works if you are thick and have a short memory.It doesn't matter if you voted no on the basis that an EU referendum might not happen. The possibility was always there, however unlikely Ruth Davidson thought it was.
I'll say it once more though 1/3 of Scottish independence supporting voters also supported Brexit. Nippy Niccy's linking of the two issues stands to alienate both sets of voters.
GoneAnon said:
The tories were the only party talking about a Brexit referendum and in 2014 (and beyond) even they didn't expect to win the outright majority required,
Who gives a f
k who 'expected' what?The fact is the Tories were promising a EU vote. We voted them in. And they did what they said they would.
This 'material change' b
ks is just a weasel word cover all from the SNP to try to engineer their preferred outcome.r11co said:
I'll say it once more though 1/3 of Scottish independence supporting voters also supported Brexit. Nippy Niccy's linking of the two issues stands to alienate both sets of voters.
Meaning 2/3rds don't. If that number plus the number of those opposed to independence last time but in favour of an EU remain, and who prioritise the EU over the UK equals, say, 51.89%, then she's over the line and it's independence for Scotland.Different paradigm now, different set of circumstances, meaning the arguments will be different and people's votes will change. It's up for grabs.
I'm ambivalent on the issue, having been a firm, 'ow you say monsieur, 'Yoon' previously. Not that I've got a vote, but having Scottish parentage and links I am interested where it goes. I'm sure I'm not the only one, and I'm sure some people who do have a vote north of the border feel similarly. Whether there are enough and whether they can be won over by the SNP remains to be seen.
SilverSixer said:
r11co said:
I'll say it once more though 1/3 of Scottish independence supporting voters also supported Brexit. Nippy Niccy's linking of the two issues stands to alienate both sets of voters.
Meaning 2/3rds don't.SilverSixer said:
If that number plus the number of those opposed to independence last time but in favour of an EU remain, and who prioritise the EU over the UK equals, say, 51.89%, then she's over the line and it's independence for Scotland.
That is exactly the maths Sturgeon is gambling on. Just as likely though that those who supported Scotland remaining in the UK and the UK remaining in the EU will think that 1 out of 2 ain't bad and not give the bird-in-the hand away on a 'promise'. With the latest opinion polls putting support for independence at 39% it doesn't take much to figure out which scenario is playing out..Meanwhile Sturgeon is brewing conflict within her own party by linking the issues.
Edited by r11co on Wednesday 19th October 10:43
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff