Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 8

[blinkythefish]

nightcruiser said:

http://www.largsandmillportnews.com/news/15161796....

Good to see them sorting the important stuff. I'd hate to see something like this get missed in favour of education or health.

[hidetheelephants]

blinkythefish said:

nightcruiser said:

http://www.largsandmillportnews.com/news/15161796....

Good to see them sorting the important stuff. I'd hate to see something like this get missed in favour of education or health.

The same august representative of the forth estate sts a brick every time there's a reactor or turbine trip at Hunterston because the window lickers think the noise means it's the end of the world or something, rather than the inevitable consequence of ~1GW of energy being discharged directly into the air in the form of steam.

[FN2TypeR]

blinkythefish said:

nightcruiser said:

http://www.largsandmillportnews.com/news/15161796....

Good to see them sorting the important stuff. I'd hate to see something like this get missed in favour of education or health.

[Smollet]

Murph7355 said:

Edinburger said:

I think a fully federal UK constitution is more likely to happen than Scottish independence.

So the UK parliament covers defence, international relations, issues of UK-wide importance, etc., and the fully devolved parliaments of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland deal with virtually everything related to those countries including taxation and spend.

Best outcome.

I don't see it happening.

What happens when one then needs bailing out?

Gordon Brown has stuck his oar in with a third option of a federal style government so that will kill that idea straight away given his track record for successful policies with the one exception of joining the Euro and he didn't commit to to that due to his intense dislike of Blair who was pro the Euro.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-pol...

[Northern Munkee]

Smollet said:

Murph7355 said:

Edinburger said:

I think a fully federal UK constitution is more likely to happen than Scottish independence.

So the UK parliament covers defence, international relations, issues of UK-wide importance, etc., and the fully devolved parliaments of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland deal with virtually everything related to those countries including taxation and spend.

Best outcome.

I don't see it happening.

What happens when one then needs bailing out?

Gordon Brown has stuck his oar in with a third option of a federal style government so that will kill that idea straight away given his track record for successful policies with the one exception of joining the Euro and he didn't commit to to that due to his intense dislike of Blair who was pro the Euro.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-pol...

No, no, no. I bloody knew it, a little bit more, and then she would find another pretext to threaten another referendum to demand a little bit more. Until such time as it is a) independence in all but name, and/or b) UK ceases to be able to operate on any level without the SNP having a de facto veto.

ENOUGH ALREADY. It's take it (the UK) or leave it (independence) as it is. I don't think the English want to leave the EU regain its sovereignty from Brussels only to hand it to Holyrood.

[motco]

barryrs said:

csd19 said:

motco said:

Murph7355 said:

NRS said:

It would be on the nautical boundary most likely. Which would mean a lot of it goes to Scotland...

Can't see that washing with rUK for current reserves.

It's clearly how that boundary is continued eastwards from Berwick. Does it bend the extended land border and go due east and exclude the fields north of it from rUK, or does it (more fairly in my view) continue along the Carlisle/Berwick angle of the land boundary and include far more fields in the rUK sector? Much more blood letting yet to come either way: independent/not independent, and whose oil is it? Sturgeon's lips have scope go get yet thinner, and her voice much harsher yet.

I remember this being discussed in my office during the first round of Neverendum, IIRC draw a line from the land border at Berwick across to near Stavanger and that would be the split. Now, don't ask me where that decision came from...

Was discussed at length in an earlier volume with details here IIRC http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/...

The conclusion being that it's not Scotland's oil but the UK's and independence would net Scotland a share, just as they would get a share of any shale oil and gas in the rUK.

Can they be forced to have a share of the stinky protesters too?

[Jader1973]

hidetheelephants said:

The same august representative of the forth estate sts a brick every time there's a reactor or turbine trip at Hunterston because the window lickers think the noise means it's the end of the world or something, rather than the inevitable consequence of ~1GW of energy being discharged directly into the air in the form of steam.

O/T but having witnessed a double turbine trip close up it did sound like the end of the world. We'd been out for a walk up the access road at lunchtime and as we were coming back they both let rip. For some reason our immediate reaction was to run towards it!

Spent the rest of the afternoon checking nothing was broken.

[Ekona]

An obvious question perhaps, but do we think Sturgeon and other independence seeking voters would take an independent Scotland even if it was likely to be much worse off in the near future, at least?

In the same way those that voted for Brexit wanted out bespite the odds that the pound would drop and in general things would cost more short term (not trying to start an argument on that here, and even as a Remakner I'm generally feeling more positive about the UKs future outside the EU in the next ten plus years), is having Scotland free at all costs worth it? Is having to fund a new currency, having to bend to the will of the EU to get back in/access to the free market, and all the headaches that go with it worth it?

I'm not Scottish, and I'm pro UK so want us all to stay together, so I have no idea on the view from the other side.

[iphonedyou]

Edinburger said:

I think a fully federal UK constitution is more likely to happen than Scottish independence.

So the UK parliament covers defence, international relations, issues of UK-wide importance, etc., and the fully devolved parliaments of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland deal with virtually everything related to those countries including taxation and spend.

Best outcome.

I dearly hope Northern Ireland goes back to direct rule. Can be trusted with nothing.

[andy_s]

Ekona said:

An obvious question perhaps, but do we think Sturgeon and other independence seeking voters would take an independent Scotland even if it was likely to be much worse off in the near future, at least?

In the same way those that voted for Brexit wanted out bespite the odds that the pound would drop and in general things would cost more short term (not trying to start an argument on that here, and even as a Remakner I'm generally feeling more positive about the UKs future outside the EU in the next ten plus years), is having Scotland free at all costs worth it? Is having to fund a new currency, having to bend to the will of the EU to get back in/access to the free market, and all the headaches that go with it worth it?

I'm not Scottish, and I'm pro UK so want us all to stay together, so I have no idea on the view from the other side.

Well therein lies the rub; when asked about currency on QT there was a silence followed by a vague 'watch this space'. This is from a party that has had independence as its raison d'être for over 50 years. They were even on the brink of independence 3 years ago, yet still can't answer the most basic but fundamental questions of what the plan is post-independence.

The thing is young Sturgeon is not daft, she and the party know that a lot of what is said about Scotland's position post-independence is wishful thinking at best and based on doubtful assumption, but of course, you can't tell the voters that can you?

Those that are tribally aligned to vote for independence have a similar denial complex in that 'we will be better free from Westminster' but don't think any further ahead than that; they have a similar 'it'll be alright on the night' attitude as it suits them. They, and the SNP, are dealing in emotion, historic baggage and wishful thinking; reality and pragmatism doesn't come into it. Any pointers to the potentially grim reality are labelled 'project fear' and ridden over rough-shod.

I'm fairly ambivalent about independence, as I've said many times, I care not two jots about the mechanics of governance providing it means a better more secure future for my family. However I've yet to see a single advantage to it to be honest; of course, being a socialist party the SNP couldn't countenance Scotland becoming a tax haven like Monaco or Hong Kong so they are left with the option of pretending there is another solution, the 'it'll be alright on the night' one. That's enough for the entrenched, but not for me and a fair few other people that see behind the curtain.

[Pan Pan Pan]

The SNP must think that people have the memory of a goldfish. On the news this morning the deputy leader of the SNP was whining that everybody else has a vote in Scotland's future, except the people of Scotland.
He wittered on about the UK, Brussels and all the member states having a vote on the deal between the UK and the EU, but because Scotland is currently part of the UK, it did not have its `own' vote on the matter. blithely forgetting that Scotland DID get its OWN vote in the independence referendum, (which NO one but the Scots were allowed to vote in) and Scotland voted to stay part of the UK.
How many votes which (only Scotland is allowed to vote in) does he believe Scotland should have, more than is given to the any other part or person of the UK?
As posted before Sturgeon, and the SNP seem to follow the EU form of `democratic vote' in that they want to hold vote, after vote, after vote, limited entirely to just themselves, until the (limited) number of people allowed to vote in a Scottish referendum come up with the answer the SNP wants.
Democracy? Sturgeon doesn't know the meaning of the word.

Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Saturday 18th March 09:19

[Smollet]

Just supposing that a referendum takes place in Sturgeon's allotted time frame and they lose what happens then? Another referendum saying Brexit hadn't been implemented so we need to take that into account and the last one was meaningless? This will go on and on either until she gets her way or the Scottish people tire of the whole thing and decide to stay within the UK for at least a true term generation.

[r11co]

andy_s said:

They, and the SNP, are dealing in emotion, historic baggage and wishful thinking; reality and pragmatism doesn't come into it. Any pointers to the potentially grim reality are labelled 'project fear' and ridden over rough-shod.

Yep, until now.

Sturgeon's current push for independence is based on the dire economic and social consequences of a 'hard' Brexit caused by Scotland being dragged over the cliff by the evil Tories. Project Fear to the max, especially as it is based on a false narrative as no-one knows the outcome of the Brexit negotations yet. No-one that is except the SNP who have already decided it'll be no deals on trade and immigration, maximium tariffs, fire and brimstone and full unemployment.

[simoid]

Smollet said:

Just supposing that a referendum takes place in Sturgeon's allotted time frame and they lose what happens then? Another referendum saying Brexit hadn't been implemented so we need to take that into account and the last one was meaningless? This will go on and on either until she gets her way or the Scottish people tire of the whole thing and decide to stay within the UK for at least a true term generation.

On the "Scottish people tiring" - SNP voters on the edge of the spectrum of nationalism begin to choose other parties again, after reading sensible and rational debate from people who believe in stability. The SNP vote in Holyrood falls and is replaced by the other parties. Minority & partnership government returns "for a generation".

I think that could be the way to go. Scotland is a rational country, but much of the reason has been clouded by our politicians in recent campaigns.

The debate just has to shift away from the nationalist rhetoric and playing field about "Tory Brexit" and back to "what the fk do you actually propose we do when we leave the U.K.?" and they'll fall to bits.

[FN2TypeR]

r11co said:

andy_s said:

They, and the SNP, are dealing in emotion, historic baggage and wishful thinking; reality and pragmatism doesn't come into it. Any pointers to the potentially grim reality are labelled 'project fear' and ridden over rough-shod.

Yep, until now.

Sturgeon's current push for independence is based on the dire economic and social consequences of a 'hard' Brexit caused by Scotland being dragged over the cliff by the evil Tories. Project Fear to the max, especially as it is based on a false narrative as no-one knows the outcome of the Brexit negotations yet. No-one that is except the SNP who have already decided it'll be no deals on trade and immigration, maximium tariffs, fire and brimstone and full unemployment.

And yet they may just win any second referendum - you're making a colossal mistake indeed if you think that rational thinking, facts or the truth are going to enter into political decisions for a great many people these days.

[nicanary]

Especially if you allow children to vote..........

[Dinoboy]

I think Sturgeon's plan all along has been to propose a second referendum at the daftest possible time, knowing that the evil Tory's will refuse "the will of the people".
They can then spend 2 or 3 years whipping up as much anti Westminster rhetoric as possible in the hope that the great unwashed will start shouting loud enough that it appears Scotland really does want a vote(which I don't currently think the majority of scots do).

[simoid]

I bet all the shouting lasts til around...

[glazbagun]

Smollet said:

Just supposing that a referendum takes place in Sturgeon's allotted time frame and they lose what happens then? Another referendum saying Brexit hadn't been implemented so we need to take that into account and the last one was meaningless? This will go on and on either until she gets her way or the Scottish people tire of the whole thing and decide to stay within the UK for at least a true term generation.

Sturgeon resigns with a bag of cash and Swinney gets a go.

[davepoth]

FN2TypeR said:

And yet they may just win any second referendum - you're making a colossal mistake indeed if you think that rational thinking, facts or the truth are going to enter into political decisions for a great many people these days.

Quite. It's a bad idea to imagine that everyone will be rational. The SNP have in all likelihood passed their high watermark in terms of power - they are showing themselves to not be a good party of government, and their plan to govern Scotland was ultimately what put them into power in the first place given that a lot of Scots who voted No also voted SNP.

With that in mind it's likely that come 2021 the number of MSPs in favour of a referendum will be a minority (it'll only take a small swing) and so independence will be off the table for the foreseeable future. With clarity over the Brexit deal independence will look much less attractive, so the SNP are really feeling quite a bit of pressure to get this done ASAP and that means the fewest facts possible.