Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 8

[r11co]

Uppity said:

None of that matters. None of it. Why? Because Scotland does not have the power to make the decision. We could talk about the EU all day/week/month/year long and it would all be pointless, simply because Westminster has no political incentive to consider Scotland's needs. None.

bks. It has no need to consider the SNP's needs as far as politicking in Westminster goes - that is not the same thing. The issue the idiots allegedly walked out on had already been discussed and compromised on for months in other fora competent to decide and agree on it. Once again you are repeating the SNP spin and narrative which is as far removed from the reality of the situation as can be.

Uppity said:

As demonstrated so emphatically this week, Scotland is subjugate to Westminster in all things.

More bks. See above. The 'demonstration' was of the SNP's own making to fit their lies - there is no 'power grab', there is no 'constitutional crisis' and even when Blackford was given what he wanted (just not when he wanted) they still sulked off.

Plus if that statement is true then none of the 'achievements' you listed previously can be attributed to the SNP's governance of Scotland because you claim they are all subject to the yes or no say of Westminster.

Edited by r11co on Sunday 17th June 23:42

[wc98]

Uppity said:

That's an argument driven by emotion, which I understand, and there are plenty of people who will agree. But it's not a compelling argument for those who don't feel the same way

utterly hilarious coming from a cyber nat. the snp have nothing but (negative) emotive drivel. scotland in union has a nice ring to it, you should check them out.





at least i know who reported my post now as well would you care to remind me which one it was ? i could maybe stop offending your sensitivities in the future if i know what to avoid when commenting on your beloved snp.

[Kccv23highliftcam]

"As demonstrated so emphatically this week"



Yes, everyone was SO impressed.

Especially their constituents.

Like me.

Not that I can Email my fud MP to register my disagreement as I am still on a "blacklist" supplied by that important separatist in bath to members of the SNP organisation.

How's that for inclusiveness.

[Uppity]

technodup said:

Uppity said:

Eh?

The austerity programme was initiated in 2010 by the Con/Dem coalition government.

The Govt's austerity programme affected many areas,

It's really quite simple. Yes some departments got a budget cut, but that was just tinkering.

Tinkering? Tinkering? Do you want to explain to 5 million public sector workers that their 2 year pay freeze was just tinkering? And then follow that up with a heart-warming reassurance that the 1% cap on annual increases till 2020 wasn't actually real but was just "...a narrative that Labour used to make Tories look bad."

Jeez

technodup said:

Alpacaman said:

And somehow we are supposed to believe that as 5 million people we will have a bigger voice among 500 million than 60 million. I am sorry but I don't buy the guff about our voice not being heard in the UK.

SNP logic right there.

The logic is in the arithmetic. 59 Scottish seats out of 650.

Tinkering

[HD Adam]

Welcome back Uppityburger

[b2hbm]

Uppity said:

They do seem like obvious benefits but any economy of scale can only work if it is designed for the benefit of those partaking in it. That means that these activities have to be performed or designed with at least some consideration of the benefit they would afford Scotland - and that takes us right back to the representation problem. With only 59 MPs out of 650, Scotland has no significant political role or weight within the current union.

Ok.... so how many MPs would you consider to be fair ? You (Scotland) have roughly 8% of the UK population and 9% of the MPs at the moment. That strikes me that you're over represented but just for interest how many would you think is a fair number ? 70 ? and how much greater impact do you think those extra 11 MPs would make in a house of 661 MPs ?

Uppity said:

Nope - my point re representation refers. As an example, we need more migrants - never going to happen. Westminster needs to keep the anti-immigration element happy and Scotland's needs are irrelevant

The simple facts are that you can have as many immigrants as you want, or rather as many immigrants that you can convince to move to Scotland. If you take a look at the geographic distribution of EU immigrants (or all immigration, it doesn't matter that much) over the UK you'll find the vast bulk settle in England.

We've had 40+ years of Scotland being free to attract immigrant workers from EU countries but it seems from the distributions that they don't want to live there. I would guess it's something to do with better wages, job supply, living conditions or even social benefits of living in England, you know, that market economy thing.

If you really want more EU workers then that's a problem that Scotland has to solve and you have the facilities and power to do so. The claimed lack of migrant workers has nothing at all to do with Westminster stopping EU immigrants taking jobs north of the border over the last 40+ years.

[r11co]

Kccv23highliftcam said:

"Not that I can Email my fud MP to register my disagreement as I am still on a "blacklist" supplied by that important separatist in bath to members of the SNP organisation.

WOW, seriously? That is major f'kd up - your local MP chooses to disavow you on the say-so of a randomer with no affiliation to government or party and who themselves have a dubious past and repulsive personal traits?

Says it all about that particular MP - not fit for office. End of Story!

[technodup]

Uppity said:

technodup said:

Uppity said:

Eh?

The austerity programme was initiated in 2010 by the Con/Dem coalition government.

The Govt's austerity programme affected many areas,

It's really quite simple. Yes some departments got a budget cut, but that was just tinkering.

Tinkering? Tinkering? Do you want to explain to 5 million public sector workers that their 2 year pay freeze was just tinkering? And then follow that up with a heart-warming reassurance that the 1% cap on annual increases till 2020 wasn't actually real but was just "...a narrative that Labour used to make Tories look bad."

Jeez

My heart fking bleeds.You think private sector workers get automatic increases every year? Or when the headline 'increase' is curtailed they still get more because of the grade increments which happen 'just because'?

Some of those cuts were actual cuts. Some were reductions in planned increases. Other areas got more, the 'always in crisis' NHS for example, in spite of the rhetoric has been swallowing ever increasing amounts.

The fact is whatever we spent it on, we spent more every year since 2008. Fake austerity suited both sides for the reasons previously stated.

[FN2TypeR]

Uppity said:

Member veto - I mention it in an earlier post

Seriously, 59 Scottish seats out of 650 UK seats - and all North of the border. It would be insane for an English/Welsh/NI politician to expend their limited resources on them. Hence the lack of voice

The veto an EU member gets is worth less than it used to be and it will be worth less and less in the future as they abandon it in key areas in favour of qualified majority voting.

Edited by FN2TypeR on Monday 18th June 08:59

[Uppity]

FN2TypeR said:

Uppity said:

Member veto - I mention it in an earlier post

Seriously, 59 Scottish seats out of 650 UK seats - and all North of the border. It would be insane for an English/Welsh/NI politician to expend their limited resources on them. Hence the lack of voice

The veto an EU member gets is worth less than it used to be and it will be worth less and less in the future as they abandon it in key areas in favour of qualified majority voting.

Edited by FN2TypeR on Monday 18th June 08:59

And that is something an independent Scotland would have to consider when deciding what its relationship with the EU should be. But, at the moment, it's irrelevant because Westminster will not grant Scotland the power to make that decision.

[gofasterrosssco]

I see the usual Natspeak is on full display above..

See Jim Sillars (a nat with a bit of a brain and sense of perspective) is pretty direct in debunking the whole kerfuffle.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jim-sillars-bla...

[gofasterrosssco]

Uppity said:

FN2TypeR said:

Uppity said:

Member veto - I mention it in an earlier post

Seriously, 59 Scottish seats out of 650 UK seats - and all North of the border. It would be insane for an English/Welsh/NI politician to expend their limited resources on them. Hence the lack of voice

The veto an EU member gets is worth less than it used to be and it will be worth less and less in the future as they abandon it in key areas in favour of qualified majority voting.

Edited by FN2TypeR on Monday 18th June 08:59

And that is something an independent Scotland would have to consider when deciding what its relationship with the EU should be. But, at the moment, it's irrelevant because Westminster will not grant Scotland the power to make that decision.

So, you equate having a veto in the European Parliament, being what, less than 1% representation, with approx. 9% in WM? Forgetting all the influence and aspects in various committees and gov agencies, with most power excised through the civil service than anything else.

So Scotland is just going to veto stuff it doesn't agree with.. How lose friends and alienate yourself. I think you'd find Scotland would be fairly easily bent to the EU's will when financial carrots are dangled.. That's why small nations have little clout. You seem to operate in an idealised political world which is quite separate from reality I'm afraid!

Interesting and ironic (to some) that the only real reason Teresa May is in power is the 13 Scottish Tory MP's we elected last year, and kinda funny how this is the second time in recent (ish) history the SNP have encouraged in a Tory gov...

[Sway]

Uppity said:

FN2TypeR said:

Uppity said:

Member veto - I mention it in an earlier post

Seriously, 59 Scottish seats out of 650 UK seats - and all North of the border. It would be insane for an English/Welsh/NI politician to expend their limited resources on them. Hence the lack of voice

The veto an EU member gets is worth less than it used to be and it will be worth less and less in the future as they abandon it in key areas in favour of qualified majority voting.

Edited by FN2TypeR on Monday 18th June 08:59

And that is something an independent Scotland would have to consider when deciding what its relationship with the EU should be. But, at the moment, it's irrelevant because Westminster will not grant Scotland the power to make that decision.

Whilst the "subjugation" argument is very emotive, and pulls a lot of people along with it - how far down that principle do you wish to go?

Edinburgh would like to be able to do x, but it's irrelevant as Holyrood will not grant Edinburgh the power to make that decision...

Why is it, if these abilities to make decisions internally for Scotland are so vital - that the SNP actively resisted Westminster giving them more powers?

[Murph7355]

Uppity said:

And that is something an independent Scotland would have to consider when deciding what its relationship with the EU should be. But, at the moment, it's irrelevant because Westminster will not grant Scotland the power to make that decision.

Are you Gloria Slap in a kilt?

Westminster granted you a referendum. Your countrymen kicked you into the weeds. All indications are that if you were granted another referendum you would be kicked further into the weeds.

You had your chance. The SNP blew it. Perhaps if they'd spent more time using the powers they have more constructively, your referendum would have gone differently as people would see how readily the SNP can improve Scotland's lot. Opportunity missed.

The majority of your countrymen want to stay in the UK. The majority (usual democratic caveat - of those who voted. Those who didn't accepted the majority verdict by default) of people in the UK want to leave the EU. Suck it up.

[andy_s]

^ This is one of the reasons I can't get behind the self-determination argument; for me i. Nationalism in itself isn't a concept I adhere too; it's generally been quite bad for the world and strikes me as more usually used as a false flag cover for more nefarious purpose as it is easily and emotionally swallowed. Be careful. ii. Reduced to it's illogical conclusion every man would be a nation unto himself, with all the drawbacks that implies. iii. More philosophically it's quite arbitrary, as one nation today can be another nation tomorrow; todays Scotland was yesterdays Picts, Gaels and Vikings. For us to choose this moment in time as 'the nation' is convenient for advancing an agenda or for beating a certain drum, but not wholly accurate in the [much] wider sense.
Finally, I doubt a local government drawn from a smaller pool positioned in a more precarious position with fewer resources and higher risk will govern any better than a broader national one; if we assume Westminster offer poor quality politic then we must also assume Holyrood will offer similarly low quality, only now exposed to more risk.

- Uppity - I've downloaded the book and will have a look. I'm not too encouraged by the blurb but will read with an open mind. I think there is a glimmer of an idea for an interesting future somewhere, but it would take a more disruptive and unconventional approach than what I see at the moment I feel.

[Uppity]

gofasterrosssco said:

So, you equate having a veto in the European Parliament, being what, less than 1% representation, with approx. 9% in WM? Forgetting all the influence and aspects in various committees and gov agencies, with most power excised through the civil service than anything else.

So Scotland is just going to veto stuff it doesn't agree with.. How lose friends and alienate yourself. I think you'd find Scotland would be fairly easily bent to the EU's will when financial carrots are dangled.. That's why small nations have little clout..

Again - that is something an independent Scotland would have to consider when deciding what its relationship with the EU should be.

[gofasterrosssco]

Uppity said:

gofasterrosssco said:

So, you equate having a veto in the European Parliament, being what, less than 1% representation, with approx. 9% in WM? Forgetting all the influence and aspects in various committees and gov agencies, with most power excised through the civil service than anything else.

So Scotland is just going to veto stuff it doesn't agree with.. How lose friends and alienate yourself. I think you'd find Scotland would be fairly easily bent to the EU's will when financial carrots are dangled.. That's why small nations have little clout..

Again - that is something an independent Scotland would have to consider when deciding what its relationship with the EU should be.

Ok, fair enough. But two questions:

1) Why can't we consider it now (and haven't we been)?
2) What makes you think we'd have a choice?

The likely reality (not set in stone, just going by previous form) is that we'd be offered a 'take it or leave it' EU offer, perhaps with some minor (but ultimately irrelevant) short-term concessions to sweeten the deal for the domestic audience. If one of the largest economies, second highest donor, largest military etc. cannot gain significant exceptions with respect to EU membership, Scotland is likely to just be subsumed into the EU project.

Please note, I am not anti-EU, and wanted to stay in the EU (warts an all), but that's democracy for ya.

[technodup]

Uppity said:

And that is something an independent Scotland would have to consider when deciding what its relationship with the EU should be.

No, that intent of that relationship has to be declared before independence.

Have you seen how Brexit is going? The Tories getting (rightly) ripped from all sides for not having a plan? Arguably the 2014 referendum was also lost because of lack of a coherent plan, especially around currency and EU. The very least the indy movement can do is explain it's intentions re joining another union. No pishy waffle.

Fortunately I think whatever the outcome of Brexit the SNP is fked. Either we live happily ever after, in which case why any need to join/rejoin the EU, or the EU cause us so many problems getting out we suffer, which again leaves us with why EU?

Which is why all the outriders are pushing for indyref2 asap.

[r11co]

technodup said:

Fortunately I think whatever the outcome of Brexit the SNP is fked. Either we live happily ever after, in which case why any need to join/rejoin the EU, or the EU cause us so many problems getting out we suffer, which again leaves us with why EU?

Agreed, and we came to that conclusion long ago! Far from being the springboard to independence Nicola thought it would be (and how badly did she read that situation) Brexit has thrown in to sharp focus what happens when you break away from a union that then has no reason whatsoever to play nice and grant concessions. Every argument the SNP make against Brexit applies equally to Scottish independence. Every claim the SNats make about the benefits of independence are as nebulous as those made by those Brexiteers that Nicola so likes to criticise.

In other news, I see Salmond is trying to take the credit for last week's pantomime. Why is that not surprising at all?

Edited by r11co on Monday 18th June 12:33

[Troubleatmill]

Which brings us back to the EU saying that an independent Scotland is at the back of the queue for membership.