Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 8
Discussion
amusingduck said:
Strocky said:
No sane person would claim the bolded part (all parties indulge in politik), however what do you tell former NO voters like my BIL, several friends and multiple work contacts that would now vote YES based on Brexit?
Congratulations, and tough s
t. We're not re-running referendums when you feel 'informed' because you stupid fks couldn't be arsed to understand what you were voting on in 2014....is what I'd tell them
Troubleatmill said:
Alex Salmond's former advisor is on record that they chose not to show the true numbers as it would show an independent Scotland as non viable.
Alex Bell. His words from 2015.
psi310398 said:
Wombat3 said:
Indeed , very little (apart from things like Faslane etc).
But its another good reason why the Nats need to be told that there is no question of having Indyref 2 without them first submitting a credible & costed plan as to how they are going to set up and run an Independent country. And that applies as much down track for the next generation as it does now. Why on earth should anyone waste any time , money or effort on this to appease the hysterical 2-3% without it?
Of course if they had a braincell between them they would have worked out that if they could actually do that then they would undoubtedly be able to gather support for it and make it happen. The fact is that the majority simply don't think its possible because they have seen nothing to suggest it is and plenty to suggest it isn't!
Its up to the Nats to convince everyone otherwise and put forward credible solutions and not just pie in the sky lies and bullst (of which they are the arch peddlers). Until they do then frankly STFU, FRO and stop wasting everyone's time!
I wouldn't disagree with most of that, but I think we're getting to the point where plenty of English just don't accept that any of this is their problem any more, nor that they should bankroll this self-indulgence. But its another good reason why the Nats need to be told that there is no question of having Indyref 2 without them first submitting a credible & costed plan as to how they are going to set up and run an Independent country. And that applies as much down track for the next generation as it does now. Why on earth should anyone waste any time , money or effort on this to appease the hysterical 2-3% without it?
Of course if they had a braincell between them they would have worked out that if they could actually do that then they would undoubtedly be able to gather support for it and make it happen. The fact is that the majority simply don't think its possible because they have seen nothing to suggest it is and plenty to suggest it isn't!
Its up to the Nats to convince everyone otherwise and put forward credible solutions and not just pie in the sky lies and bulls
t (of which they are the arch peddlers). Until they do then frankly STFU, FRO and stop wasting everyone's time!It's for the Scots to sort this out politically - that's what devolution entails.
The last issue they may want to (should) get involved with is exactly who the plebiscite are. For example last time around the SNP deliberately disenfranchised anyone not living in Scotland. So anyone who was born & raised in Scotland and who may, for example, have gone south for employment reasons temporarily yet was always intending one day to return to Scotland got no say in the matter. That was a disgrace und fundamentally undemocratic.
It is not beyond the wit of man to simply say that only UK citizens born in Scotland have a vote on this - regardless of current domicile.
NoddyonNitrous said:
Evercross said:
Linky no workyWombat3 said:
I don't think anyone would disagree with the fact that its a Scots decision as long as they can first demonstrate that it would be viable to be independent. Ensuring that is the case is a duty of care that the UK government has to everyone in Scotland. Secondly they would need to ensure that it can be achieved without considerable cost or damage to the people of the rest of the UK - and that is their second duty of care.
The last issue they may want to (should) get involved with is exactly who the plebiscite are. For example last time around the SNP deliberately disenfranchised anyone not living in Scotland. So anyone who was born & raised in Scotland and who may, for example, have gone south for employment reasons temporarily yet was always intending one day to return to Scotland got no say in the matter. That was a disgrace und fundamentally undemocratic.
It is not beyond the wit of man to simply say that only UK citizens born in Scotland have a vote on this - regardless of current domicile.
I can quite appreciate that you think independence would be unwise etc but I think there are some unfounded assertions here. The last issue they may want to (should) get involved with is exactly who the plebiscite are. For example last time around the SNP deliberately disenfranchised anyone not living in Scotland. So anyone who was born & raised in Scotland and who may, for example, have gone south for employment reasons temporarily yet was always intending one day to return to Scotland got no say in the matter. That was a disgrace und fundamentally undemocratic.
It is not beyond the wit of man to simply say that only UK citizens born in Scotland have a vote on this - regardless of current domicile.
Why on earth do the Scots need to demonstrate to anybody else that independence is viable? Where in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights regarding the right to self-determination is there any viability criterion? I thought it was precisely this kind of patronising English paternalism that many Scots objected to.
Why would rUK owe any 'duty of care' to Scotland or Scottish people? What is the legal basis for this duty?
rUK might indeed want to take steps to protect its own citizens from the consequences of Scottish independence in the same way as it might alter foreign policy to deal with a hostile government in the Republic of Ireland but that is rather different from stopping a people exercising their right to determine their own lives.
As for a split, the Czechs and Slovaks managed to do it very quickly and in a civilised and painless way back in 1992/93 and the world hasn't collapsed yet. It will only be complicated if pollies are allowed to complicate matters.
Quite who votes and where is, I'm sure, something that can be discussed and agreed upon.
Because if they - Scotland-(I'm ex pat Scot) ever got independence(god forbid) then England (and other countries) would be flooded by the exodus of around 1/2 or more of the population when it all went tits up! The economy would bomb and there would be civil unrest. People would flee.
Scotty2 said:
Because if they - Scotland-(I'm ex pat Scot) ever got independence(god forbid) then England (and other countries) would be flooded by the exodus of around 1/2 or more of the population when it all went tits up! The economy would bomb and there would be civil unrest. People would flee.
Why would a citizen of Scotland have any right to settle in England post independence? Surely it would only be fare for similar rights to Indian or Kenyan citizens. psi310398 said:
Troubleatmill said:
psi310398 said:
......
Why on earth do the SNP need to demonstrate to the Scottish electorate that independence is viable? ...
This is what matters.Why on earth do the SNP need to demonstrate to the Scottish electorate that independence is viable? ...
Scottish democracy needs to be trusted or there's no point to having it.
Troubleatmill said:
Thank goodness we had a referendum recently to democratically determine what the Scots wanted.
Sure. And, as many Scots are now arguing, perhaps circumstances have changed sufficiently materially since then to suggest that re-posing the question might be sensible. I'm sure, after some further debate, the Scottish body politic will arrive at an answer
.nikaiyo2 said:
Scotty2 said:
Because if they - Scotland-(I'm ex pat Scot) ever got independence(god forbid) then England (and other countries) would be flooded by the exodus of around 1/2 or more of the population when it all went tits up! The economy would bomb and there would be civil unrest. People would flee.
Why would a citizen of Scotland have any right to settle in England post independence? Surely it would only be fare for similar rights to Indian or Kenyan citizens. I'd actually go as far as to suggest that those who want to move south should be assisted by the government. It's not their fault. There should be a time limit though.
psi310398 said:
Troubleatmill said:
Thank goodness we had a referendum recently to democratically determine what the Scots wanted.
Sure. And, as many Scots are now arguing, perhaps circumstances have changed sufficiently materially since then to suggest that re-posing the question might be sensible. I'm sure, after some further debate, the Scottish body politic will arrive at an answer.Nothing of any note has.
psi310398 said:
Troubleatmill said:
What circumstances have changed?
Nothing of any note has.
The SNP and its supporters seem to be making a bit of a fuss about Brexit but, as I say, this is ultimately a matter for Scottish democracy, rather than one for a mere Englishman to opine on.Nothing of any note has.
In truth Sturgeon needs to keep asking for another try to keep her party happy. Get on with the day job Nicola.
psi310398 said:
Troubleatmill said:
What circumstances have changed?
Nothing of any note has.
The SNP and its supporters seem to be making a bit of a fuss about Brexit but, as I say, this is ultimately a matter for Scottish democracy, rather than one for a mere Englishman to opine on.Nothing of any note has.
My posts above spell out that the EU Commission said Scotland can f
k off if it gets independence.Scotland has never been able to remain in the EU and be independent.
If anything Brexit removes one obstacle for you. You should be thanking the Electorate.
Which Englishman is this then?
Troubleatmill said:
Why are mere SNP and Nats making a fuss about Brexit?
My posts above spell out that the EU Commission said Scotland can fk off if it gets independence.
Scotland has never been able to remain in the EU and be independent.
If anything Brexit removes one obstacle for you. You should be thanking the Electorate.
Which Englishman is this then?
I have never said that EU Commission had said otherwise. I think the SNP position is insane but I believe in democracy - ultimately, if the Scots want independence even on the basis of delusions, that's their business. My posts above spell out that the EU Commission said Scotland can f
k off if it gets independence.Scotland has never been able to remain in the EU and be independent.
If anything Brexit removes one obstacle for you. You should be thanking the Electorate.
Which Englishman is this then?
If the Scottish people continue to vote in the SNP in large numbers despite voting the other way in the referendum, then they really need to live with the consequences of such a contradictory stance.
The Englishman in question was me.
psi310398 said:
Mrr T said:
Sorry but on a practical level Scotland cannot use sterling. The Scottish government needs to collect taxes, pay for services, raise and redeem bonds. To do that it needs access to a bank account. If the UK allowed the the Scottish government to have an account at the BOE the UK would be exposed and no commercial bank would have the risk appitite. The US Dollar maybe widely accepted for payments but governments need their own currency and central bank.
Actually, there are countries without central banks. Admittedly not many and almost all with economies the size Scotland's is likely to be shortly after independence
.Its interesting if you look at the countries which use the USD, such as Equator, they do have a currency and a CB but do not issue currency, and the currency is directly linked to the USD. This allows the local CB to bank the government rather than have to use the Fed.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff