Indyref 2: This time it's personal.

[Craig B]

... 4) There is a significant political risk to saying if one part of a region opts to stay in a union they have the right to do so. This would give the Northern Isles an argument that if they voted to remain in the UK they would have the right to do so.

So much for the Vow! We were told that the intersts of our great country would be secured within the Union, but now that there is a No majority we are downgraded to the rather modest status of "part of a region".

Have the unionists been lying to us?

Maybe if the UK "partial region" of the EU breaks away, the sub-partial sub-region called Scotland which voted to remain in the EU "would have the right to do so".

 

[Craig B]

At the time of the Union money was paid to Scotland (used to pay off the Darien scheme) to compensate Scotland for taking a share of the National debt of England. So this issue was addressed at the time of Union. The exact details of a share can be arged, but Scotland accepted a share at the time of Union.

It did, and the transaction even inspired a poet to put his pen to work.

What force or guile could not subdue,
Thro' many warlike ages,
Is wrought now by a coward few,
For hireling traitor's wages.
The English steel we could disdain,
Secure in valour's station;
But English gold has been our bane-
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!​

 

[Planigale]

So much for the Vow! We were told that the intersts of our great country would be secured within the Union, but now that there is a No majority we are downgraded to the rather modest status of "part of a region".

Have the unionists been lying to us?

Maybe if the UK "partial region" of the EU breaks away, the sub-partial sub-region called Scotland which voted to remain in the EU "would have the right to do so".

Yes to might well do. But there is a political danger for Scotland in arguing that one part of a greater whole has a right to go a different way if a local majority differs from the overall majority.

People I know who voted to leave the UK also voted to leave the EU. The arguments were just the same; a desire for bringing government more locally. Having accepted they were part of the union they wanted the UK to be independent of the EU.

 

[MCel58]

The Treaty of Lambeth between England and France predates the 'Auld Alliance'. The treaty of York between England and Scotland predates the 'Auld Alliance'. Nice mythology but not true. It is worth remembering the oldest extant treaty in the world is that between England and Portugal 1373.

Not true the auld alliance predates this and was drawn up by John Baliol and Philip iv of France in 1295. http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofScotland/The-Auld-Alliance-France-Scotland/

There is even some debate whether some aspects of it are still in force http://caledonianmercury.com/2011/0...may-still-be-in-force-academic-claims/0023452 although that is clearly just an academic exercise.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

At the time of the Union money was paid to Scotland (used to pay off the Darien scheme) to compensate Scotland for taking a share of the National debt of England. So this issue was addressed at the time of Union. The exact details of a share can be arged, but Scotland accepted a share at the time of Union.

The issue being discussed is not the debt of England at the time of the Union.

Yes to might well do. But there is a political danger for Scotland in arguing that one part of a greater whole has a right to go a different way if a local majority differs from the overall majority.

There's only a danger in the mind of the rabid right-wingers who fantasise that the Northern Isles want to break away from Scotland. They don't.

People I know who voted to leave the UK also voted to leave the EU. The arguments were just the same; a desire for bringing government more locally. Having accepted they were part of the union they wanted the UK to be independent of the EU.

Some people no doubt did. But clearly not everyone since the results show that only half as many people voted to leave as voted no.

And just regarding the earlier point the number for Remain was no lower in Orkney and Shetland.

 

[Planigale]

The issue being discussed is not the debt of England at the time of the Union.



There's only a danger in the mind of the rabid right-wingers who fantasise that the Northern Isles want to break away from Scotland. They don't.



Some people no doubt did. But clearly not everyone since the results show that only half as many people voted to leave as voted no.

And just regarding the earlier point the number for Remain was no lower in Orkney and Shetland.

I am curious how this maps to being right wing. I would have thought extreme decentralisation mapped to being far left? I appreciate I am being an irritating **** but I really am neither rabid nor right wing.

What would your view be as to the future of the Isle of Man? Should an independent Scotland insist on it being part of Scotland? Will it be a Scottish colony or dependency, or just a devolved authority? Will the Manx people have a right to a say? Will they be forced to join the EU (since they never chose to join like the Channel Islands.

The Northern Isles voted for the UK to be in Europe just as they voted to remain part of the UK just as they consistently return the lowest vote for the SNP. One cannot automatically map a vote to remain in the EU as a vote for an independent Scotland nor yet for an independent Scotland to be in the EU.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I am curious how this maps to being right wing.

To be clear, the desire for increased decentralisation is not right-wing. The desire to invent strong separatist sentiments where none exist in order to try to scupper Scottish Independence is however. Its akin to the lefties who are now saying that London should declare itself a separate city state.

I have no real view of the Isle of Man. I don't think it's a part of Scotland so I don't really see it as relevant to the discussion. They aren't even a part of the UK and I don't think their status would change unless they really wanted it to.

Obsessing about the Northern Island vote is a bit silly since the No result was just as strong in the Borders. And even East Renfrewshire was as staunchly Unionist as Shetland. There's nothing particularly special about the Northern Isles (other than geography) and it's possibly worth bearing in mind in context that we are talking about 30,000 voters or so.

 

[Craig B]

Yes to might well do. But there is a political danger for Scotland in arguing that one part of a greater whole has a right to go a different way if a local majority differs from the overall majority.

People I know who voted to leave the UK also voted to leave the EU. The arguments were just the same; a desire for bringing government more locally. Having accepted they were part of the union they wanted the UK to be independent of the EU.

Yes, there are such people. But the majority here voted to stay with the UK and with the EU. And I know many of them, as well as all possible yes-no combinations. In short, membership of the EU, and being part of the UK, were in general viewed (reasonably, I think) as open to voting in different directions.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Yes, there are such people. But the majority here voted to stay with the UK and with the EU. And I know many of them, as well as all possible yes-no combinations. In short, membership of the EU, and being part of the UK, were in general viewed (reasonably, I think) as open to voting in different directions.

There are certainly correlations between the two though. Many of the 'Leave' people I saw were the typical rabid unionist, orange order numpties.

One interesting stat from the last indyref was the Survation poll stat that said the likelihood of not being in the EU after a Yes vote made some more likely to vote Yes and others more likely to vote No.

http://survation.com/a-tale-of-two-...as-little-effect-on-pro-independence-scots-2/

This would certainly back up the idea that many Yes voters are not necessarily pro-EU, and also the idea that staying in the EU was possibly an important influence to vote No.

Of course given the numbers it could also just be that people had already made up their minds and yes voters just said everything was more likely to make them vote yes and no voters the opposite.

 

[Craig B]

There are certainly correlations between the two though. Many of the 'Leave' people I saw were the typical rabid unionist, orange order numpties.

Who of course voted No in Indyref1. Most of the Leavers I know are members of Trotskyist groupuscules who believe the EU to be simply a capitalist cabal. Some of these voted No to Indyref, and some voted Yes.

For what it's worth, Tommy Sheridan was strongly Yes to Indy and No to the EU.

 

[Darat]

No I was careful with my words. I said England and meant England. It is England that is on the dark path. The choice for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is whether they continue to follow it.

No. The referendum that was put to the UK electorate was whether the UK should remain in or leave the EU. There was no Scottish etc. referendum so there is no Scottish etc. result.

 

[Craig B]

No. The referendum that was put to the UK electorate was whether the UK should remain in or leave the EU. There was no Scottish etc. referendum so there is no Scottish etc. result.

There was (as a factual matter) a Scottish result. To give effect to it we need to change the constitutional arrangement of the present UK.

 

[Darat]

There was (as a factual matter) a Scottish result. To give effect to it we need to change the constitutional arrangement of the present UK.

No there wasn't. For there to have been a Scottish result would have required a Scottish referendum.

 

[Craig B]

No there wasn't. For there to have been a Scottish result would have required a Scottish referendum.

Nonsense. That's just not so. The results in the different countries of the UK were collected, and their significance was duly noted. They have no influence on policy of course, but that is a matter for further constitutional change.

 

[Francesca R]

Historically I think the pound is English, is issued by the bank of England.

A more reasonable position might be that the assets and liabilities are shared between all parts of the UK and that a negotiation is needed to agree any future split in the event of the UK separating.

The thinking on this (the pound) remains as muddle-headed as ever.

It doesn't matter if it is historically English or not. It doesn't matter if it is shared now or not.

For two independent countries to have a currency union they have to both independently want to. If one does not wish to, the currency union does not and could not exist. No way, no how. To assert otherwise and bleat about history or shared assets is very silly indeed.

 

[Craig B]

The thinking on this (the pound) remains as muddle-headed as ever.

It doesn't matter if it is historically English or not. It doesn't matter if it is shared now or not.

For two independent countries to have a currency union they have to both independently want to. If one does not wish to, the currency union does not and could not exist. No way, no how. To assert otherwise and bleat about history or shared assets is very silly indeed.

It's interesting that the Bank of Scotland, even before the Union, issued notes offering payment in Pounds Sterling, and not Scots, which were worth one twelfth of their English equivalent. That was to circulate these notes more readily in international transactions, the Scots coinage being in a deplorable condition at that time.

But the Bank kept its accounts in Scots money.

 

[Darat]

Nonsense. That's just not so. The results in the different countries of the UK were collected, and their significance was duly noted. They have no influence on policy of course, but that is a matter for further constitutional change.

If it is nonsense you will be able to point me to this apparent secret Scottish referendum the Scottish had whilst the rest of the UK were having theirs?

 

[Darat]

It's interesting that the Bank of Scotland, even before the Union, issued notes offering payment in Pounds Sterling, and not Scots, which were worth one twelfth of their English equivalent. That was to circulate these notes more readily in international transactions, the Scots coinage being in a deplorable condition at that time.

But the Bank kept its accounts in Scots money.

A heads up again it is 2016.

 

[Craig B]

If it is nonsense you will be able to point me to this apparent secret Scottish referendum the Scottish had whilst the rest of the UK were having theirs?

That's the nonsense bit. There was one referendum, which had different results in different areas. I do not assert different referendums, but different local results in the different countries of the UK.

 

[Craig B]

A heads up again it is 2016.

Yes it is. Well done. Or maybe Scotland has a secret calendar in which the year is 1716.