Indyref 2: This time it's personal.

[Darat]

We definitely did. I remember voting in it.

100%, definitely certain you didn't It was a UK referendum not separate referendums for each component of the UK so you voted in the UK referendum.

And the people of Scotland voted to stay in the UK.

We can slice the cake anyway we want, there were areas in - for example - England that voted to stay. Doesn't mean that saying "East Anglia voted for staying" (it didn't by the way) means that people in East Anglia don't have to accept the results of the UK referendum or can have their own

You might think that the UK as a whole trumps that but thats why we are where we are. If the UK didnt take the attitude that Scotland will just do what its told by the rest then the SNP wouldnt have half the support it does.

Apples and pears, Scotland isn't a member of the EU, the UK is. Therefore any decision to stay or leave should be the decision of the population of the UK i.e. the country that is currently in the EU.

The SNP only want binding referendums when they answer "yes" to Scottish independence.

 

[Craig B]

We can slice the cake anyway we want, there were areas in - for example - England that voted to stay. Doesn't mean that saying "East Anglia voted for staying" (it didn't by the way) means that people in East Anglia don't have to accept the results of the UK referendum or can have their own

That is absolutely and importantly true. In response, Scotland may well consider how best to acquire the power to have its own relationship with the EU, as at present it can not. A Scottish independence referendum looks currently like the most efficient way of deciding this question.

E Anglia can't have one of these, by the way, as it doesn't have a Treaty of Union with England that can in principle be dissolved by Act of Parliament. Scotland does, just as Ireland had such a relationship with Great Britain prior to the 1920s.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

100%, definitely certain you didn't It was a UK referendum not separate referendums for each component of the UK so you voted in the UK referendum.



We can slice the cake anyway we want, there were areas in - for example - England that voted to stay. Doesn't mean that saying "East Anglia voted for staying" (it didn't by the way) means that people in East Anglia don't have to accept the results of the UK referendum or can have their own



Apples and pears, Scotland isn't a member of the EU, the UK is. Therefore any decision to stay or leave should be the decision of the population of the UK i.e. the country that is currently in the EU.

The SNP only want binding referendums when they answer "yes" to Scottish independence.

I think you are confused.

Scotland cannot vote for the uk to remain but it can certainly decide if it wants to. And if it wants to then the way to achieve that is to be independent from the uk before it leaves.

Scots are citizens of the eu with all the rights that entails and they shouldnt be steipped of those rights by anyone against their will. Least of all a government that has no mandate to govern scotland.

Equally east anglia can pursue that option if they so wish. But they dont.

 

[ceptimus]

Scotland does a bigger share of its trade with the rest of the UK than it does with the rest of the EU. So if it leaves the UK to (try to) remain in the EU that won't be a decision based on preserving access to free markets.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Scotland does a bigger share of its trade with the rest of the UK than it does with the rest of the EU. So if it leaves the UK to (try to) remain in the EU that won't be a decision based on preserving access to free markets.

Assuming there wouldnt be a free market between england and scotland you would be correct. Although the eu market is far bigger than the ruk one so it could still be.

However a greater proportion voted to stay in the EU than voted tobstay in the UK if I recall correctly.

There is more to the eu than just trade.

 

[MCel58]

I still don't quite understand this hangup with referendums. Have a vote in Holyrood to rescind the 1707 Act of the Union and be done with it. Or if you want to have a referendum, why does it matter whether Westminster approves? They're not binding anyway, and Westminster's approval does not matter for the credibility of the outcome.

Even better hold a Scottish Parliament election now with a Declaration of Independence and a definitive set of issues to stay in the EU in the manifesto. Then when the SNP win declare Independence and get on with it. I just can't see the need to play by the Tories rules anymore.

 

[ceptimus]

Assuming there wouldnt be a free market between england and scotland...

If there's not a free market between England and the EU, and Scotland remains in the EU, then how could there be?

 

[Craig B]

If there's not a free market between England and the EU, and Scotland remains in the EU, then how could there be?

Maybe that's what Nicola Sturgeon had in mind when she announced this at her party conference.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

If there's not a free market between England and the EU, and Scotland remains in the EU, then how could there be?

It certainly would appear difficult. Of course England hasnt left the free market yet and may never do so.

Less likely but still possible would be the EU making an exception to its rules.

In any case theres more to the decision than the simple calculus of trade figures today.

 

[Darat]

That is absolutely and importantly true. In response, Scotland may well consider how best to acquire the power to have its own relationship with the EU, as at present it can not. A Scottish independence referendum looks currently like the most efficient way of deciding this question.

Nicola "once in a generation" Sturgeon doesn't give a fig about staying in or leaving the EU; all she is ever interested in is Scotland becoming independent, like the Brexiters she doesn't care about what damage or costs are involved in that.

E Anglia can't have one of these, by the way, as it doesn't have a Treaty of Union with England that can in principle be dissolved by Act of Parliament.

A single piece of legislation could give it such a right plus of course no one has suggested such a thing....

Scotland does, just as Ireland had such a relationship with Great Britain prior to the 1920s.

As ever anyone who thinks that the realities of the 18th century world can be mapped onto the 21st is living in a fantasy world.

 

[Craig B]

Nicola "once in a generation" Sturgeon doesn't give a fig about staying in or leaving the EU; all she is ever interested in is Scotland becoming independent, like the Brexiters she doesn't care about what damage or costs are involved in that.

I think she does care about the gross irresponsibility and xenophobia displayed by the Brexit movement. No surprise in that.

A great many countries have become independent of the British Empire in the last half century. There has been a movement in that sense in Scotland for generations. The SNP has been represented in the UK parliament continuously since 1967, and now has obliterated the other parliamentary parties in Scotland. An autonomous parliament has been established in Edinburgh. This independence idea is therefore not a whim of a couple of fanatics, or a mere illustration of Sturgeon's personal idiosyncrasies.

A single piece of legislation could give it such a right plus of course no one has suggested such a thing....

Well go ahead and propose it. If the Westminster parliament wants to detach bits of England, it has a right to do so, though I can't imagine why that great country should indulge in self-mutilation. This country, Scotland, is in union with England, and it has been suggested that the union be dissolved, just as many other bonds that once held together the countries and colonies of the Empire have been dissolved over recent decades. Unsurprisingly, nobody has suggested that E Anglia cease to be part of England. That's probably because the idea is pointless and absurd.

As ever anyone who thinks that the realities of the 18th century world can be mapped onto the 21st is living in a fantasy world.

Ireland was united with Great Britain on the first day of the nineteenth century. I referred to the 1920s, when the union with Ireland was dissolved. That process was botched, because it was subverted by partisans of the Empire, and the result has been repeated periods of disorder and carnage stretching over a century, precisely.

I'm not alluding to the disorders of the eighteenth century, but of the twentieth. It's not a fantasy. It's a living warning. These Brexit morons are babbling about a "hard border" in Ireland, so they have evidently forgotten the lesson. We ought not to imitate them.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Nicola "once in a generation" Sturgeon doesn't give a fig about staying in or leaving the EU; all she is ever interested in is Scotland becoming independent, like the Brexiters she doesn't care about what damage or costs are involved in that. QUOTE]

She was about the only competent voice in the Remain side and convinced 60 percent of her electorate. I wish there had been some English voices who cared as little as her in that case. Perhaps like everyone else in Scotland she's tired of being promised jam tomorrow by incompetent idiots and petty minded xenophobes. People who clearly hate Scotland and the Scots.

And this is to do with what the people of Scotland want. Not Nicola.

 

[Darat]

Nicola "once in a generation" Sturgeon doesn't give a fig about staying in or leaving the EU; all she is ever interested in is Scotland becoming independent, like the Brexiters she doesn't care about what damage or costs are involved in that. QUOTE]

She was about the only competent voice in the Remain side and convinced 60 percent of her electorate. I wish there had been some English voices who cared as little as her in that case. Perhaps like everyone else in Scotland she's tired of being promised jam tomorrow by incompetent idiots and petty minded xenophobes. People who clearly hate Scotland and the Scots.

And this is to do with what the people of Scotland want. Not Nicola.

Only because Nicole "once in a lifetime" had based a lot of her campaign for independence on Scotland joining the EU if it became independent. She must think not being in the EU will make her getting the "yes" that she knows is the only acceptable answer harder or in my opinion she doesn't give a damn about any damage or harm she causes as long as Scotland can become independent. Like I said the only binding result she will ever accept in a referendum will be one that says yes to Scotland becoming a new independent country.

I am 100% certain that if the independence referendum had got a "yes" result and then she found that Scotland would not be a member of the EU she would have hand waived away any suggestions that there should be another referendum because the EU membership was a major part of the campaign for a yes.

 

[Craig B]

Only because Nicole "once in a lifetime" had based a lot of her campaign for independence on Scotland joining the EU if it became independent. She must think not being in the EU will make her getting the "yes" that she knows is the only acceptable answer harder or in my opinion she doesn't give a damn about any damage or harm she causes as long as Scotland can become independent. Like I said the only binding result she will ever accept in a referendum will be one that says yes to Scotland becoming a new independent country.

I am 100% certain that if the independence referendum had got a "yes" result and then she found that Scotland would not be a member of the EU she would have hand waived away any suggestions that there should be another referendum because the EU membership was a major part of the campaign for a yes.

The independence movement in Scotland has been in existence for a long time. Long before the EU existed. It happens that the Scottish movement for self determination is entirely consistent with membership of the EU. You keep telling us what would have happened in circumstances that do not in fact obtain in the real world. We have enough real questions to answer, for example about the currency and national debt burdens on an independent Scotland if it ever comes to be, without concerning ourselves with imaginary ones, even if you are "100% certain" of the answers to them.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Only because Nicole "once in a lifetime" had based a lot of her campaign for independence on Scotland joining the EU if it became independent. She must think not being in the EU will make her getting the "yes" that she knows is the only acceptable answer harder or in my opinion she doesn't give a damn about any damage or harm she causes as long as Scotland can become independent. Like I said the only binding result she will ever accept in a referendum will be one that says yes to Scotland becoming a new independent country.

I am 100% certain that if the independence referendum had got a "yes" result and then she found that Scotland would not be a member of the EU she would have hand waived away any suggestions that there should be another referendum because the EU membership was a major part of the campaign for a yes.

Should she not campaign for what she believes in then? Im kind of lost as to what your complaint is.

The SNP as a party have been pro Europe long before there was any question of leaving and pro independence long before that.

What harm or damage is she causing by fighting for Scotland to get what it wants? If there were any English remain voices competent enough to do so they should be joining the fight.

The damage is being done by the Tories and the hard Brexiteers. You have the wrong target.

 

[ceptimus]

The EU have given Sturgeon the cold shoulder.

IF the SNP decide they want another referendum and IF they manage to have one and IF they win, then Scotland probably won't be allowed to 'remain' in the EU anyway.

I think she's just engaging in petulant posturing and doesn't really want another referendum in the near future anyway.

But let's assume for a moment that there is a referendum and Scotland votes to leave. At that stage, Scotland will either already be out of the EU (because the UK already left) or negotiations for the UK leaving will be pretty far advanced.

Either way, Scotland won't be able to 'remain' an EU member - the best they could hope for is to apply for membership and be granted some kind of fast-track admission because of Scotland's (as part of the UK) former membership.

If and when the EU admit Scotland, it will most likely require that Scotland adopts the Euro as currency.

 

[Darat]

Should she not campaign for what she believes in then? Im kind of lost as to what your complaint is.

I thought I've been clear - she is willing to do anything to create a new independent country called Scotland. She does not care at what cost that comes.

The SNP as a party have been pro Europe long before there was any question of leaving and pro independence long before that.

Because they believed it would help obtain independence - at the heart of it of course was the nationalism - which is always ugly when light is shone on it.

What harm or damage is she causing by fighting for Scotland to get what it wants? If there were any English remain voices competent enough to do so they should be joining the fight.

She is further creating strife in the country at a time we are already paying a high cost because of a lot of peoples' petty narrow minded nationalism has resulted in the country adopting a policy that is going to be costing generations of citizens a high cost. We don;t need yet more petty minded nationalism causing yet more problems for the country.

The damage is being done by the Tories and the hard Brexiteers. You have the wrong target.

Slight bit of confusion there - I am not holding her responsible for the result of the UK referendum. But this is a thread about "indyref 2" so in my view discussing the harm she is trying to cause by promoting the idea that there could be another " Indyref" is an appropriate topic. As I said I do not blame her for the result of the EU referendum but I do hold her responsible for he actions and words since. I am of the view that she is trying to harm the country further by using the result of the recent referendum to gain her one and only goal.

ETA: And in the end how many times are the Scottish people going to have to say "no" before the SNP realises that no means no?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I thought I've been clear - she is willing to do anything to create a new independent country called Scotland. She does not care at what cost that comes.

Cost to who?

Because they believed it would help obtain independence - at the heart of it of course was the nationalism - which is always ugly when light is shone on it.

Sorry this is nonsense. There was never any sense that being pro-EU would help gain independence until the right in England started pushing seriously to get out. Your comments on Scottish nationalism are at best ill-informed and at worst ignorant and prejudiced.

She is further creating strife in the country at a time we are already paying a high cost because of a lot of peoples' petty narrow minded nationalism has resulted in the country adopting a policy that is going to be costing generations of citizens a high cost. We don;t need yet more petty minded nationalism causing yet more problems for the country.

No she is trying to stop strife in her country which the English right have created. And she was up front in saying that should we end up in this situation then this would be the outcome before the Brexit vote. England and Wales voted for this situation.

Slight bit of confusion there - I am not holding her responsible for the result of the UK referendum. But this is a thread about "indyref 2" so in my view discussing the harm she is trying to cause by promoting the idea that there could be another " Indyref" is an appropriate topic. As I said I do not blame her for the result of the EU referendum but I do hold her responsible for he actions and words since. I am of the view that she is trying to harm the country further by using the result of the recent referendum to gain her one and only goal.

She is doing exactly what she said she would do before the vote. One of very few (perhaps the only one) who is doing that. Which country is she trying to harm? Not the one she represents that's for sure. Who are the people genuinely doing harm? May. Johnson. Davies. Rudd.

ETA: And in the end how many times are the Scottish people going to have to say "no" before the SNP realises that no means no?

Well the Scottish people keep voting the SNP in to power based on the policies they are implementing and that you are complaining about. The SNP will go away when and if the country stops voting for them. You might not like it but its not something you get a say in. Please don't pretend to speak for the people of Scotland.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

If and when the EU admit Scotland, it will most likely require that Scotland adopts the Euro as currency.

Something which probably looked like a bad idea until England and Wales decided to deliberately tank the pound just to make a point about foreigners.

 

[MCel58]

I think people in England just don't understand Scots. The SNP did not invent the wish for Independence. For a bit of a history lesson on this including the succesful home rule bill in 1913 not enacted because of the first world war. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29048884

I don't believe that Independence is the aim here, staying somehow within the EU is the aim for very strong economic reasons. The new Scotland Bill is based on Scotland being able to raise taxes in Scotland. This is only possible with Immigration.
Scotland is the least populated part of the UK with only 65 people per square kilometre, a very high elderly population and a low birth rate. The next is Northern Ireland with 138 people per square kilometre.

Scotland is highly reliant on the EU for immigration which is now needs in reasonable numbers to balance the taxation required for the new Scotland bill funding formulation to work.
It is also highly dependent on the EU for funding for students, qualifications harmonisation, energy standards, research collaboration, trade of its biggest exports and particularly for aid to companies in the Highland and Islands, to name just a few of the areas where Brexit will affect Scotland.
So if there cannot be found a way to overcome the effects of Tory policy on Brexit in Scotland, there are very few options left to the Scottish people.

In 2014 the vote was a bit like the Brexit vote lost by a narrow majority but in this case because the loss of a place in the EU was seen by many Scots as too high a risk. Almost every single vote No argument contained assurances that the only way that Scotland could stay in the EU was as a part of the UK. The new Scotland Bill was drafted with that in mind and included within it convergence with both the Communities act and the cash that flowed both directly and indirectly to Scotland.

Now that the UK seems not only to be leaving the EU but is also determined to leave the EEA, there appears to be no viable options apart from Independence.
.