Indyref 2: This time it's personal.

ceptimus said:
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.
Click to expand...

Quite a bit of nonsense here in one post. Scotland doesn't qualify to join the euro even if they wanted to, for a start. Secondly, nobody gave Nicola Sturgeon the cold shoulder, on the contrary the noises coming from Europe are about as supportive as Scotland could hope for given that the EU can't negotiate with a constituent part of a member state. Scotland would almost certainly be fast tracked into the EU, but more importantly there's no need for them to leave the single market even if they do have to temporarily leave the EU. They could join the EEA for a few years while waiting for full membership.

There's no EU based reason for Scotland not to go independent, unless of course you're a Scot who wants to leave the EU.
 
The pro-indy zealots on here do realise, don't they, that any referendum for Scottish independence would have to be explicitly agreed and ratified by the Westminster parliament? Because Scotland is nothing more or less than a (devolved) region of the United Kingdom.

Also, as Darat correctly pointed out, other regions of the UK have EXACTLY the same underlying "argument". London, for example, voted with a strong majority for "remain" in the EU referendum. The people of London, therefore, have exactly the same legitimacy (i.e. not very much...) in claiming that since the overall result of the EU referendum does not match the prevailing London will, London should have the "right" to secede from the UK and become a nation in its own right (and, in passing, London would be a vastly wealthier and more influential nation state than Scotland). And, exactly as with Scotland, the UK parliament in Westminster would be the only body with the power and authority to decide whether to grant London a referendum on independence from the UK.

Still, it's amusing to see all the logically bankrupt zealotry from (most of) the pro-indies here :)

(And the existence of the Act of Union makes not one single jot of difference to the situation in 2016, by the way. As Darat also correctly pointed out, the repeal of one existing act is logically the same (end-result-wise) as the introduction of a new act - for example, the Independence of London Act 2017.....)
 
Klimax said:
You may want to reread definition of word "insult". It doesn't mean what you think it means. Also you may want do same with "nonsense".
Click to expand...
More insults.

It's insulting to a native English speaker to tell him that he doesn't understand the word, 'insult'. It's also insulting to say that there is 'quite a bit of nonsense in one post' without going on to point out any nonsense.

Anyway by your own terms I shall not insult you when I say that I don't think you understand the word, 'insult', and that your post consisted wholly of nonsense.
 
LondonJohn said:
The pro-indy zealots on here do realise, don't they, that any referendum for Scottish independence would have to be explicitly agreed and ratified by the Westminster parliament? Because Scotland is nothing more or less than a (devolved) region of the United Kingdom.
Click to expand...

That is not true. It is true to say that would be by far the easiest way to achieve it and that other routes would be complicated, lengthy and difficult but fundamentally Westminster (nor any government) can prevent the self-determination of any people in perpetuity. Nor can Westminster stop the Scottish Government holding a referendum if it chooses to do so. That referendum would not be legally binding on the UK government but then nor are any of them.

The Little England zealots would do well to realise that Scotland is more than a devolved region of the United Kingdom. That they think it isn't is why they will struggle to keep hold of it.

Also, as Darat correctly pointed out, other regions of the UK have EXACTLY the same underlying "argument". London, for example, voted with a strong majority for "remain" in the EU referendum. The people of London, therefore, have exactly the same legitimacy (i.e. not very much...) in claiming that since the overall result of the EU referendum does not match the prevailing London will, London should have the "right" to secede from the UK and become a nation in its own right (and, in passing, London would be a vastly wealthier and more influential nation state than Scotland). And, exactly as with Scotland, the UK parliament in Westminster would be the only body with the power and authority to decide whether to grant London a referendum on independence from the UK.
Click to expand...

You are correct in saying that London could pursue exactly the same approach. After that you descend into nonsense. The key issue is that London doesn't want to pursue the same approach nor has it had a long history of campaigning to achieve the goal. Should it get to that stage that the majority of Londoners express their will to become an independent state I will support them in that goal and look forward to all the 'neutral observers' asking how it plans to pay its welfare bills without the massive subsidies that flow into the city.

Still, it's amusing to see all the logically bankrupt zealotry from (most of) the pro-indies here :)
Click to expand...

It seems to be you that is both logically bankrupt and indulging in zealotry.

(And the existence of the Act of Union makes not one single jot of difference to the situation in 2016, by the way. As Darat also correctly pointed out, the repeal of one existing act is logically the same (end-result-wise) as the introduction of a new act - for example, the Independence of London Act 2017.....)
Click to expand...

No actually it could make a difference. The Act of Union is between 2 parties and therefore could in theory be terminated by either party. In theory then the Scottish Government could dissolve the Union. There is no such Union between London and the UK to dissolve and therefore as far as I can see the only possible way this could happen is by Westminster consenting to allow London to leave.
 
LondonJohn said:
The pro-indy zealots on here do realise, don't they, that any referendum for Scottish independence would have to be explicitly agreed and ratified by the Westminster parliament? Because Scotland is nothing more or less than a (devolved) region of the United Kingdom.

Also, as Darat correctly pointed out, other regions of the UK have EXACTLY the same underlying "argument". London, for example, voted with a strong majority for "remain" in the EU referendum. The people of London, therefore, have exactly the same legitimacy (i.e. not very much...) in claiming that since the overall result of the EU referendum does not match the prevailing London will, London should have the "right" to secede from the UK and become a nation in its own right (and, in passing, London would be a vastly wealthier and more influential nation state than Scotland). And, exactly as with Scotland, the UK parliament in Westminster would be the only body with the power and authority to decide whether to grant London a referendum on independence from the UK.

Still, it's amusing to see all the logically bankrupt zealotry from (most of) the pro-indies here :)

(And the existence of the Act of Union makes not one single jot of difference to the situation in 2016, by the way. As Darat also correctly pointed out, the repeal of one existing act is logically the same (end-result-wise) as the introduction of a new act - for example, the Independence of London Act 2017.....)
Click to expand...

That will become a relevant comparison when the people of London start up an independence party which gets democratically elected to represent them in overwhelming numbers at both Westminster and whatever regional assembly London may have. Until then, let's just deal with reality.

The reality is that Scotland is the only region of the UK where the majority party stands on a platform of wanting to leave the UK. If they get a democratic mandate on a promise of pushing for an indy referendum, what should Westminster do?
 
ceptimus said:
More insults.

It's insulting to a native English speaker to tell him that he doesn't understand the word, 'insult'. It's also insulting to say that there is 'quite a bit of nonsense in one post' without going on to point out any nonsense.

Anyway by your own terms I shall not insult you when I say that I don't think you understand the word, 'insult', and that your post consisted wholly of nonsense.
Click to expand...

Either trolling or severe deficiency in understanding English words. Or very thin skin. Also some dose of hypocrisy there.

BTW: It isn't insult, just in your case complete wrongness with failed pathetic attempt at striking back without understanding...
 
ceptimus said:
Keep on with the insults - it's the most sceptical way to debate.

http://suttonnick.tumblr.com/post/146671535586/thursdays-telegraph-scotland-sturgeon-gets
Click to expand...

When the contents of a post are nonsense, its not an insult to point that out. I know you probably read all that nonsense about Scotland being forced to join the euro etc in the newspapers and assumed it was true, but it isn't. The criteria for joining the euro are a matter of public record, as are the details of Scotland's GDP, deficit, etc. So its not a matter of opinion when I say Scotland doesn't meet the criteria, its a demonstrable fact.

Just goes to show you can't always believe what you read in the papers.
 
LondonJohn said:
The pro-indy zealots on here do realise, don't they, that any referendum for Scottish independence would have to be explicitly agreed and ratified by the Westminster parliament?
Click to expand...
Unless the Scots just tell the rumpUK to go screw themselves.
 
catsmate said:
Unless the Scots just tell the rumpUK to go screw themselves.
Click to expand...


Ummmm, that can't happen. It seems you're not aware of the constitutional mechanics involved here. Apparently not many other people (perhaps on both sides of this debate) do either.

Put bluntly and simplistically, Scotland has exactly as much "right" to unilaterally hold a referendum on independence and expect its result to be enacted as I do. And just as I cannot announce that I am going to hold a referendum of myself, in which I will cast my (single) vote in a 100% majority for independence from the UK, and then expect to be declared a separate nation state, neither can Scotland.

The proper discussion to be had on this issue is not about Sturgeon (and her true agenda). It is about whether the UK executive will agree to put this to the UK parliament, and, if so, whether the UK parliament will then grant Scotland this right. But of course that won't stop the nationalist zealots on their "march to freedom".

I'd also point out once again that the UK as a whole clearly has a strongly vested interest in this matter. It's both ludicrous and arrogant to suggest that this decision should be "Scotland's alone". Imagine a large business ("A") where one unit of the business ("b") wants to split off from the whole and become an independent company in its own right. To suggest that the board, shareholders and employees of A should have no say in whether or not b separates itself from A - and that the will of the people within b should give b the automatic right to split off from A - is equally ludicrous, and exactly analogous.

Some people will probably never understand all this though, unfortunately.......
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Ummmm, that can't happen. It seems you're not aware of the constitutional mechanics involved here. Apparently not many other people (perhaps on both sides of this debate) do either.

Put bluntly and simplistically, Scotland has exactly as much "right" to unilaterally hold a referendum on independence and expect its result to be enacted as I do. And just as I cannot announce that I am going to hold a referendum of myself, in which I will cast my (single) vote in a 100% majority for independence from the UK, and then expect to be declared a separate nation state, neither can Scotland.

The proper discussion to be had on this issue is not about Sturgeon (and her true agenda). It is about whether the UK executive will agree to put this to the UK parliament, and, if so, whether the UK parliament will then grant Scotland this right. But of course that won't stop the nationalist zealots on their "march to freedom".

I'd also point out once again that the UK as a whole clearly has a strongly vested interest in this matter. It's both ludicrous and arrogant to suggest that this decision should be "Scotland's alone". Imagine a large business ("A") where one unit of the business ("b") wants to split off from the whole and become an independent company in its own right. To suggest that the board, shareholders and employees of A should have no say in whether or not b separates itself from A - and that the will of the people within b should give b the automatic right to split off from A - is equally ludicrous, and exactly analogous.

Some people will probably never understand all this though, unfortunately.......
Click to expand...

And those "some people" include the UN, who have made rules about this type of thing. The rule is that when one territory wants to secede from a larger entity, the vote is restricted to the smaller territory which wants to go. For obvious reasons.

Maybe it isn't obvious to you though? You seem to seriously think that the whole UK should get a say in whether Scotland becomes independent or not. Have you stopped to think about what would happen if Scotland wanted to stay and the rest of the UK wanted them out, or vice versa? Either one of those - expelling Scotland against their will, or holding them against their will - would create a situation that makes a lie of any talk or partnership. That's the way you treat a colony, not an equal partner in a union.
 
Strawberry said:
That will become a relevant comparison when the people of London start up an independence party which gets democratically elected to represent them in overwhelming numbers at both Westminster and whatever regional assembly London may have. Until then, let's just deal with reality.

The reality is that Scotland is the only region of the UK where the majority party stands on a platform of wanting to leave the UK. If they get a democratic mandate on a promise of pushing for an indy referendum, what should Westminster do?
Click to expand...


Last I looked, the people from this region that has "an independence party which gets democratically elected to represent them in overwhelming numbers at both Westminster and its own regional assembly" voted in a majority AGAINST independence. How weird is that?!!!!!

You have no idea. Any notion of a further Scottish independence referendum (with an associated pledge to honour its outcome) is wholly and exclusively within the gift of the UK parliament, and only if the UK government agrees to put it to the UK parliament for a vote. Do you know why that is? It's because Scotland - devolved powers notwithstanding - is nothing more or less than a region of the UK. Same as Wales. Same as London. Same as Greater Manchester. Same as the Leicester City Council boundary area. Same as the Dewsbury Town Council boundary area. Same as me personally. All told, a single person who's currently a UK citizen and resident who wants independence from the UK has EXACTLY the same "right" to declare independence (following a one-person referendum, of course, which will have a 100% majority on a 100% turnout) as does the region of Scotland. You might not like that to be the truth. But it is.
 
LondonJohn said:
Last I looked, the people from this region that has "an independence party which gets democratically elected to represent them in overwhelming numbers at both Westminster and its own regional assembly" voted in a majority AGAINST independence. How weird is that?!!!!!

You have no idea. Any notion of a further Scottish independence referendum (with an associated pledge to honour its outcome) is wholly and exclusively within the gift of the UK parliament, and only if the UK government agrees to put it to the UK parliament for a vote. Do you know why that is? It's because Scotland - devolved powers notwithstanding - is nothing more or less than a region of the UK. Same as Wales. Same as London. Same as Greater Manchester. Same as the Leicester City Council boundary area. Same as the Dewsbury Town Council boundary area. Same as me personally. All told, a single person who's currently a UK citizen and resident who wants independence from the UK has EXACTLY the same "right" to declare independence (following a one-person referendum, of course, which will have a 100% majority on a 100% turnout) as does the region of Scotland. You might not like that to be the truth. But it is.
Click to expand...

Who cares? None of that means that Scottish people wouldn't vote in a referendum tomorrow to leave, now that they know they have to choose between the UK and the EU. The only way to find that out is to have another referendum.

I hope they do go, it'll be easier to get a united Ireland if Scotland jumps first.
 
Strawberry said:
And those "some people" include the UN, who have made rules about this type of thing. The rule is that when one territory wants to secede from a larger entity, the vote is restricted to the smaller territory which wants to go. For obvious reasons.

Maybe it isn't obvious to you though? You seem to seriously think that the whole UK should get a say in whether Scotland becomes independent or not. Have you stopped to think about what would happen if Scotland wanted to stay and the rest of the UK wanted them out, or vice versa? Either one of those - expelling Scotland against their will, or holding them against their will - would create a situation that makes a lie of any talk or partnership. That's the way you treat a colony, not an equal partner in a union.
Click to expand...


Oh dear oh dear. You've (wilfully or ignorantly?) misinterpreted what I wrote to mean that I am arguing that the central UK parliament alone should have the binding say on whether or not any one region (or, for that matter, person) remains a member of the UK. Read what I wrote again. Nowhere do I say or imply that. Rather, the position is that both parties have to have a say. A region that wants to declare independence from the UK needs the permission of the UK parliament to do so. Full stop. A region that wants to declare independence from the UK cannot do so without the agreement of the UK parliament. Likewise, the UK parliament cannot "declare the independence" of any region of the UK without that region's consent. It's really not that difficult to understand.

And let's once and for all put this bogus talk of "partnerships" and "unions" to an end. The mechanics of the situation in 2016 are that Scotland is a region of the UK. Just as the area covered by Swindon town council is a region of the UK. The only difference is that the UK national parliament has agreed to devolve certain powers to a regional assembly in Scotland. But devolved powers are commonplace. Swindon town council has devolved powers over things like refuse collection and libraries. All that's different is the scope and scale of the devolved powers.
 
Strawberry said:
Who cares? None of that means that Scottish people wouldn't vote in a referendum tomorrow to leave, now that they know they have to choose between the UK and the EU. The only way to find that out is to have another referendum.

I hope they do go, it'll be easier to get a united Ireland if Scotland jumps first.
Click to expand...


I will repeat again for clarity: no referendum can even take place without the formal assent of the UK parliament.

And I will also repeat: what will happen if, for example, the population of (say) London or Greater Manchester (both of whom voted in a significant majority for "remain") decided that this gave them some sort of right to separate themselves from the UK? This isn't as far-fetched as it might sound: I've heard several rumours about certain political figures in London pondering just such a move. Would the UK parliament automatically have to grant the people of London or Manchester an independence referendum in such circumstances (along, of course, with a pledge to honour the result). The answer, unsurprisingly enough, is no.
 
LondonJohn said:
Oh dear oh dear. You've (wilfully or ignorantly?) misinterpreted what I wrote to mean that I am arguing that the central UK parliament alone should have the binding say on whether or not any one region (or, for that matter, person) remains a member of the UK. Read what I wrote again. Nowhere do I say or imply that. Rather, the position is that both parties have to have a say. A region that wants to declare independence from the UK needs the permission of the UK parliament to do so. Full stop. A region that wants to declare independence from the UK cannot do so without the agreement of the UK parliament. Likewise, the UK parliament cannot "declare the independence" of any region of the UK without that region's consent. It's really not that difficult to understand.

And let's once and for all put this bogus talk of "partnerships" and "unions" to an end. The mechanics of the situation in 2016 are that Scotland is a region of the UK. Just as the area covered by Swindon town council is a region of the UK. The only difference is that the UK national parliament has agreed to devolve certain powers to a regional assembly in Scotland. But devolved powers are commonplace. Swindon town council has devolved powers over things like refuse collection and libraries. All that's different is the scope and scale of the devolved powers.
Click to expand...

So you don't even see Scotland as a country? Interesting. Distasteful, because the people of Scotland who voted to stay in 2014 were indeed being told by all and sundry that they were an equal partner in a union, but interesting, because if you're to be believed, that vote was secured under false pretences. It should be voided and held again, if that's the case.

Swindon is not likely to declare UDI anytime soon, but if Westminster pushes Scotland much further I could see it happening. You seem to think their place is to be permanently outnumbered and outvoted on every issue and told to shut up because they're no more a country than Swindon. They don't. Maybe its time for you all to part ways.
 
Last edited:
Strawberry said:
So you don't even see Scotland as a country? Interesting. Distasteful, because the people of Scotland who voted to stay in 2014 were indeed being told by all and sundry that they were an equal partner in a union, but interesting, because if you're to be believed, that vote was secured under false pretences. It should be voided and held again, if that's the case.

Swindon is not likely to declare UDI anytime soon, but if Westminster pushes Scotland much further I could see it happening. You seem to think their place is to be permanently outnumbered and outvoted on every issue and told to shut up because they're no more a country than Swindon. They don't. Maybe its time for you all to part ways.
Click to expand...


Yep. Just like the populations of inner London, Merseyside and Greater Manchester, who have long voted overwhelmingly for Labour MPs (with an associated desire to have a Labour government and a Labour majority in parliament), who had to endure the country's government and parliament being dominated by the Conservative party for those long years between 1979-97 and 2010-. Their place was to be "outnumbered and outvoted on every issue and told to shut up because they're no more a country than Swindon".

Like I said, no idea. It's called national democracy. The nation is the UK. Scotland is, politically speaking, nothing more or less than a region of the UK. If the Scottish people do not see their majority will represented in the Westminster government and parliament, that's too bad. Just as it was/is too bad that the people of London, Manchester or Merseyside did not see their majority will represented in the Westminster government and parliament between 1979-97 and 2010-.
 
LondonJohn said:
Yep. Just like the populations of inner London, Merseyside and Greater Manchester, who have long voted overwhelmingly for Labour MPs (with an associated desire to have a Labour government and a Labour majority in parliament), who had to endure the country's government and parliament being dominated by the Conservative party for those long years between 1979-97 and 2010-. Their place was to be "outnumbered and outvoted on every issue and told to shut up because they're no more a country than Swindon".

Like I said, no idea. It's called national democracy. The nation is the UK. Scotland is, politically speaking, nothing more or less than a region of the UK. If the Scottish people do not see their majority will represented in the Westminster government and parliament, that's too bad. Just as it was/is too bad that the people of London, Manchester or Merseyside did not see their majority will represented in the Westminster government and parliament between 1979-97 and 2010-.
Click to expand...

But its not "just too bad", because Scotland could leave. If they cross that rubicon of wanting to leave badly enough to go, with or without Westminster's permission, that will be that. Far wiser to just hold a referendum, at least that way the Unionist pov will get to put their side. Once UDI is declared anywhere, things tend to get messy and it tends to be de facto the end of any union in all but name anyway, even if the Unionist side wins.
 
And by the way, let's address this "union" nonsense further, to try to put it to bed. I suggest another business analogy. Suppose, in 2005, one company ("A") merged with another company ("B") to form a new company: "The United AB Company". Let's suppose, for the sake of the analogy, that the old "A" was a factory making nuts based in Lincoln, and the old "B" was a factory making bolts based in Newcastle. Importantly, the newly-merged company, The United AB Company, now owned and ran both factories with a single executive board, although each of the two factories had its own local-level management boards.

Now suppose that in 2016, the management board of the "old B" factory (in consultation with the workers at the "old B" factory) decided that they didn't want to be part of The United AB Company any longer - they wanted to declare independence from The United AB Company and trade separately as B.

I'm rather hoping that I don't have to explain the rest.

It matters not one bit that the UK was created by a "union" over 300 years ago. What matters is that the UK is, in 2016, a sovereign state with constituent (and nested) regions - those regions range from what are euphemistically (and politically-expediently) referred to as the "nations" of Scotland, Wales and NI, through large metropolitan regions such as Greater Manchester, London or Merseyside, through more granular regions such as county council areas, though even more granular regions such as town and parish councils, through to each individual citizen. But there is just one overarching "executive board" overseeing "The United Kingdom Company". It's called the UK government and parliament, sitting in Westminster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom