Brexit: Now What? Part III

[3point14]

Well it could be less than four depending on at what point in the cycle both were held.

More specifically, after each election where an independence party (or coalition thereof) has won a majority in the Scottish house?

If there is a small majority, which achieves independence, would you then advocate a referendum after any subsequent elections in which a unionist party held the majority?

The cost was apparently £15m. It's nothing in the big scheme of things. Less than a twentieth of 1 percent of the total budget.

That's much less than I thought it would be. Hardly a dent in the budget. It does tend to interrupt the business of government though. Some would say that's not a bad thing.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

More specifically, after each election where an independence party (or coalition thereof) has won a majority in the Scottish house?

If there is a small majority, which achieves independence, would you then advocate a referendum after any subsequent elections in which a unionist party held the majority?

I think any government should be able to hold a referendum on any topic they like as part of being in government. Whether thats a good move or not or whether I support that move is a separate issue.

I wouldn't 'advocate' for a union referendum but if it was in their manifesto or a clearly stated main aim of the party and they got elected they would be well within their rights to hold one. Regardless of the size of the majority for independence.

It's pretty much a non-issue (as are so many of the red herring talking points in this debate) because these scenarios are incredibly unlikely.

That's much less than I thought it would be. Hardly a dent in the budget. It does tend to interrupt the business of government though. Some would say that's not a bad thing.

That's the cost to run the election that were incurred by the government apparently. No doubt there are other costs - not least of all the campaigning.

I imagine you could reduce it even further if you really wanted to - perhaps have the referendum on the same day as another election (local councils or whatever)

 

[Craig B]

How often do you think there should be a referendum?

That is not the question. How often should the Scots be told that to be in the European Union they must remain in the British Union, and then be told the opposite? As often as that happens there may well be a referendum.

 

[3point14]

I think any government should be able to hold a referendum on any topic they like as part of being in government.

Recent events have led me to believe that they are, in the main, not a good tool for government. They require a voting base that understands the issues being debated. I have a vague notion that the Scottish voting public is more informed than the English, but this could be total bobbins.

Whether thats a good move or not or whether I support that move is a separate issue.

I wouldn't 'advocate' for a union referendum but if it was in their manifesto or a clearly stated main aim of the party and they got elected they would be well within their rights to hold one. Regardless of the size of the majority for independence.

It's pretty much a non-issue (as are so many of the red herring talking points in this debate) because these scenarios are incredibly unlikely.

I don't think it's a non-issue. Until you have a broad general agreement, which there currently isn't in Scotland, then there's always going to be the fact that those opposed come out in force mostly after they've lost a referendum. Those who are staunchly unionist are far more likely to mobilise if independence is agreed. I think that the business of the Scottish parliament should not be reduced to a constant question of independence.

That's the cost to run the election that were incurred by the government apparently. No doubt there are other costs - not least of all the campaigning.

The cost of campaigning is not something that has to be borne by the taxpayer so is less of an issue.

I imagine you could reduce it even further if you really wanted to - perhaps have the referendum on the same day as another election (local councils or whatever)

I don't think the cost is prohibitive. I think political fatigue would set in after a few cycles.

 

[Strawberry]

1. If the referendum is the people of Scotland's wish, and only Scots get to vote in it, then who do you think should pay for it?

2. If the Scots get independence, how often should they subsequently hold referendums on whether or not they wish to rejoin the UK?

Never. The British government made it clear that if Scotland leaves they are never, ever allowed to come back, so a referendum to rejoin the UK would be a waste of time.

 

[3point14]

Never. The British government made it clear that if Scotland leaves they are never, ever allowed to come back, so a referendum to rejoin the UK would be a waste of time.

Never is a long time.

One of her majesty's governments, once, said Scotland would not be allowed to reform the union.

Another of her governments, at a different time, with a different political climate would not consider themselves to be held to this.

 

[Strawberry]

Never is a long time.

One of her majesty's governments, once, said Scotland would not be allowed to reform the union.

Another of her governments, at a different time, with a different political climate would not consider themselves to be held to this.

Never is the amount of time so far that every other country which gained its independence from some other country has waited to have a referendum about going back. None have ever gone back, so why should Scotland be any different?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Never is a long time.

One of her majesty's governments, once, said Scotland would not be allowed to reform the union.

Another of her governments, at a different time, with a different political climate would not consider themselves to be held to this.

I would think a sensible precondition of such a referendum would be that the Ruk government expresses their willingness to accept such an outcome

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Recent events have led me to believe that they are, in the main, not a good tool for government. They require a voting base that understands the issues being debated. I have a vague notion that the Scottish voting public is more informed than the English, but this could be total bobbins.





I don't think it's a non-issue. Until you have a broad general agreement, which there currently isn't in Scotland, then there's always going to be the fact that those opposed come out in force mostly after they've lost a referendum. Those who are staunchly unionist are far more likely to mobilise if independence is agreed. I think that the business of the Scottish parliament should not be reduced to a constant question of independence.







The cost of campaigning is not something that has to be borne by the taxpayer so is less of an issue.



I don't think the cost is prohibitive. I think political fatigue would set in after a few cycles.

I don't like referenda either but it seems a necessary evil in this case.

 

[Craig B]

Never is the amount of time so far that every other country which gained its independence from some other country has waited to have a referendum about going back. None have ever gone back, so why should Scotland be any different?

Yes, for all the troubles that Ireland has confronted I have never heard of any political organisation being set up to promote the return of British rule. Likewise in India or any other ex-imperial possession. Independence must be an intoxicating beverage.

 

[ceptimus]

Never. The British government made it clear that if Scotland leaves they are never, ever allowed to come back, so a referendum to rejoin the UK would be a waste of time.

That's irrelevant.

We know the Scots won't be allowed to remain in, or join, the EU - but that doesn't stop the SNP from making that the excuse to hold an independence referendum.

So the fact that Scotland wouldn't be allowed back into the UK should be no barrier to a Scottish unionist party holding a referendum to rejoin.

It's clear that Scottish referendums are just about what Scots would like to happen - whether or not those things are achievable in reality is apparently unimportant.

 

[Strawberry]

That's irrelevant.

We know the Scots won't be allowed to remain in, or join, the EU - but that doesn't stop the SNP from making that the excuse to hold an independence referendum.

So the fact that Scotland wouldn't be allowed back into the UK should be no barrier to a Scottish unionist party holding a referendum to rejoin.

It's clear that Scottish referendums are just about what Scots would like to happen - whether or not those things are achievable in reality is apparently unimportant.

Nonsense. Of course Scotland could join the EU, there might be a bit of a wait but there's no doubt they would be allowed back in.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

We know the Scots won't be allowed to remain in, or join, the EU.

You know that do you?

Get back to finding that 350m you owe the NHS

 

[ceptimus]

Nonsense. Of course Scotland could join the EU, there might be a bit of a wait but there's no doubt they would be allowed back in.

EU officials and ministers of several EU member countries have repeatedly stated that Scotland won't be allowed to join, but I accept they may change their minds once the UK has completed Brexit - providing, of course, that an independent Scotland is able to meet the required economic standards.

 

[Strawberry]

EU officials and ministers of several EU member countries have repeatedly stated that Scotland won't be allowed to join, but I accept they may change their minds once the UK has completed Brexit - providing, of course, that an independent Scotland is able to meet the required economic standards.

No they haven't. The likes of Barroso and Quinn - who are Portuguese and Irish respectively - were pontificating during the last referendum that Spain and Belgium would veto them. Given that neither of those two have any power to speak for Spain or Belgium they can be safely ignored.

Besides, that was pre-Brexit, when they were trying to do a favour for their friend Dave. Post Brexit, even Barroso and Quinn have gone quiet.

 

[ddt]

Partitioning isn't always a disaster. The Czech Republic and Slovakia seem to have separated peacefully and successfully.

That was only because the German army juggernaut was looking over it. You are referring to the separation in 1939, aren't you?

But the Czech/Slovak divorce in 1993 is really the only case in history which I can think of where a state peacefully split into two parts.

 

[imodium]

The brave brexiteers hopes to stop johnny foreigner coming over appear to be dashed.

Meanwhile, trumps pick to be ambassador to the EU who not only wants to break the EU, comparing it to communism, somehow, enjoys talking bulshi sorry alternate facts too.
Bring in the clowns.

 

[Planigale]

I don't particularly care who pays for it.



As often as the people of Scotland elect a party with that as their manifesto pledge. What an odd question.

So you accept that since the SNP are a minority government they have no mandate for a further referendum. The people of Scoitland voted against independence in the referendum, then the SNP went from a majority to a minority party. Seems to me two successive votes giving a message about the will of the Scottish people.

So was it a lie about the referenda being a once in a generation vote? Was it a lie about Scotland being able to remain in the EU.

I put a lot of time and worry into my once in a lifetime vote. I resent that sore losers want to waste that effort.

Perhaps it would be easier on us all if there could just be a referendum on having a referendum. Then we could just vote on whether we wanted a year of campaigning every four years when we had an election, just add a question to the ballot, Do you authorise the government to hold an independence referendum in the next four years.

The problem about mandate arguments is that one may vote for the SNP but not vote for independence. As it happens the SNP did not commit to a repeat referendum in their election manifesto so they cannot claim that as justification. So the current SNP government is a minority government without a clear commitment to a repeat referendum in their manifesto.

At least we have some honesty, that for some people the plan is a referendum every four years until they get the decision they want then never again. Statistically a very dubious process.

 

[McHrozni]

I imagine that privately, Germans are very pleased by the disastrous British approach to Brexit.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38925440

One of the biggest EU-focused businesses in the UK is euro-denominated clearing - insurance products called derivatives, which allow companies to protect themselves from movements in currencies, interest rates and inflation.

Three-quarters of the multi-trillion-pounds-a-day market is executed in London and a recent report from the accountancy firm EY estimated that nearly 83,000 jobs could be lost in Britain over the next seven years if clearing has to move to an EU member state following Brexit.

Note, that's just the largest segment of the Euro-denominated part of business made in London City. Some of other other stuff is bound to relocate as well. 83,000 jobs, assuming they're just making average wage (most likely wildly false) and jobs are the only thing that is lost (false) is already 43 million pounds per week in lost gross national income to UK. To put it in perspective, that's almost half the net British contribution to EU.

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

So you accept that since the SNP are a minority government they have no mandate for a further referendum. The people of Scoitland voted against independence in the referendum, then the SNP went from a majority to a minority party. Seems to me two successive votes giving a message about the will of the Scottish people.

The next vote after the referendum, and the one that reflects the view of Westminster yielded this result

Labour loses 40 seats as the party is crushed by the SNP, while the Lib Dems lose 10 of their 11 seats to Nicola Sturgeon's party.​

You didn't mention that, which may be the most comprehensive victory ever gained in a democratic election in a European country in living memory, if not ever. The Scottish election produced this

The Scottish National Party won the election and a third term in government, but fell two seats short of securing a second consecutive overall majority. The Conservatives saw a significant increase in support and displaced the Labour Party as the second largest party at the Scottish Parliament.​

So your post is the usual unionist propaganda,

I put a lot of time and worry into my once in a lifetime vote. I resent that sore losers want to waste that effort.

I'm sorry you find democracy so onerous. If the alt right gets its way, you won't be troubled by having to get out of your bed so often. You'll be having a "never in a lifetime" vote.