Indyref 2: This time it's personal.

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Gordon Brown is proposing a "third way for Scotland"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39309133

A non-starter unless it keeps Scotland in the EU IMO - which it doesn't

His problem is that:

1. He only ever talks about these issues when forced to by the threat of independence.

2. He has no way to actually make this happen
.
3. I don't think anyone is going to believe his vows this time around.

This is the absolute number one reason why the Unionists don't want a referendum anytime soon. They know their lies from 2014 have not yet been forgotten. Cameron's pledges lasted five minutes from the result. Brown slithered back under whatever rock he was hiding under. Darling disappeared off the face of the Earth.

They need at least 10-15 years between votes otherwise they won't have a new generation of eyes to pull the wool over.

 

[Rolfe]

Gordon Brown is proposing a "third way for Scotland"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39309133

A non-starter unless it keeps Scotland in the EU IMO - which it doesn't

He has no more power to deliver any of that than my cat. He's not even an MP any more. His former party looks to be out of office for at least a decade. It's not clear whether he has any influence on the current weak opposition anyway.

His last minute intervention last time turned out to be a thoroughgoing lie. What he is suggesting now has already been rejected by May and indeed has been rejected by every government there has been including his own.

I don't know why anyone is wasting newsprint on this.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The problem for those of us less emotionally committed to independence, is that the Scottish Government could have done some of this. We see little evidence of such innovation now so why should an independent government with the distraction of external affairs be any different? In some ways Wales and Northern Ireland have been more innovative around health than Scotland. The record on education is not great. With limited responsibilities what the Scottish Government does do, one would expect them to do well.

The SNP is a very centralising party, it has little interest in the periphery as its power house is the central belt. In many ways it is as remote as a Westminster government.

Scandinavia is often held up as an exemplar, but what does this mean? Conscription? A much greater proportion of private health care (by which I mean having to pay out of pocket for a proportion of services)? Much greater restrictions on the sale of alcohol?

The argument that an independent Scotland could pursue a more Socialist agenda, is not an argument for independence per se, as it is only attractive if you want a Socialist state and is in fact an argument against independence for those nervous of past examples of Socialist Utopias.

The vibe from people I talk to is that they really do not want another prolonged and divisive referendum campaign. That produces a new sectarian divide. There are some people for whom the SNP action is seen as them pursuing 'personal' agendas and not focussing on the Scottish people who voted against independence. That is the true 'mandate', and instruction that was delivered by the people of Scotland. An instruction that the SNP ignores because they did not like the answer they got.

I can see that every new leader of the SNP will have as a rite of passage the need to call a referendum. Can you see someone becoming leader who does not declare an intention to have a referendum?

I think that one thing that has to come out of arrangements if there is to be another referendum is that there needs to be a commitment not to have another referendum on independence for at least ten years.

Where is the division coming from in this 'divisive referendum' exactly? As far as I can it's pretty much entirely coming from the Unionist side at the moment.

Your nonsense about a true mandate is just that, nonsense.

An argument that Scotland can pursue a more progressive agenda may well be anathema to some but it says a lot about them that they would want to deny to the people of Scotland want they want just so they can have things their way.

The fact is simple. Scotland cannot become independent unless Scotland votes for it. Scotland has voted for a party who put another referendum in their manifesto and should be able to deliver that without external interference or blocking from people who would prefer that Scotland stayed in the Union against its will.

 

[Planigale]

Where is the division coming from in this 'divisive referendum' exactly? As far as I can it's pretty much entirely coming from the Unionist side at the moment.

Your nonsense about a true mandate is just that, nonsense.

An argument that Scotland can pursue a more progressive agenda may well be anathema to some but it says a lot about them that they would want to deny to the people of Scotland want they want just so they can have things their way.

The fact is simple. Scotland cannot become independent unless Scotland votes for it. Scotland has voted for a party who put another referendum in their manifesto and should be able e to deliver that without external interference or blocking from people who would prefer that Scotland stayed in the Union against its will.

The SNP are a minority government so they do not have an electoral mandate as such.

There was a referendum that voted for Scotland to remain in the UK, you may think that the majority were just as misled as the majority who voted for Brexit, but in a democratic system their views deserve respect. This is not what one gets from most pro-independence commentators who want a second bite (and will no doubt want a third bite in due course).

You may dismiss the Unionist side as divisive, but it takes two sides for there to be a division. The pro-independence party has to be divisive, or do you think there will be a unanimous vote?

As a non aboriginal Scot resident in Scotland, I found people telling me that I needed to vote for independence to demonstrate my loyalty. There is certainly a feeling that if you want to advance in the public sector that being a party member is helpful. You hear people expressing the view that you can only be a proper Scot if you show commitment to Scotland by being a party member.

Not being pro-Socialism is a legitimate political position. Pro independence people have to recognise that equating independence with socialism may alienate some people; it is not good politics for the independence party.

Not being pro-independence is a legitimate political position, just denying the legitimacy of the position does not convince of the opposing case, people holding opposing views need to be engaged with as having views that need to be respected not just denigrated.

 

[Planigale]

One problem with a second referendum for people like me who are uncertain is that the first time it was a 'one time only' event. Now if there is a referendum before Brexit I'll probably vote no this time since I am pretty sure that there will be another referendum along in a bit and I can change my mind later, in the mean time I can wait and see what actually happens following Brexit. Personally I am more likely to vote Yes following Brexit not before.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The SNP are a minority government so they do not have an electoral mandate as such.

Even if this were true, the Greens can be added to this and there is a majority in the Government who support the policy with a clear mandate.

There was a referendum that voted for Scotland to remain in the UK, you may think that the majority were just as misled as the majority who voted for Brexit, but in a democratic system their views deserve respect. This is not what one gets from most pro-independence commentators who want a second bite (and will no doubt want a third bite in due course).

There was a referendum and the result of that referendum was enforced. That doesn't mean that you don't ever get to ask the question again. If people still don't want independence then vote against it again. If the majority don't want it then that view will be enforced again. If the people of Scotland don't want another referendum then they don't vote for a party that put that on their manifesto. None of this seems very controversial.

i think that is far more respectful than saying it doesn't matter what you want you can't have it unless we agree with it which is what Westminster is currently saying.

You may dismiss the Unionist side as divisive, but it takes two sides for there to be a division. The pro-independence party has to be divisive, or do you think there will be a unanimous vote?

There are obviously different views but if having different views is divisive then the whole idea of democracy and elections is divisive and should be stopped.

Having a debate and a vote is only being seen as divisive because one side currently wants the other to shut up and do what it is told.

As a non aboriginal Scot resident in Scotland, I found people telling me that I needed to vote for independence to demonstrate my loyalty. There is certainly a feeling that if you want to advance in the public sector that being a party member is helpful. You hear people expressing the view that you can only be a proper Scot if you show commitment to Scotland by being a party member.

People have a right to be pro-union if they want to be. Having a referendum doesn't stop anyone being pro-union. It gives them another opportunity to make their case for why its the right thing. The disappointing thing is those who want to deny the chance to debate it and vote on it because they fear they might not win this time.

Not being pro-Socialism is a legitimate political position. Pro independence people have to recognise that equating independence with socialism may alienate some people; it is not good politics for the independence party.

Not being pro-socialism is a legitimate political position. Demanding that Scotland be kept in the Union against its wishes because you as part of a minority are against Socialism is not.

Funnily enough, every Unionist voice recognises the above in the EU argument. If Scots said 'the UK must stay in the EU because we don't want to be out' they would rightly be up in arms against it.

Not being pro-independence is a legitimate political position, just denying the legitimacy of the position does not convince of the opposing case, people holding opposing views need to be engaged with as having views that need to be respected not just denigrated.

Nobody has denied the legitimacy of that position. What I have denied is the legitimacy of the position that we shouldn't be allowed to even ask the question. Being anti-independence is different from being anti-referendum. I have already on this thread said I look forward to hearing the sensible arguments in favour of the Union and engaging with them. There must however be a meaningful vote at the end of it.

But I will denigrate the arguments that are nothing more than personal insults towards Nicola Sturgeon from people who vote based on their football team allegiances. Those don't deserve any respect.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

One problem with a second referendum for people like me who are uncertain is that the first time it was a 'one time only' event. Now if there is a referendum before Brexit I'll probably vote no this time since I am pretty sure that there will be another referendum along in a bit and I can change my mind later, in the mean time I can wait and see what actually happens following Brexit. Personally I am more likely to vote Yes following Brexit not before.

Nothing can ever be a one time only event. The claims that such a thing was promised are gross misrepresentations of what was said. Nobody expected that the next referendum would come along so soon but events overtook things.

If there is another referendum in 2018 and it comes out no then I can't see there being much justification for any further votes on the topic for quite some time. Nothing significant is likely to change that I can see.

I think the only thing that would trigger another referendum would be pro-independence polls sitting at 60%+ for a couple of years.

Your argument above makes no sense to me. You either support independence or you don't. It's not something you should vote for on a whim. It seems like you are swallowing the Unionist propaganda.

 

[Planigale]

Nothing can ever be a one time only event. The claims that such a thing was promised are gross misrepresentations of what was said. Nobody expected that the next referendum would come along so soon but events overtook things.

If there is another referendum in 2018 and it comes out no then I can't see there being much justification for any further votes on the topic for quite some time. Nothing significant is likely to change that I can see.

I think the only thing that would trigger another referendum would be pro-independence polls sitting at 60%+ for a couple of years.

Your argument above makes no sense to me. You either support independence or you don't. It's not something you should vote for on a whim. It seems like you are swallowing the Unionist propaganda.

Just accept some people can be uncertain, some people try to understand both sides of an argument. Calling pro-UK arguments propaganda just means that you have a closed mind, there is a legitimate pro-union case, after due consideration and weighing the arguments on both sides I shall come to a conclusion, but I am not going to say that one side just spouts propaganda, stick my fingers in my ears and go lalalalala.

My personality is such that I would prefer to wait, why such a hurry for a decision that will have hundreds of years consequences, to change something that has existed for hundreds of years?

You obviously have a need to see change now, I am prepared to engage with your enthusiasm, but havering is my nature.

 

[Craig B]

... havering is my nature.

It is indeed. Perhaps you have the English meaning of the word in mind, but as you are addressing Scottish people here, you would do well to have regard to the meaning of this common expression in Scots.

Haver: To talk nonsense, gibberish; to speak rubbish.​

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Just accept some people can be uncertain, some people try to understand both sides of an argument. Calling pro-UK arguments propaganda just means that you have a closed mind, there is a legitimate pro-union case, after due consideration and weighing the arguments on both sides I shall come to a conclusion, but I am not going to say that one side just spouts propaganda, stick my fingers in my ears and go lalalalala.

And again you have missed have point though. I'm not saying the pro-Union arguments are propaganda. I'm saying the anti-referendum arguments are. The idea that there will be endless referendums, that the SNP are using the EU as an excuse, that they have no mandate, that the people don't want it, that we should wait till after Brexit, that it was promised to be once in a generation. That's all nonsense.

Make the case to stay in the Union. Fine. Back it up with facts and evidence and lets have the debate. But let's cut out this idea that we shouldn't even be talking about it.

My personality is such that I would prefer to wait, why such a hurry for a decision that will have hundreds of years consequences, to change something that has existed for hundreds of years?

Because if you put aside the Unionist propaganda and actually look at the reality of the situation then there won't be a chance to wait and see and have a vote later. And the longer we wait the worse things get in the meantime.

You obviously have a need to see change now, I am prepared to engage with your enthusiasm, but havering is my nature.

I've been waiting for a change for forty years. I'd like to see it while there is still time to appreciate it and before the situation gets even worse. I also believe that once Scotland leaves the EU the position weakens greatly and thus it is of great benefit to make the decision from a position of being INSIDE the EU rather than outside.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Seems to be fairly the standard case that dominant groups not only write the history, but believe it so dearly that they are truly baffled that others do not secretly wish to be them; assimilate into the glowing and pristine. Many Castillians here, the English of a sort there, many whites in the US (with the added caveat that only others of same colour* do so). This homo sapiens sapiens species is a tad dodgy, eh?


*Shameful spelling capitulation. Don't count on it in future, bad haircuts!

 

[McHrozni]

Gordon Brown is proposing a "third way for Scotland"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39309133

A non-starter unless it keeps Scotland in the EU IMO - which it doesn't

There is precendent for a part of the country to be in EU and part outside. Guersey islands and Isle of Man have that arrangement, and they're closert geographically to Brussels than Scotland is.

I don't know how if EU would agree, but retaining membership for Hollyrod seems at least within the realm of possibility. It would also require Westminster to codify reserved powers in a way they couldn't be revoked without Scottish conesnt and probably much more, it is a tall order, but it pales next to the height if Brexit. It's worthwhile to examine it as an option, I think.

It would destroy London city in favor of Glasgow and Edinborugh and so on, but this arrangement is still much better for UK than nearest alternatives.

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

There is precendent for a part of the country to be in EU and part outside. Guersey islands and Isle of Man have that arrangement, and they're closert geographically to Brussels than Scotland is.

I don't know how if EU would agree, but retaining membership for Hollyrod seems at least within the realm of possibility. It would also require Westminster to codify reserved powers in a way they couldn't be revoked without Scottish conesnt and probably much more, it is a tall order, but it pales next to the height if Brexit. It's worthwhile to examine it as an option, I think.

It would destroy London city in favor of Glasgow and Edinborugh and so on, but this arrangement is still much better for UK than nearest alternatives.

McHrozni

The Channel Islands^WP and the Isle of Man^WP are not parts of the United Kingdom.

 

[ddt]

The Channel Islands^WP and the Isle of Man^WP are not parts of the United Kingdom.

But the bases on Cyprus - Akrotiri and Dhekelia - are part of the UK but not of the EU. And so are all the British overseas territories save Gibraltar: Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antartic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, Saint Helena, Ascencion and Tristan da Cunha, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands.

The same holds for the Dutch municipalities of Bonaire, Saba and St. Eustatius, and for the Faroe Islands and Greenland in the case of Denmark. Etc.

However, what these all have in common is that they're fringe parts of the country, and they're overseas. A construction where a major metropolitan part of the country which includes the capital, would be outside of the EU seems a bit far-fetched.

 

[Craig B]

But the bases on Cyprus - Akrotiri and Dhekelia - are part of the UK but not of the EU. And so are all the British overseas territories save Gibraltar: Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antartic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, Saint Helena, Ascencion and Tristan da Cunha, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands.

The same holds for the Dutch municipalities of Bonaire, Saba and St. Eustatius, and for the Faroe Islands and Greenland in the case of Denmark. Etc.

However, what these all have in common is that they're fringe parts of the country, and they're overseas. A construction where a major metropolitan part of the country which includes the capital, would be outside of the EU seems a bit far-fetched.

As regards Greenland: because it was not autonomous in 1973 it became part of the Union along with the rest of Denmark, and later seceded from it.

Greenland originally joined the then-European Communities with Denmark in 1973. At that time Greenland had no autonomy from Denmark, which it gained 1979. Greenland got some exceptions like about restrictions on business for non-residents, and about fisheries.

Greenland left in 1985, following a referendum in 1982 with 53% voting for withdrawal after a dispute over fishing rights.​

But the Channel Islands and Isle of Man were not inside the UK at the time of accession, or at any other time, so have never been part either of the UK or of the EC/EU.

 

[Planigale]

There is precendent for a part of the country to be in EU and part outside. Guersey islands and Isle of Man have that arrangement, and they're closert geographically to Brussels than Scotland is.

I don't know how if EU would agree, but retaining membership for Hollyrod seems at least within the realm of possibility. It would also require Westminster to codify reserved powers in a way they couldn't be revoked without Scottish conesnt and probably much more, it is a tall order, but it pales next to the height if Brexit. It's worthwhile to examine it as an option, I think.

It would destroy London city in favor of Glasgow and Edinborugh and so on, but this arrangement is still much better for UK than nearest alternatives.

McHrozni

Although an option could be Scotland as a crown territory this would leave 'Westminster' responsible for Defence, Foreign Affairs, and limited borrowing rights (as the crown remains lender of last resort). With the exception of Gibraltar most of the crown territories have opted to be out of the EU. French overseas territories (DOM) are I think part of the EU, so there are parts of the EU in South America, Caribbean and Indian Ocean.

My guess is that anything short of true independence is not an option for the SNP, I am less familiar with the policy of the Green Party.

 

[Craig B]

Although an option could be Scotland as a crown territory this would leave 'Westminster' responsible for Defence, Foreign Affairs, and limited borrowing rights (as the crown remains lender of last resort). With the exception of Gibraltar most of the crown territories have opted to be out of the EU. French overseas territories (DOM) are I think part of the EU, so there are parts of the EU in South America, Caribbean and Indian Ocean.

My guess is that anything short of true independence is not an option for the SNP, I am less familiar with the policy of the Green Party.

I'm not sure that Scotland as a "Crown Territory" would be consistent with the ideology promoted by the SNP, which is firmly founded on the concept of Scotland as a country, not a subordinate territory, let alone a Crown Territory.

Any such status would have to be heavily disguised, and I don't think it would be acceptable to the SNP in any form, as a substitute for independence.

 

[McHrozni]

But the bases on Cyprus - Akrotiri and Dhekelia - are part of the UK but not of the EU. And so are all the British overseas territories save Gibraltar: Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antartic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, Saint Helena, Ascencion and Tristan da Cunha, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands.

The same holds for the Dutch municipalities of Bonaire, Saba and St. Eustatius, and for the Faroe Islands and Greenland in the case of Denmark. Etc.

However, what these all have in common is that they're fringe parts of the country, and they're overseas. A construction where a major metropolitan part of the country which includes the capital, would be outside of the EU seems a bit far-fetched.

Brexit also seemed a bit far-fetched a year ago, yet here we are.

It wouldn't be easy, far from it, but opting for such a scenario could be the least bad option for all involved. Maybe just get Scotland in EEA for starters, that could work for the time being. If it keeps Scotland in UK, that could be less painful for Theresa May than the utter devastation inflicted on the economic well-being of her voter base.

McHrozni

 

[Planigale]

Brexit also seemed a bit far-fetched a year ago, yet here we are.

It wouldn't be easy, far from it, but opting for such a scenario could be the least bad option for all involved. Maybe just get Scotland in EEA for starters, that could work for the time being. If it keeps Scotland in UK, that could be less painful for Theresa May than the utter devastation inflicted on the economic well-being of her voter base.

McHrozni

I know my views differ from the 'main stream'. But with the UK in the EU, I thought an independent Scotland would rapidly re-enter the EU, and with the UK being outside of the common travel area there would never be a border. I believe the issues differ with the UK leaving. An independent Scotland would have to negotiate exemptions to e.g. the Euro the common travel area otherwise Scotland would have to introduce a land border. So whilst I voted yes last time I will probably vote no in a pre-Brexit referendum. I understand why those who want independence, and believe they will win think going for a pre Brexit referendum will mean Scotland can remain in the EU. But I am not sure that such an option exists nor is good for Scotland. Most of Europe is pretty similar, independence is not going to result in Scotland becoming the California of Europe (nor even the Washington). Things will be pretty much the same. I do understand the principle of 'self determinism' being good, but there is always a limit; people here in Orkney may want self determinism, but the Scots who post here say that will never happen because Orkney is part of Scotland. If an Englishman said the same thing about Scotland being part of Britain they would be derided.

Personally I think that a pre-Brexit referendum, will leave the option for a post Brexit referendum as then the situation will have 'changed'. Anyone with statistical competency will tell you that repeating tests until you get the answer you want is a statistically dubious process. If we are practicing 'scientific' politics one needs to predefine the number of tests done, or have a mechanism to incorporate previous results such as using cusum.

I do not think that the suggestion that any referendum should be post Brexit negotiations is unreasonable.

 

[McHrozni]

I know my views differ from the 'main stream'. But with the UK in the EU, I thought an independent Scotland would rapidly re-enter the EU, and with the UK being outside of the common travel area there would never be a border. I believe the issues differ with the UK leaving. An independent Scotland would have to negotiate exemptions to e.g. the Euro the common travel area otherwise Scotland would have to introduce a land border. So whilst I voted yes last time I will probably vote no in a pre-Brexit referendum. I understand why those who want independence, and believe they will win think going for a pre Brexit referendum will mean Scotland can remain in the EU. But I am not sure that such an option exists nor is good for Scotland. Most of Europe is pretty similar, independence is not going to result in Scotland becoming the California of Europe (nor even the Washington). Things will be pretty much the same. I do understand the principle of 'self determinism' being good, but there is always a limit; people here in Orkney may want self determinism, but the Scots who post here say that will never happen because Orkney is part of Scotland. If an Englishman said the same thing about Scotland being part of Britain they would be derided.

Personally I think that a pre-Brexit referendum, will leave the option for a post Brexit referendum as then the situation will have 'changed'. Anyone with statistical competency will tell you that repeating tests until you get the answer you want is a statistically dubious process. If we are practicing 'scientific' politics one needs to predefine the number of tests done, or have a mechanism to incorporate previous results such as using cusum.

I do not think that the suggestion that any referendum should be post Brexit negotiations is unreasonable.

I don't disagree with any of that. I was only suggesting what possible scenarios there are for Scotland and UK. It should be possible to keep Scotland in EEA, but that would probably mean some sort of intranational border with England. The results would be weird, but it should be something to consider at least - I persume Westminster is keen to keep Scotland in UK, so such options must be explored, and then either accepted as possibilities or rejected as impossible. Keeping Scotland in EEA or even EU when UK leaves would be problematic, but it doesn't seem impossible.

We've seen far more bizzare arrangements in Europe, but not in the last 200 years.

McHrozni